|
|
Post by tileag on Jul 29, 2020 19:12:40 GMT
I think I know what the army book author would say about how he intended the rule to work if we tracked him down on social media. Who of us did just that for the runesmith/thane BSB highest Ld a little while back? I summon thee! Lets get it from the source!! |
|
|
|
Post by sedge on Jul 29, 2020 21:02:24 GMT
On a side note: I wonder how many Vampire Counts players use the Invocation on characters, although, "Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts" (Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, p.27). I think that's widely known / obeyed by VC players for Invocation."The Curse of Undeath" lore attribute gets an exception for this in the FAQs, so that's what people use to heal up their characters/mounts: Q: Can the Curse of Undeath Lore Attribute be used to heal friendly
characters or their mounts, other than the caster himself? (p60)
A: Yes.
As for the main question of the topic, it's widely played as allowing units to gain models above their starting size even before having taken casualties, but FvonSigmaringen's reading of the rules looks to be correct. This appears to be another on the list (including Dwarf Thane General BSBs and Predatory Fighter supporting attacks) that are largely played contrary to the rules (which I'm fine with, so long as your opponent agrees to it). I don't think this particular one is something people are so aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Jul 29, 2020 23:01:07 GMT
I think I know what the army book author would say about how he intended the rule to work if we tracked him down on social media. Who of us did just that for the runesmith/thane BSB highest Ld a little while back? I summon thee! Lets get it from the source!!
I did a little digging, it was the one and only Horace . King of all Media, Vanquisher of rules silly as written. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 30, 2020 8:43:16 GMT
sedge: I would even say that the FAQ is somewhat superfluous, since the Lore Attribute as such is neither a spell nor an item, and thus is not subject to the restriction. That said, it is welcome, because it will prevent unnecessary discussions.
|
|
Yvain
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by Yvain on Jul 30, 2020 11:06:03 GMT
I think I know what the army book author would say about how he intended the rule to work if we tracked him down on social media. Who of us did just that for the runesmith/thane BSB highest Ld a little while back? I summon thee! If that guy has in an in, I would really like to ask "Jeremy Vetock, what the hell happened with the anvil of doom?"  |
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 30, 2020 11:17:59 GMT
No one had an ”in” from my understanding. It was just a direct Message on twitter to Mat Ward who was kind enough to answer.
To reflect though, Mat has stated that during 8ed he was less and less involved in the rules and more about fluff writing(great episode in elector counts podcast, @imarillion). But the vampire book came out early so he might have been involved.
And to reflect more: he gave his earlier answers without even looking/having the rules book 🤪
|
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Jul 30, 2020 16:09:59 GMT
And to reflect more: he gave his earlier answers without even looking/having the rules book 🤪
...which of course is the way to do it. He should be telling us how he wanted stuff to work (even if he failed to write it in a way that satisfies a lawyer). yes, I know, 'intent' is a dirty word. We (or at least the ones who care) can parse the exact wording of rules, that doesn't take his mighty presence.
|
|
Yvain
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by Yvain on Jul 30, 2020 18:07:01 GMT
8th really needs a community faq a la the necromunda guys. I kind of hate how 9th Age and WAP ruined the concept with their lets do 9th edition. I feel like it fractured the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 30, 2020 19:45:48 GMT
And to reflect more: he gave his earlier answers without even looking/having the rules book 🤪
...which of course is the way to do it. He should be telling us how he wanted stuff to work (even if he failed to write it in a way that satisfies a lawyer). yes, I know, 'intent' is a dirty word. We (or at least the ones who care) can parse the exact wording of rules, that doesn't take his mighty presence.
