Charnel Pit Carrion illegal

[ZealousJ]

I'm assuming the battalion is illegal in matched play as it specifies a strigoi ghoul king rather than an abhorrent but i thought I'd check as it seems like a pretty good battalion

[themortalgod]

Does it have a points cost in the GH? (too lazy to go check), if it does I suspect most people would be fine with it being used. If it doesn't then, no, I'd expect it wouldn't be usable in matched play.

[Oppenheimer]

2 hours ago, themortalgod said:

Does it have a points cost in the GH? (too lazy to go check), if it does I suspect most people would be fine with it being used. If it doesn't then, no, I'd expect it wouldn't be usable in matched play.

Yes it's 80 points.

People would still probably not let you play it because most people are asses when it comes to enforcing every little GW FAQ even though half of them arguably make the game less fun.

You could always play using the actual Stragoi GK stats from the VC pdf I guess.

[deynon]

As are illegal a lot of warscroll battalions from the new Stormcast Eternals battletome and so in. Only if there is the exact name in not bold ones description of units you can play it. Same it applies to "legion of death" warscroll battalions

[kozokus]

9 minutes ago, deynon said:

As are illegal a lot of warscroll battalions from the new Stormcast Eternals

What are you refering to?

[deynon]

Just now, kozokus said:

What are you refering to?

If the name is "Prosecutor" instead of "Prosecutors" or so on... it's illegal in the same exact way. If they are not bold written they are not the same unit, so it's illeggal in the same way. 

So for the "legion of death" doesn't exit a simple "wight king", but "wight king with...". Cause they are not bold written they are not keywords. Not keywords they are names, so or they are written correctly or not usable as warscroll battalions.

And if someone say that it's a new battletome and they should be playable... carrion pit is since the exit of the GH, but the unit require doesn't have the points. So cause it's not "common sense" to use the "abhorrant ghoul king" as it is that model cause it doesn't have that name, so, by FAQ it's the same for everything similar, even cuase they are written plural or singular instead, or have in some way different names.

Or everything follow the same rules or it's a joke. 

[kozokus]

1 minute ago, deynon said:

Or everything follow the same rules or it's a joke. 

Well, there is an obvious lack of seriousness when it comes to the rule writing from the very begining of AoS. But we have what we have so it is better to RuleZero™ the most obvious mistakes. Plus, it is not always true depending on the language you use. Some case in French are perfectly valid and illegal in english (and nowhere it is written that Eng is the valid source, even if it is a common knowledge).

If one deny his opponent the use of a bataillon because of grammar errors all will he earn will be a couple of frowns from the neighbour tables.

Minautors/bullgors are a different story but still people gladly accept the the bullgore stampede with bullgors warscrolls.

There is a blurred line where we want AoS be as FUN™ and competitive in equal terms and not become as scurvy as Warmahorde or as MTG where the goal is to catch your opponent on every missplay. (don't missunderstand me, i like MTG the way it is played a lot. but when i want to play AoS i expect something different).

The hard part is when your opponent become disrespectful by beeing soft/negligent on basic rules or ask to rewind the game.

[wayniac]

Technically it is illegal.  But, as deynon argues by the letter, there are NEW battalions from the Stormcast Eternals book that are illegal because someone didn't put a bold keyword instead of an exact name (Hammerstrike Force I think, only says Prosecutors instead of PROSECUTORS so by GW's silly FAQ the units of Prosecutors do not count).  However, I think that's a rather silly approach to do since the intent is clear (although deynon will argue tooth and nail that it's not)

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, deynon said:

If the name is "Prosecutor" instead of "Prosecutors" or so on... it's illegal in the same exact way. If they are not bold written they are not the same unit, so it's illeggal in the same way. 

So for the "legion of death" doesn't exit a simple "wight king", but "wight king with...". Cause they are not bold written they are not keywords. Not keywords they are names, so or they are written correctly or not usable as warscroll battalions.

And if someone say that it's a new battletome and they should be playable... carrion pit is since the exit of the GH, but the unit require doesn't have the points. So cause it's not "common sense" to use the "abhorrant ghoul king" as it is that model cause it doesn't have that name, so, by FAQ it's the same for everything similar, even cuase they are written plural or singular instead, or have in some way different names.

