I guess that kinda makes sense too...However because the description for Death Shriek comes a few pages after the Ghostly Howl, it seems to me that the phrasing "may shoot into b2b combat" is there to clarify that "and yes, like the ghostly howl, this can also be used in b2b."
Terrorgheist scream into combat that he isnt part of
- Thread starter dongilles
- 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!
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
rather unlikely Heldantes.
Thats pure assumption that has no solid base.
They write it clearly for the banshee, if they didnt want the TG to scream out of their own b2b they wouldve said the same thing.
Thats pure assumption that has no solid base.
They write it clearly for the banshee, if they didnt want the TG to scream out of their own b2b they wouldve said the same thing.
There needs to be an extreme moratorium on trying to use modals to distort rules. If your entire argument relies on trying to expand a rule because it uses the word "may" or "can" by saying that allows things not mentioned in the rule by virtue of not being excluded, you need to find something else.
If a rule outlines a specific situation, it is saying what is possible. There is no wiggle room in the Tgheist. The AB and the FAQ, together, outline the situations where he can scream.
If a rule outlines a specific situation, it is saying what is possible. There is no wiggle room in the Tgheist. The AB and the FAQ, together, outline the situations where he can scream.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
So what is your opinion on it Rarer after reading all the info in the thread?
Banshee gets a very clearcut 'no' to shooting out of its own combat
TG gets a very clearcut 'whatever you want'
The words can/cannot and may/may not are meaningful here
Banshee gets a very clearcut 'no' to shooting out of its own combat
TG gets a very clearcut 'whatever you want'
The words can/cannot and may/may not are meaningful here
Both the Banshee and the Terrobat get to scream into other combats, though only the Banshee is restricted to their own if they are in a CC themselves. Maybe they do it differently where you are, but that's not the official interpretation. GT's, battlereports galore on YT by seasoned vets, all show the screams as such. Again, every army has something unique, in many cases broken and overpowered. This is VC's. You may not like it, and hey, many people hate it, but that's how it goes. Just because other spells, magical attacks, affects or shooting doesn't allow it as described, doesn't mean this isn't an exception. It is. It's been FAQ'd and debated endlessly. Play how you wish at your local meta, but the national and international circuits have been playing it this way for quite some time now. There's plenty of rules in other books that I don't like, and spells that have been interpreted that I hate, but there it is. You can't please everyone. I can understand people's dislike in this one, as its another case of a specific army book having a special thing that breaks a fundamental rule in the game. However this is one of the things that the VC army can do, and we mine as well use it. As I said before, it's the reason why TG's are target #1 till they die.
Want that vein in your head to pulse even more? The Mortis Engine's banshess have the same ability
It's a Banshee Ghostly Howl, and it has the same abilities (targets anywhere in its arc, into combats you aren't in, but only in yours if the ME is in CC itself). More fuel to the fire. VC isn't a top 3 or even top 5 army, so don't let your head explode worrying about it. 
Want that vein in your head to pulse even more? The Mortis Engine's banshess have the same ability
It's a Banshee Ghostly Howl, and it has the same abilities (targets anywhere in its arc, into combats you aren't in, but only in yours if the ME is in CC itself). More fuel to the fire. VC isn't a top 3 or even top 5 army, so don't let your head explode worrying about it.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Hooray, so happy to agree we disagree !! 
Honestly though, there's a difference between trying to understand how a certain rule is meant to work, and the deliberate effort to bend the wording in ones favour, but I'll leave it at that.
Over the last couple years, GWs rule writing has become piss poor in terms of consistency and clarity, and they've become quite sloppy at FAQs (even MC1GAMER said he hated certain parts of the rules, right).
That's the very reason tournaments try to and need to clarify certain things beforehand.
Note that I certainly am not an advocator of comp systems, I hate them matter of factly, but to each their own.
As for the sceaming issue, it's just another good proof that local metas tend to vary a LOT. Like I mentioned, no one, be it gaming club, buddies, friend of a friend or even tournament players I've played against ever 'interpreted' the rule like you guys did, but alas.
I for one, am not a person that tries to 'read rules my way'.
So, let's agree to disagree ...
Cheers
Honestly though, there's a difference between trying to understand how a certain rule is meant to work, and the deliberate effort to bend the wording in ones favour, but I'll leave it at that.
Over the last couple years, GWs rule writing has become piss poor in terms of consistency and clarity, and they've become quite sloppy at FAQs (even MC1GAMER said he hated certain parts of the rules, right).
