Except it's not cheating. If GW writers have taught us anything about their rules it's that we cannot and should not extrapolate from them to interpret anything other than specifically what was written.
Question about multiple Blood Knight raising.
- Thread starter RobTheWise
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
And if the writers haven't taught you that, the FAQ rulings on contentious elements certainly have. I've seen them go in favor and against consensus interpretation enough times that I'm never entirely sure which way they'll go on a given issue.
Nagashizzar
Vargheist
Me too, playing by blinkered RAW is something that really annoys me about some of the guys in my club.
I think it comes down to this: an FAQ doesn't change rules, it clarifies what the wording means. The fact that the exact same wording is used for ethereal and vampiric, and blood knights have been clarified to mean 1 per cast, means that it is also the meaning of the rule for hexwraiths.
Did that make sense? I'm tired...
Did that make sense? I'm tired...
My group's gaming life will still be just as enjoyable. We agreed a long time ago to play the rules purely as they are written, even if they don't make sense.
But, really, would everyone stop pretending that they know what GWs writers meant with the FAQ. This forum has shown an abundance of ignorance when it comes to interpreting GW rules.
But, really, would everyone stop pretending that they know what GWs writers meant with the FAQ. This forum has shown an abundance of ignorance when it comes to interpreting GW rules.
TobiasRathein said:
I agree, GW could just have easily written "vampiric and ethereal" rather than just vampiric. However they opted to not include ethereal in their new ruling, (despite it being a FAQ), so essentially they've just added that vampiric units only get one wound too.
I see this much like the Ork Dethrolla with the ramming rules where it was pretty plain to be allowed by RAW but since it was a powerful combo people just didn't want to believe it
Elbisrever
Ghoul
Alright, let's just say, for the sake of ending this discussion, that every player interpretates and plays the rule the way he/she wants to. If your buddy's are fine with the multiple Hexies raising, then good for you.
I'll be the first to say I find it annoying that GW can't seem to write clear rules/clarifications on rules. Because of this, I feel it's the best course of action to play the rules exactly as they are written; no more, no less.
That said, and contrary to what my arguments would suggest, I really try not to abuse or take advantage of stupid and otherwise flawed rules. You won't see me raising 1+Lvl ethereals, but if my opponent were to do so I would consider it perfectly legal.
That said, and contrary to what my arguments would suggest, I really try not to abuse or take advantage of stupid and otherwise flawed rules. You won't see me raising 1+Lvl ethereals, but if my opponent were to do so I would consider it perfectly legal.
gorgonites
Zombie
I have to side with Tobias here. Is the question what are the rules or what do you think the writers forgot to write? Also I would not pull this unless my opponent was some cheesy gamer as well, but there is no extrapolating in the rules. We do not write them and are either going to follow them or not. The ethereal as only one wound is not in the rules. Saying anything else is interpretation (even if appropriate in terms of cheese).
If we ONLY followed the rules strictly as written and hung on to each and every word- then what happens in situations where you have lizard men targeted by a casket of souls? Some might proclaim lizardmen always take Ld tests at 3d6 drop highest, so they inherently take less wounds from the casket (designed to deal 3d6 wounds against Ld)? Doesn't that cheat out the tomg king player? I say yes...
My point being, don't you think saying that this FAQ only applies to one third of the rule is a bit weird?
Isn't that like saying only White Lions get ASF with great weps, and other HE units with that rule don't strike first?
My point being, don't you think saying that this FAQ only applies to one third of the rule is a bit weird?
Isn't that like saying only White Lions get ASF with great weps, and other HE units with that rule don't strike first?
BloodbathMcGrath said:
this doesnt make any sense to me whatsoever...
casket isn't a ld TEST it deasls 3d6-ld wounds, has nothing with the coldblooded rule to do at all.
very strange examples that only confuses more than explains..
Apparently the way it is worded says unit takes a Ld test on 3d6 and if it fails takes that many wounds. I don't have the TK book with me, it's my cousin's army, but there was a huge blow out about it.