Or everything follow the same rules or it's a joke. 

Honestly, I think you are misreading the names.  It's

PROSECUTORS
with Celestial Hammers

The "with" is an adjective, not part of the name like you are trying to argue.  At least for Charnel Pit Carrion you are technically correct since there is no "Strigoi Ghoul King" at all, but I honestly think you are just nitpicking with your argument that legion of death is illegal because the Wight King has an adjective, especially since you would not have this argument at all if the scroll said "Wight King" and the weapon description said it could be armed with X or Y.

[kozokus]

7 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Honestly, I think you are misreading the names.  It's

Nope, it is Prosecutor VS ProsecutorS

uninspiring isn't it?

 

[Guest]

Different people will have different opinions on how strictly the letter of the law should be enforced. But ultimately it's your hobby, so just discuss it with your opponents first and if they're chilled-out reasonable people then they should allow it. Personally I would have no problem with someone substituting an Abhorrant Ghould King for a Strigoi Ghoul King. Yes, it might not be strictly 'correct' or 'official' but can you really imagine playing a game with any of the staff or designers at GW HQ and them being pedantic about it?

 

 

[michu]

If I remember correctly, GW once said that Black Orcs with keyword "Ironjaws" still count as "Ironjawz", so in my opinion it should be the same situation.

I don't remember if it was in official FAQ or just on their facebook page, so I can be wrong.

[michu]

Sorry for double post. I found it in old FAQ:

[michu]

Sorry, little problems with adding pictures. I found in FAQ 1.0 that "Ironjaws" counts as "Ironjawz". I don't know if it's still valid.

[deynon]

5 hours ago, kozokus said:

Well, there is an obvious lack of seriousness when it comes to the rule writing from the very begining of AoS. But we have what we have so it is better to RuleZero™ the most obvious mistakes. Plus, it is not always true depending on the language you use. Some case in French are perfectly valid and illegal in english (and nowhere it is written that Eng is the valid source, even if it is a common knowledge).

If one deny his opponent the use of a bataillon because of grammar errors all will he earn will be a couple of frowns from the neighbour tables.

Minautors/bullgors are a different story but still people gladly accept the the bullgore stampede with bullgors warscrolls.

There is a blurred line where we want AoS be as FUN™ and competitive in equal terms and not become as scurvy as Warmahorde or as MTG where the goal is to catch your opponent on every missplay. (don't missunderstand me, i like MTG the way it is played a lot. but when i want to play AoS i expect something different).

The hard part is when your opponent become disrespectful by beeing soft/negligent on basic rules or ask to rewind the game.

We are talking about TO rules and so on. In casual playing I refuse to believe someone really would argue about such a thing (I know someone who would do, but against them I simply erase their armies on the battlefield). 

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

Technically it is illegal.  But, as deynon argues by the letter, there are NEW battalions from the Stormcast Eternals book that are illegal because someone didn't put a bold keyword instead of an exact name (Hammerstrike Force I think, only says Prosecutors instead of PROSECUTORS so by GW's silly FAQ the units of Prosecutors do not count).  However, I think that's a rather silly approach to do since the intent is clear (although deynon will argue tooth and nail that it's not)

Nope, cause it doesn't count.  Bold wrrd are Keywords, but the name of the units it's the complete name, not part. There are no rules by GW about it. Moreover the name would be anyway incorrect.

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

Honestly, I think you are misreading the names.  It's

PROSECUTORS
with Celestial Hammers

The "with" is an adjective, not part of the name like you are trying to argue.  At least for Charnel Pit Carrion you are technically correct since there is no "Strigoi Ghoul King" at all, but I honestly think you are just nitpicking with your argument that legion of death is illegal because the Wight King has an adjective, especially since you would not have this argument at all if the scroll said "Wight King" and the weapon description said it could be armed with X or Y.

No, it's a part of the name, otherway I can say the same of the mounted as "on Dragon zombie" anch so on, such is not the case. 

Doesn't exist something like "with an adjectiv" and no rules about it. Moreover in the GH are separated by points by the full name so you can't argue with such thesys.