That's the very reason tournaments try to and need to clarify certain things beforehand.
Note that I certainly am not an advocator of comp systems, I hate them matter of factly, but to each their own.
As for the sceaming issue, it's just another good proof that local metas tend to vary a LOT. Like I mentioned, no one, be it gaming club, buddies, friend of a friend or even tournament players I've played against ever 'interpreted' the rule like you guys did, but alas.
I for one, am not a person that tries to 'read rules my way'.
So, let's agree to disagree ...
Cheers
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Lol:
Tbat deathshriek:
- 8" range (always)
- after march, charge, and in close combat (his own close combat obviously)
- If engaged in CC May shriek at a unit in base contact
opposed to banshee: can only target the unit in base contact
- FAQ then goes on to tell us that its allowed to shriek at units that are engaged in CC that TG is not a part of.
The only issue remaining is wether the TG is allowed to scream at a target that not the one he is engaged with in CC. (if that target is in or out of combat itself doesnt matter since that is allowed)
I dont understand how you can deny this actual RAW.
The banshee is clearly being denied of shrieking at anything else when its in cc, it MUST shriek at its b2b unit when in CC, the ruling is very very clear about that.
The TG has a completely different wording.
You can say its trying to find a loophole all you want but thats nonsense. Words are there because they have a meaning and reason to be employed. THats the whole point about language and words. Use the correct words and the meaning is clear.
Now for the word MAY
- (used to express possibility): It may rain.
- (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
- (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
- Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
- (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
These are strict definitions from English language.
What does it tell us?
That the use of the word MAY in this case, allows the TG to choose (possibility/opportunity/contingency/ability/power/wish) This is what it means.
Thus the TG has the ability/power/possibility/opportunity to CHOOSE if it uses its 8" range LOS OR shoot at the unit in b2b
This is not a matter of bending, cheesing, loopholing or whatever you want to call it. This is strict RAW and reading properly the words and their meaning and what it implies.
Im not fantasizing this.
I might be wrong on many other things but this is a really clearcut case.
MAY gives the option, its not bickering about a word, its using the meaning of the word which was probably chosen with this exact intent.
Claiming the intent was not there is an assumption which is not in place.
OFC no one that plays against TG want it to have any possibility, OFC your meta is going to try and cheese its own way out of the rules, thats a fact.
Open their eyes Mr.West and everyone else. Its written black on white.
Tbat deathshriek:
- 8" range (always)
- after march, charge, and in close combat (his own close combat obviously)
- If engaged in CC May shriek at a unit in base contact
opposed to banshee: can only target the unit in base contact
- FAQ then goes on to tell us that its allowed to shriek at units that are engaged in CC that TG is not a part of.
The only issue remaining is wether the TG is allowed to scream at a target that not the one he is engaged with in CC. (if that target is in or out of combat itself doesnt matter since that is allowed)
I dont understand how you can deny this actual RAW.
The banshee is clearly being denied of shrieking at anything else when its in cc, it MUST shriek at its b2b unit when in CC, the ruling is very very clear about that.
The TG has a completely different wording.
You can say its trying to find a loophole all you want but thats nonsense. Words are there because they have a meaning and reason to be employed. THats the whole point about language and words. Use the correct words and the meaning is clear.
Now for the word MAY
- (used to express possibility): It may rain.
- (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
- (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
- Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
- (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
These are strict definitions from English language.
What does it tell us?
That the use of the word MAY in this case, allows the TG to choose (possibility/opportunity/contingency/ability/power/wish) This is what it means.
Thus the TG has the ability/power/possibility/opportunity to CHOOSE if it uses its 8" range LOS OR shoot at the unit in b2b
This is not a matter of bending, cheesing, loopholing or whatever you want to call it. This is strict RAW and reading properly the words and their meaning and what it implies.
Im not fantasizing this.
I might be wrong on many other things but this is a really clearcut case.
MAY gives the option, its not bickering about a word, its using the meaning of the word which was probably chosen with this exact intent.
Claiming the intent was not there is an assumption which is not in place.
OFC no one that plays against TG want it to have any possibility, OFC your meta is going to try and cheese its own way out of the rules, thats a fact.
Open their eyes Mr.West and everyone else. Its written black on white.
