Yet another question about Balewind Vortex

[Well of Eternity]

Hi!

As we know, there can be no other model within 3" of Balewind Vortex and we cannot move any other models within 3" of Vortex but what about teleport/set-up another wizard/model/unit on top of the Vortex (e.g. with Sayl the Faithless spell). Is it possible to  make Vortex "Two-seater" (and use Vortex to double te casting range for both mages on top of it  if it is viable)?

[Arkiham]

7 minutes ago, Well of Eternity said:

Arkiham - Thanks for your answer!

So it`s more like "common sense" ("move used in more basic "normal" term") that indicates that there is no way to transform Vortex into "Two-seater" than confirmed "hard" rule.

 

Id say so.

 

Using move is poor choice but hey it's done, I think it is more of a literal sense, it makes more sense doing it that way as it ties into the other faq for the balewind 

[Paul Buckler]

Interested in the horrors or sisters as the model needs the HERO keyword.  Not sure how that happened

[Vextol]

I'm a zealot for movement rules, and I'm sure people are getting tired of it.  However, you don't get to be a zealot without beating that dead horse into the ground ,

I think in this situation, "moved" could be changed to "setup" and nothing would be different.  It's just a bad usage of the word (and is the only place I've ever seen moved used in place of setup-probably because it is Forgeworld).  My take on movement is that movement (as far as abilities that require "movement") should always be in reference to moves that happen in the movement phase.  It makes everything SO MUCH easier to decipher.  Now, GW could come out and disagree muddying the water again.  They do like to do that. 

But, before disagreeing with me, pretend that it is the way I'm saying.  Pretend that the only movement that counts for abilities is movement that strictly happens in the movement phase.  Ignore the words "move"  and "place" and "Setup" and all of that.  Forget "counts as your move in the movement phase", "cannot move in the movement phase", and the zillion others like it.  Just pretend it's all about what is physically happening. 

When ever a problem comes up, or a confusing situation comes up, you can answer it immediately (unless someone can find a situation that doesn't work).  Does it make some abilities a little stronger?  Sure.  Does it make some worse?  Sure.  But it makes all of them much more clear. 

Take the balewind.  Can you teleport onto it?  Did it happen in the movement phase?  No.  Thus, you can.  Take Sayl.  Can he teleport guys onto the balewind?  Did it happen in the movement phase?  No.  Thus, you can.  Can units in a vanguard wing teleport onto a balewind?  Did it happen in the movement phase? Yes.  Thus, you cannot.

I know people will disagree with me still, but there are only a handful of situations where it comes up and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is unclear and debatable if movement based abilities can happen/trigger at any point including outside the movement phase. 

Also my understanding would be an easy FAQ addition too

[Arkiham]

4 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

The last sentence in Sayl’s spell addresses the issue for Traitors Mist:

“Units moved in this manner cannot move in the following movement phase.”

So, the “Traitors Mist” spell is classed as a move per the last sentence in the spell.

i.e. Traitors Mist is a move spell.

 indeed a logical thing to say across the board is 

if an action counts as their move they have moved.  summoned units cannot move, teleported units cannot move. 

easy faq addtion tbh

[TheOtherJosh]

The last sentence in Sayl’s spell addresses the issue for Traitors Mist:

“Units moved in this manner cannot move in the following movement phase.”

So, the “Traitors Mist” spell is classed as a move per the last sentence in the spell.

i.e. Traitors Mist is a move spell.

[PlasticCraic]

My 2 cents here - Well of Eternity has found a legitimate loophole.  Many abilities allow a set up - most of these also state that it counts as their move, so in these cases, for rules purposes it is both a set up and a move.  

The new Sayl spell that came out on the same day as the FAQ above stated that it's a set up, and the unit may not move in the movement phase.  It does NOT state that it counts as their move.  So for rules purposes, this is purely a set up, and not a move.  So you are not "moving" onto the BWV, and you can go for your life.