Well, then he is just a voice like any one of us, with as little bearing as anyone of us. Was he even a part of creating that rule from the beginning? Was he ever part of the FAQ team? I am skeptical. For me it’s sounds like he just wanted to please a follower or help out. The rules is more then just one persons opinion. It’s 30 years of multiple peoples work and should be treated as it too. That is why faq’s never been in abundance. Just look at 9 age, balance never stops, as soon as they change something, something else gets broken and need fix in next patch. I think Matt Ward sounds like a great guy and I do like a lot of his fluff(6ed wood elves comes in mind) but think he should be kept away from the rules and game balance  |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 30, 2020 20:36:45 GMT
To be fair, GW gave the FAQ a reasonably good shot in the beginning of the 8th edition. In the first 18 months, they had released 5 Update Versions for the BRB, and 8 within 3 years (I will not count the last, as it just incorporated some stuff from ET). That said, they completely failed the later ABs. I suspect, it may have been because they already knew WFB would be scuttled. On the other hand, I can imagine that it must also have been frustrating to be confronted with people continuously asking unnecessary questions, because they were reading teleologically: not as they were actually written, but as they thought they should have been written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Jul 30, 2020 21:14:19 GMT
I agree with Fidelis that GW rules support was great early in 8th, then they slacked off. I cannot imagine that has anything to do with people asking stupid questions. How hard can it be to have those go straight to the bin? so, you are right that Matt Ward's voice has no bearing on this particular question since the VC army book is by Phil Kelly. if we were able to ask him, Phil's intent should count for something. To me it is reminiscent of the slaughtermaster and magic armor thing. The AB author 'accidentally' allowed it and clearly says so in the FAQ as well as something along the lines of 'a true gentlemen still wouldn't do so even though this is the rule'. Bottom line: GW writers never cared much about rule clarity and how their rules could be interpreted by careful parsing of each comma and semicolon and whatnot. And that's fine. In my opinion, you will always need to balance readability and clarity. For a complex game, focus on the former or else you end up with T9A (for ICU equipment manuals, you'd probably want to focus on the latter).
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 30, 2020 22:28:50 GMT
I agree with Fidelis that GW rules support was great early in 8th, then they slacked off. I cannot imagine that has anything to do with people asking stupid questions. How hard can it be to have those go straight to the bin? I refer to an earlier post in another thread: As to FAQ, the blame has to be shared between the writers and the readers. The last Empire Update Version contains 19 entries: - 1 correction of a writing mistake. - 2 entries that clarified a real ambiguity - 2 entries that tried to clarify which may or may not have been an ambiguity, but managed to make a mess of it. - 4 entries where the rules are perfectly clear and applicable, but where the Update Version now provides an exception. - 10 entries where the rules are perfectly clear and applicable, and where the Update version does not provide an exception - making them, in effect, superfluous. Assuming that these were indeed based on frequently asked questions, we seem to have been asking a lot of superfluous questions. I am not really surprised, though. As I pointed out already a couple of times, many, if not most rules discussions could be avoided by sticking to the principle that basic rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise. To me it is reminiscent of the slaughtermaster and magic armor thing. The AB author 'accidentally' allowed it and clearly says so in the FAQ as well as something along the lines of 'a true gentlemen still wouldn't do so even though this is the rule'. The Ogre Update version had this to say: - Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011
So, although the author felt impelled to state that the rule did not reflect his intent, that intent was still overruled and the written rule officially upheld. Again, feel free to play any rule differently, if you and your opponent agree. But discussions about the rules deal with the rules as they actually are. |
|
|
|
Post by ophyrs on Aug 3, 2020 7:24:33 GMT
I think I know what the army book author would say about how he intended the rule to work if we tracked him down on social media. Who of us did just that for the runesmith/thane BSB highest Ld a little while back? I summon thee! Lets get it from the source!! Greetings, I'm a long time lurker. I frequently check here for posts regarding rulings as it's an amazing living resource, and also just like to read about my favorite setting still being alive.
I thought this was a brilliant idea so I did.
He confirms you can cast it on unwounded zombies. many times
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Aug 3, 2020 7:54:35 GMT
Imagine if we'd got a proper warhammer edition supported digitally to quash these sort of questions. I can't imagine it would take them more than 15 mins every few months to keep an edition ship shape.
They could even take balance passes..
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Aug 3, 2020 8:41:30 GMT
Imagine if we'd got a proper warhammer edition supported digitally to quash these sort of questions. I can't imagine it would take them more than 15 mins every few months to keep an edition ship shape. They could even take balance passes.. Thats what I like the most with a new edition. Supported FAQs. |
|