Gotta say, man, the more I think about it, it does seem like fishing for the possibility. This whole RAW thing you talk about seems a bit hypocritical: no where in the rules is it written "while in combat you may shoot out of combat into another unit", that's you inferring.
The key point my brother and I discussed is this though: no where is there a precedent for any model or unit being able to shoot OUT of a combat. As a result, I think GW would have made that "RAW" or FAQd it, considering it's a complete anomaly.
Lastly, you use "may" but as I've mentioned the way you have inferred I could equally infer he "may" shoot out of his arse. Also aren't there examples of GW using different wording all the time but for the same thing?
The key point my brother and I discussed is this though: no where is there a precedent for any model or unit being able to shoot OUT of a combat. As a result, I think GW would have made that "RAW" or FAQd it, considering it's a complete anomaly.
Lastly, you use "may" but as I've mentioned the way you have inferred I could equally infer he "may" shoot out of his arse. Also aren't there examples of GW using different wording all the time but for the same thing?
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
- TG is an anomaly, fact
- 8" range, fact
- shoot while in combat, fact
- the use of may rather than any other word (the only assumption you can make is that they chose their words carefully)
- the meaning of may in this case clearly offering the option between shooting at b2b or using 8" of range since the nature of the wording does exactly that.
Saying that this word isnt of any importance is actually not wanting it to be RAW,
IT IS RAW and most likely RAI.
Everything about the TG is exceptional so now all of a sudden it wouldnt be able to do this? although it can so all the other unimaginable things? The use of may is so important that it cannot be denied. it has 8" of range or can shoot at the b2b, if it doesnt want to shoot at b2b it may shoot at anything else within 8" LOS....
- 8" range, fact
- shoot while in combat, fact
- the use of may rather than any other word (the only assumption you can make is that they chose their words carefully)
- the meaning of may in this case clearly offering the option between shooting at b2b or using 8" of range since the nature of the wording does exactly that.
Saying that this word isnt of any importance is actually not wanting it to be RAW,
IT IS RAW and most likely RAI.
Everything about the TG is exceptional so now all of a sudden it wouldnt be able to do this? although it can so all the other unimaginable things? The use of may is so important that it cannot be denied. it has 8" of range or can shoot at the b2b, if it doesnt want to shoot at b2b it may shoot at anything else within 8" LOS....
Well, for me, the BRB rules state:
1) you cannot shoot while in combat
2) you cannot shoot into units in close combat
The TG special rule overrules number 1 saying "may shoot in b2b combat"
The FAQ overrules number 2 saying it can shoot into a combat it's not a part of.
No rule or FAQ seems available to say the TG can shoot out of close combat.
As said beforr, inferring it "may" do a rule that's not written means others "may" do many others that aren't written.
1) you cannot shoot while in combat
2) you cannot shoot into units in close combat
The TG special rule overrules number 1 saying "may shoot in b2b combat"
The FAQ overrules number 2 saying it can shoot into a combat it's not a part of.
No rule or FAQ seems available to say the TG can shoot out of close combat.
As said beforr, inferring it "may" do a rule that's not written means others "may" do many others that aren't written.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
I dont agree with your pov. youre focusing on it not being written down as a separate little line somewhere in an faq.
The wording of its own rule actually states just that.
When in CC, it may target a unit in b2b. ofc it can target the unit in b2b, that was already covered by rhe fact that it can use the shriek after charging and being in b2b. using the word may would make no sense, it was already allowed to.
The only remaining fact is that it is a ranged attack. thus the may provides the choice to shoot ranged at something when he is in CC, something at range is obviously not the unit in b2b. it therefore allows him to shoot at something OUT of his own combat.
The wording of its own rule actually states just that.
When in CC, it may target a unit in b2b. ofc it can target the unit in b2b, that was already covered by rhe fact that it can use the shriek after charging and being in b2b. using the word may would make no sense, it was already allowed to.
The only remaining fact is that it is a ranged attack. thus the may provides the choice to shoot ranged at something when he is in CC, something at range is obviously not the unit in b2b. it therefore allows him to shoot at something OUT of his own combat.
There's not logical reason to assume that the scream functions differently than the banshees.
The sentence outlines the situation in which the Terrorgheist can scream while engaged, assuming that you can do more rests solely on assuming that they were trying to convey an alternate meaning from the banshees rules in the most indirect way possible.
The sentence outlines the situation in which the Terrorgheist can scream while engaged, assuming that you can do more rests solely on assuming that they were trying to convey an alternate meaning from the banshees rules in the most indirect way possible.