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Different people will have different opinions on how strictly the letter of the law should be enforced. But ultimately it's your hobby, so just discuss it with your opponents first and if they're chilled-out reasonable people then they should allow it. Personally I would have no problem with someone substituting an Abhorrant Ghould King for a Strigoi Ghoul King. Yes, it might not be strictly 'correct' or 'official' but can you really imagine playing a game with any of the staff or designers at GW HQ and them being pedantic about it?

 

 

It' not opinion, it's as it is. You can create a HR, but the rule is such. If we accept it for the Prosecutrs and so on such has to be for the "Charnel pit carrion" and so on. Too easy call common sense and so on only about interested things. The rules has to be fair to all.

1 hour ago, michu said:

If I remember correctly, GW once said that Black Orcs with keyword "Ironjaws" still count as "Ironjawz", so in my opinion it should be the same situation.

I don't remember if it was in official FAQ or just on their facebook page, so I can be wrong.

And it did also for other units, a pity that it applies only to the units who had the FAQ. It didn't claimes that singulars and plurals is the same. It's not the same thing, moreover cause it involve the Keywords and not the units'names. Without that FAQ it couldn't be used as a Keyword itself cause it didnnt' corrispond.

 

[wayniac]

Yep.  As was said last time we had this argument, you are technically correct by the letter of the rule, I just can't imagine many situations where it would come up as being strictly enforced, but I also absolutely agree it's the sort of thing that should be clarified.  I think though that in the case of things like Legion of Death and the Stormcast battalion, it should be assumed allowed unless stated otherwise (of course still in a tournament never hurts to explicitly ask), while Charnel Pit Carrion due to actually having a different named model needs to be clarified.  

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, deynon said:

It' not opinion, it's as it is. You can create a HR, but the rule is such. If we accept it for the Prosecutrs and so on such has to be for the "Charnel pit carrion" and so on. Too easy call common sense and so on only about interested things. The rules has to be fair to all.

I meant it's a matter of opinion whether it's better to play to the letter of the rule or to the spirit of the rule.

[deynon]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Yep.  As was said last time we had this argument, you are technically correct by the letter of the rule, I just can't imagine many situations where it would come up as being strictly enforced, but I also absolutely agree it's the sort of thing that should be clarified.  I think though that in the case of things like Legion of Death and the Stormcast battalion, it should be assumed allowed unless stated otherwise (of course still in a tournament never hurts to explicitly ask), while Charnel Pit Carrion due to actually having a different named model needs to be clarified.  

So it shpuld be playable also the Pit Carrion for the same reason. Do You forbid it? I claim victory against the roosters witn not exacr names. Simple. It's the same. You can't even call the new battletone, it's the same for the carrion pit since the GH arrival, so same situation. No onee, no the other one.

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I meant it's a matter of opinion whether it's better to play to the letter of the rule or to the spirit of the rule.

Spirit of the rule? Silly argument. So the carrion put is avalaible. Ypu can't claim same reason apply different based on what you like or not. The rules are such. 

Do you want to change them? Sure, but your ones are HR , not the rules. IFf based on the spurit of the rule, you can't forbid the carrion pit. It's simple.

Otherway it's not common sense, but unfairness.

[ZealousJ]

Bet you're all glad I asked

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to continue to assume the intention from GW was for the battalion to be invalidated by the new rules released with the flesh eater courts battletome.

Cheers

Johnny

[Guest]

1 hour ago, deynon said:

Spirit of the rule? Silly argument. So the carrion put is avalaible. Ypu can't claim same reason apply different based on what you like or not. The rules are such. 

Do you want to change them? Sure, but your ones are HR , not the rules. IFf based on the spurit of the rule, you can't forbid the carrion pit. It's simple.

Otherway it's not common sense, but unfairness.

Strictly speaking battalions aren't really rules anyway are they? They're more an optional layer of narrative and/or tactical flavour for those that want to use them. And this is just a game after all - people are free to use the materials GW have provided in whatever way they find most satisfying. With their gaming companions' agreement of course. I don't think it's 'common sense' to suggest that people must stick rigidly to the letter of the text at all times, particularly in cases like this where there's an element of ambiguity and the specific intentions of the author/developer haven't been made crystal clear. There's a difference between a house rules and rules interpretation.