Also my HE reference, unless I'm mistaken there was an FAQ saying that even HE units with GWs still have ASF. Therefore affecting all HE units (not just one unit- White Lions, for instance).
So when our book originally related vampiric, ethereal and large targets to be affected by the same set back and (only mentioned vampiric) got FAQd, wouldn't I be hanging onto the words here a bit too tightly to say " Well...they didn't mention the others...so I see no relation here."
As ChaosBorn said, FAQs really just clarify meaning of rules, they don't rewrite them. Half the time they are just yes/no responses. That doesn't change the rule to mean "Yes." (I'm invoking Fireball. What's it do? Yes. ...yes what? Yes is the rules.) They are just guiding us to their intentions of rules.
Also my HE reference, unless I'm mistaken there was an FAQ saying that even HE units with GWs still have ASF. Therefore affecting all HE units (not just one unit- White Lions, for instance).
So when our book originally related vampiric, ethereal and large targets to be affected by the same set back and (only mentioned vampiric) got FAQd, wouldn't I be hanging onto the words here a bit too tightly to say " Well...they didn't mention the others...so I see no relation here."
As ChaosBorn said, FAQs really just clarify meaning of rules, they don't rewrite them. Half the time they are just yes/no responses. That doesn't change the rule to mean "Yes." (I'm invoking Fireball. What's it do? Yes. ...yes what? Yes is the rules.) They are just guiding us to their intentions of rules.
BloodbathMcGrath said:
I've never faced TK so this is merely an opinion / observation. However I thought the casket would have acted much like the banshee scream whereby its 2D6+2-Ld= Wounds only for the casket its 3D6-Ld = Wounds. Not sure why a Ld test would be involved since a banshee scream doesn't have one and if it acts like a banshee then....
However I don't see where you're going with this? You're conclusion doesn't follow the premises.
How does GW making an all-emcompasing verication for HE be supportive of your claim? If anything it goes against what you say since it demonstrates that GW took the time to refer to the army as a whole rather than just one unit and let us figure out it applies to all, as what you're claiming.
In my mind I'll be playing it as they have written, that way I can never be in the wrong since there is no interpretation made it is as it is written. It is a blunt position to take, however it is the best one since I have a position to fall back on, that being the rulebook itself, however with interpretations you're limited by how well you can convince your opponent X = Y.
And there's a FAQ specifically telling you how to handle Cold-Blooded in that context now, so bad example.
BloodbathMcGrath said:
excellent clarification, now it does make sense, thanks!
For the record, my standing on the faq is thet it applies to ethreals also, not only vampiric. just thought your examples odd, but i havent seen that high elves faq, or not reflected about it anyways.
Now that you mention it, it miiiight be so that it is the opponent who rolls the 3d6 dice to see how many wounds it takes, and hence could be a ld test.
my bad, sorry. i will check the book tomorrow
Johnny-Crass said:
Johnny you always swoop in at the right moment! :rofl2:
And it creates a big turd of arguments against lizardmen. I've heard people say roll 4d6 and discard highest. It seems the most fair. Yet there is NO RULE saying "...If against Lizardmen, give in to their whining and roll 4d6 so they can have their rule too." But I'd say it's a fair middle ground.
So is it too much to say sometimes you have to improv on the rules? I believe they say something like that in the BRB, actually -along the lines of compromise or roll off (pg. # anyone?)
Yorga said:
I've argued too much now, so I will hush myself from any further comments.
Cold blooded jist says roll an extra dice and discard the highest so I do not see how there can be any debate.
Johnny-Crass said:
They settled on roll 4d6 discard high? A fair compromise.
My point was people were arguing so much before about it- which is what we're doing now :'( same team guys!
Which is why I said I won't argue anymore.
BloodbathMcGrath said:Johnny-Crass said:
They settled on roll 4d6 discard high? A fair compromise.
My point was people were arguing so much before about it- which is what we're doing now :'( same team guys!
Which is why I said I won't argue anymore.
Very humble of you
I agree, I think its down to each person's view, or if there is disagreement just D6 it