Hanblack Nagash
Vargheist
heldantes said:
No disrespect intended but you are using shooting rules for a none shooting attack so those rules wont apply at all.
Its a special attack, hence why it has its own rules in the AB.
This problem would be eliminated entirely if it did something similar to a breath weapon. Outside of combat it should be a shooting attack, just without a template and allow it to be used in combat once per game and have it count to combat res.
This debate is going nowhere. If those in your local don't want to play the way the faq, the army book, and the absolute near total population of the gaming community play this, both RAW and RAI because of overwhelming evidence over quite some time, go ahead, play how you wish. Make up rules you like infact. Go ahead and take rules out. Play how you like. The rules police aren't going to barge into your gaming club and haul your minis away. But this is how this is played. Don't like it, well, just keep to your local meta then
I hate True Line of Site, and I hate how cannons are interpreted to be allowed essentially a 360 arc to fire wherever they wish, even though the rule can just as firmly be interpreted that they only get thier free wheel towards a target that was in their line of site initially. But people everywhere I go play it the way that is most advantageous to cannons, and I see it this way in every youtube battle report at every tournament and GT out there. I think overall TLOS kills this game, but I can cry and whine all I want, but the official interpretation is how it is, and I play as best as I can against it. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, sometime it rains. I hate the Banner of the World Dragon, and I hate, yes hate, that GW FAQ'd that it allows its obscene 2+ save vs damage from MISCASTS!! Yes, they confirmed that this underpriced, overpowered, filthy banner can protect a horde/bunker of uber elite troops who don't need it (asf, high Int, st 6!) and a small army of casters from worrying about anything but suckage into the warp by the caster. Yep, High Elves are the mad scientists of the warhammer world. Their mages experiment near that world banner just to see what fun stuff pops up when they miscast. LOL. It's OP without this affecting miscasts, but it does...why?..because IT'S THE RULING. If I play with some buddies and we want to change it, we can. We can hate it all we want, disagree with its price and how near game breaking it is. BUT, if we go to any tournament it will be played as such. Same with Curse of Anharir. Silliest thing I ever heard saying OPEN TERRAIN....basically not-terrain....is terrain under the rule as written because it was noted in the terrain section, even though the description says its essentially not terrain, its the absence of terrain, but to classify it properly, it's listed in that section. I seriously doubt this was intended in the way the populace have interpreted it, but that's how every major tourney and every GT and every veteran player who travels about the country looking for competitive play...plays it.
Yeah, I hate all the above and I can keep going, as much as non-VC players hate my Terrorgheist(s), and we both sneer when the other uses thier filthy broken over the top item/unit/spell/ability, and we move on an play and enjoy warhammer. Do as you wish, play as you like in your basement or local gaming club/store, but no manner of wishing is going to change this rule and how its played.....at least until some new FAQ comes out, or a new book, or a new edition. Moving on.....
I hate True Line of Site, and I hate how cannons are interpreted to be allowed essentially a 360 arc to fire wherever they wish, even though the rule can just as firmly be interpreted that they only get thier free wheel towards a target that was in their line of site initially. But people everywhere I go play it the way that is most advantageous to cannons, and I see it this way in every youtube battle report at every tournament and GT out there. I think overall TLOS kills this game, but I can cry and whine all I want, but the official interpretation is how it is, and I play as best as I can against it. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, sometime it rains. I hate the Banner of the World Dragon, and I hate, yes hate, that GW FAQ'd that it allows its obscene 2+ save vs damage from MISCASTS!! Yes, they confirmed that this underpriced, overpowered, filthy banner can protect a horde/bunker of uber elite troops who don't need it (asf, high Int, st 6!) and a small army of casters from worrying about anything but suckage into the warp by the caster. Yep, High Elves are the mad scientists of the warhammer world. Their mages experiment near that world banner just to see what fun stuff pops up when they miscast. LOL. It's OP without this affecting miscasts, but it does...why?..because IT'S THE RULING. If I play with some buddies and we want to change it, we can. We can hate it all we want, disagree with its price and how near game breaking it is. BUT, if we go to any tournament it will be played as such. Same with Curse of Anharir. Silliest thing I ever heard saying OPEN TERRAIN....basically not-terrain....is terrain under the rule as written because it was noted in the terrain section, even though the description says its essentially not terrain, its the absence of terrain, but to classify it properly, it's listed in that section. I seriously doubt this was intended in the way the populace have interpreted it, but that's how every major tourney and every GT and every veteran player who travels about the country looking for competitive play...plays it.