Anyway, clearly you're more of a 'letter of the rules' guy and I'm more of a 'spirit of the rules' guy. We can agree to disagree.

 

[TheOtherJosh]

Remember that if you have the original warscroll, you can still use that one with the "wrong name" which would allow you to use it.

From the The Rules Official FAQ v1.1 pg. 6
"Q: If I have two different warscrolls for the same unit,
can I choose which to use, or must I use the most recently published version?
A: You can choose which warscroll to use, but it may
be more convenient for your opponent if you use the most recently published version, especially if the earlier version is no longer readily available."

[deynon]

56 minutes ago, ZealousJ said:

Bet you're all glad I asked

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to continue to assume the intention from GW was for the battalion to be invalidated by the new rules released with the flesh eater courts battletome.

Cheers

Johnny

Nope, cause it's not a FEC warscroll battalion, the new ones doesn't invlaidate the old ones. And moreover it's a bad assumption cause simply it's not such. You justify it in the wrong way, nothing to relate to eventual GW intentions. Moreover GW so has given points to the warscroll battlaion to never make it usabel for the begninning? So the same apply to Stormcast eternal and so on.

5 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Strictly speaking battalions aren't really rules anyway are they? They're more an optional layer of narrative and/or tactical flavour for those that want to use them. And this is just a game after all - people are free to use the materials GW have provided in whatever way they find most satisfying. With their gaming companions' agreement of course. I don't think it's 'common sense' to suggest that people must stick rigidly to the letter of the text at all times, particularly in cases like this where there's an element of ambiguity and the specific intentions of the author/developer haven't been made crystal clear. There's a difference between a house rules and rules interpretation.

Anyway, clearly you're more of a 'letter of the rules' guy and I'm more of a 'spirit of the rules' guy. We can agree to disagree.

 

Nope, they are rules.  You pay points to use them, they are bonus rules and abilities to thee units.

If you say so you apply the HR, you can do so, but you can't claim to apply the rules, moreover you do partial HR based on decisions and not to fairness, I'd see quite bad to TO's organized in such a way.

Common sense i'ts not "partial sense". as you do. You apply to everythuing or to nothing. There's not ambiguity at all, the rules are clear. You simply want to snob some and elate other ones, it's totally another thing.

You can only agree with me, not the opposite.

Then you cann choose, but it would anyway be a partial use of the rules and you have to specify them in the TO, otherway if someone constest it... he has right and you can only admit you wrong and give him the game won.

3 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Remember that if you have the original warscroll, you can still use that one with the "wrong name" which would allow you to use it.

From the The Rules Official FAQ v1.1 pg. 6
"Q: If I have two different warscrolls for the same unit,
can I choose which to use, or must I use the most recently published version?
A: You can choose which warscroll to use, but it may
be more convenient for your opponent if you use the most recently published version, especially if the earlier version is no longer readily available."

No, it's completely different.. This FAQ it's not about "wrong name", but two warscroll with the same name, such as the Terrorgheist or the Dragon Zombie, and it affirm you can play both. It's not about units with different names like Prosecutor and Prosecutors that are not the same units and as such not usable.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, deynon said:

You can only agree with me, not the opposite.

Haha! Priceless! 

[wayniac]

I'm sorry but if I was a TO and someone tried to argue that their opponent should be disqualified for using a battalion that allows Prosecutors because it doesn't say "Prosecutors with X" and argue that keyword vs. unit name stuff, I'd laugh at them for taking things too seriously.  I think even if GW said that wasn't the case, you would argue until blue in the fact that it's "not official until there is an FAQ" on it.  Personally I think it's taking things way too seriously, although if I recall from our last debate on this, you don't actually think that your opponent shouldn't be allowed to use it, just that by the letter of the rules they can't so it has to be house-ruled to be allowed.

[TheOtherJosh]

Haha! Priceless! [emoji3][emoji16]

This is not the disambiguation you're looking for ... you may go about your business ... /waves hand