Yeah, I hate all the above and I can keep going, as much as non-VC players hate my Terrorgheist(s), and we both sneer when the other uses thier filthy broken over the top item/unit/spell/ability, and we move on an play and enjoy warhammer. Do as you wish, play as you like in your basement or local gaming club/store, but no manner of wishing is going to change this rule and how its played.....at least until some new FAQ comes out, or a new book, or a new edition. Moving on.....
"If those in your local don't want to play the way the faq, the army book": to be fair, that's why we're having this debate dude. We disagree on the RAW in those.
"and the absolute near total population of the gaming community play this": I don't have an awareness of the total population of the gaming community so can't really argue that one.
Let's roll for it?
"and the absolute near total population of the gaming community play this": I don't have an awareness of the total population of the gaming community so can't really argue that one.
Let's roll for it?
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Its a big leap to assume it works the same as banshee howl when it is raw it is not.
It doesnt even has the same name.
different name, different attack, different rules.
It doesnt even has the same name.
different name, different attack, different rules.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Belittling? whatever man, guess i cant find something someone else writes funny?
It wasnt belittling at all, so apparently we differ on everything we read.
Guess thats how reading and interpretation works.
Tank you
Btw, youre not the friendliest yourself either so might wanna look in mirrors
It wasnt belittling at all, so apparently we differ on everything we read.
Guess thats how reading and interpretation works.
Tank you
Btw, youre not the friendliest yourself either so might wanna look in mirrors
Skittelz1981 said:
I imagine you are referring someone's thinking that the Banshee howl is the same as the TB, and not to my post about the Mortis Engine. If the former, ignore my comment please. If the latter, it actually IS RAW. Its states "The Mortis Engine can make a Ghostly Howl attack (See page 31). That refers the page for the Banshee, and its ghostly howl. Its the same attack, same rule, same limits, same benefits. Infact, the swarms above the Mortis Engine ARE Banshees, and they are titled as such under the stats chart. Banshees ride the ME in the same way that a Cairn Wraith rides the Black Coach, which btw also refers to the CW page for the Chill Touch's special rules.
Guys (and gals if any are watching), this really isn't a debate, lol. Technically its is, but its a debate after the fact. These rules have already been debated ad nausiam for quite some time. The conclusions are generally accepted as fact, and only disputed by those who either haven't been listening, or don't like what they are hearing. Doesn't mean you can't play the way you want and interpret the way you want in your circles, but go to any mainstream organized play, be ready for TO rulings against you. I grumble under my breath about stuff in other books too, as well as some twisted interpretations in the BRB, but FAQ's and commonly accepted notions of how some elements are played just means you bite your tongue and hey, why not try to figure out how to overcome that uber overpowered possibly game breaking advantage other armies have??!! And other armies are doing it to us, vs our Ethereals, vs our unbreakable units and most especially vs our terrorbat, public enemy #1.
And....I'm now done with this thread. At this point, all anyone is doing here is helping pad post counts
I do need more post counts. I'm only a black knight! My only issue is Mc1gamer, I thought you were advocating Skittlez side of the ruling, but now I'm not sure. Secondly, you keep mentioning "generally accepted" but how do you know the rules of international games, tournaments etc. Seems a bit exaggerated.
I'n only a Grave Guard so I'm just a rookie in the count arena.
Hey, I'm not advocating for a particular person, just for how the rules are as I've been told by people far more traveled that I am. I've learned a ton as I expanded beyond one store, where the local interpretations were very skewed by a few people who were not as diligent as I was about learning thereafter how the mainstream does things. I'm by NO means an authority (I guess my tone says otherwise, so apologies for that....I blame the internet heh), but beyond my own expansion of play area, I've had dialogue with quite a few people who I would consider excellent examples of people who have traveled about the country, even overseas, and competed at a very high level, and seen and experienced various meta's. I've been wrong at many points on my own views of how rules are interpreted, and in some cases I still disagree with how I learned some are generally handled, but also learned that if you want to join in the competitive circuit, you accept the general interpretations of some rules. That can in some cases be different still in various regions, but there are plenty of arguments that have been settled for quite some time since this edition has come out, and you go with it and play with it, or you just accept not going to those GT's and tournaments and such. That's a matter of choice.
Play for fun, you can do what you want if your gaming group is of like mind. Hit the road and travel and compete at organized events and you'll see plenty of universality to alot of rules, even some that are debated on forums like this. Spend hundreds of hours scouring videos of batreps, strategy and various rules interpretations and you get the gist of what is commonly accepted. Among those are cannon rules with full 360 pivot, as opposed to only pivoting to shoot within your firing arc, which I hate. I'm not going to argue that one ever again, I've long ago come to accept it and now I include it in my plans when building a list and placing units. I've yet to hear any arguments about the TG's ability to scream just about anywhere in its range and firing arc, whether in combat itself or at units/models in combat elsewhere. It comes up again now and then on forums, but it is what it is, and just like other rules it flares up now and then. I'm matter of fact about my comment basically because I was on that other end and seen it thru that lens before myself.
Anyway, I've also said several times, play as you wish. Interpret as you wish. However, and though I might sound arrogant in saying it in the way I have (apologies) I've also said in my posts that people should be ready to get slammed in a game when they go beyond their circles and have TO's tell them how a rule is or isn't that they've been playing one way and is not ruled as they expected.
I try to get out.....and I keep getting pulled back in, lol.
Hey, I'm not advocating for a particular person, just for how the rules are as I've been told by people far more traveled that I am. I've learned a ton as I expanded beyond one store, where the local interpretations were very skewed by a few people who were not as diligent as I was about learning thereafter how the mainstream does things. I'm by NO means an authority (I guess my tone says otherwise, so apologies for that....I blame the internet heh), but beyond my own expansion of play area, I've had dialogue with quite a few people who I would consider excellent examples of people who have traveled about the country, even overseas, and competed at a very high level, and seen and experienced various meta's. I've been wrong at many points on my own views of how rules are interpreted, and in some cases I still disagree with how I learned some are generally handled, but also learned that if you want to join in the competitive circuit, you accept the general interpretations of some rules. That can in some cases be different still in various regions, but there are plenty of arguments that have been settled for quite some time since this edition has come out, and you go with it and play with it, or you just accept not going to those GT's and tournaments and such. That's a matter of choice.
Play for fun, you can do what you want if your gaming group is of like mind. Hit the road and travel and compete at organized events and you'll see plenty of universality to alot of rules, even some that are debated on forums like this. Spend hundreds of hours scouring videos of batreps, strategy and various rules interpretations and you get the gist of what is commonly accepted. Among those are cannon rules with full 360 pivot, as opposed to only pivoting to shoot within your firing arc, which I hate. I'm not going to argue that one ever again, I've long ago come to accept it and now I include it in my plans when building a list and placing units. I've yet to hear any arguments about the TG's ability to scream just about anywhere in its range and firing arc, whether in combat itself or at units/models in combat elsewhere. It comes up again now and then on forums, but it is what it is, and just like other rules it flares up now and then. I'm matter of fact about my comment basically because I was on that other end and seen it thru that lens before myself.
Anyway, I've also said several times, play as you wish. Interpret as you wish. However, and though I might sound arrogant in saying it in the way I have (apologies) I've also said in my posts that people should be ready to get slammed in a game when they go beyond their circles and have TO's tell them how a rule is or isn't that they've been playing one way and is not ruled as they expected.
I try to get out.....and I keep getting pulled back in, lol.
heldantes said:
Well, for one that has played in GT's both small and large from Connecticut to North Carolina over the last year or 2, it has been played the way MC and Skittle and others have stated. EVERYWHERE. But can't say for the west coast or over seas. But I do see a pattern.....just saying......
Whoops...forgot Montreal...so I guess that would count for out of the country.....
hey man you've given a major good account of yourself *rates*. I agree. My friends accounted I are a major advocate for the "most important rule" and also the side note that says play it ultimately also you wish. We make our own scenarios sometimes. However there was a Croydon tournament advertise and would be interested to see their ruling.
Anyway let's hope we only meet in a fully comped tournament setting otherwise I hope you will be willing to roll on it
On a side note, long live the undead, I just played two games as wood elves (and won), but it was bloody boring shooting and sending fireballs off
Anyway let's hope we only meet in a fully comped tournament setting otherwise I hope you will be willing to roll on it
On a side note, long live the undead, I just played two games as wood elves (and won), but it was bloody boring shooting and sending fireballs off