Why does this one ability state that they "cannot move" rather than it "counts as their move"?  Maybe they wanted Sayl to remain broken in some small way, although that doesn't seem consistent with the overall weakening of his warscroll.  In my opinion it's just another example of the horrible mess GW have made of the wording on some techinical rules like this (updated Sayl warscroll released on the same day as the FAQ cited above...the same day!).  However it's not my place to second guess the actual intent behind what they've written...all we can do as a community is try to parse the actual meaning of what they've actually written, so we can all get on with playing this great game. 

Now, just because you can, doesn't mean you should....but I think OP was right to raise this topic even if he isn't planning on actually doing it, because it's given us an opportunity to thrash it out and try to understand what RAW are actually saying.  The debate will also have implications in other set up / move scenarios and that's why threads like this are important, so we can discuss rules where they are unclear, and avoid lengthy debates at the tabletop in the heat of battle.

[PlasticCraic]

15 hours ago, Paul Buckler said:

Interested in the horrors or sisters as the model needs the HERO keyword.  Not sure how that happened

Presumably Changehost for the Horrors - that was why the whole rule about Monsters never being allowed on top was FAQ'd, because people were summoning it and then swapping the Lord of Change onto it.

[Well of Eternity]

1 hour ago, Planar said:

There is no written rule against using loaded dice either. There cannot be rules for everything that's why we have to use our intuition.

"Dont be that guy" is actually some of the best advice in the game...

Loaded dice is clearly cheatting meanwhile looking for new possibilities even if not obvious is not. For me this is still not obvious that you cannot set-up model on balewind via spell just because there are some different rules about moving your units and set-up units. There is a difference between moving unit and set-up unit so if on the balewind scroll i find information only about "moving" and I know that I can put my model somewhere on the battlefield via "set-up" i connected the dots and asking about other rules making my plan invalid.

I fully understand Arkiham and his point of view. It seems logical BUT still - there is no rule that clearly not allowed me to do, other than "move used in more basic "normal" term".

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

The sisters I don’t remember, but horrors were swapped onto it using that Tzeentch spell/batallion.  You don’t need to be a hero to ride it.

I adamantly disagree with “don’t be that guy”.  Not in concept, but if someone says they want to summon a wizard on top of a balewind and you say no, why is the summoner “that guy”?  

Because the other guy’s preconceived notion is not in agreement?  Seems like the guy not allowing the summoning is just as much “that guy” as the person trying to summon it.

I think discussions are important. No need to put someone down because of a reasonable consideration.  “Don’t be that guy” is just a catchall used by people who don’t like that someone has found a creative way to interact with something.  I’m sure the first person to put Lord Kroak on a Balewind was called “that guy.”  I’ve been called “that guy” when I made an army based around the Engine of the Gods double turn ability.  It’s not cool and it hurts people’s desire to hunt for new possibilities.

As for “not designed”, I doubt it.  I don’t think GW ‘designs’ anything. They throw out a bunch of armies and rules and abilities and see what sticks.  Is the balewind’s physical, molded plastic scale intended for one wizard?  Probably.  But as far as it’s intent?  It’s a stretch to think that they anticipated all the possibilities associated with an item and they frequently adjust once players have found a creative use for it.

#thatguy

Fully agree with your point of view. Thanks for your comment!

[Vextol]

The sisters I don’t remember, but horrors were swapped onto it using that Tzeentch spell/batallion.  You don’t need to be a hero to ride it.

I adamantly disagree with “don’t be that guy”.  Not in concept, but if someone says they want to summon a wizard on top of a balewind and you say no, why is the summoner “that guy”?  

Because the other guy’s preconceived notion is not in agreement?  Seems like the guy not allowing the summoning is just as much “that guy” as the person trying to summon it.

I think discussions are important. No need to put someone down because of a reasonable consideration.  “Don’t be that guy” is just a catchall used by people who don’t like that someone has found a creative way to interact with something.  I’m sure the first person to put Lord Kroak on a Balewind was called “that guy.”  I’ve been called “that guy” when I made an army based around the Engine of the Gods double turn ability.  It’s not cool and it hurts people’s desire to hunt for new possibilities.

As for “not designed”, I doubt it.  I don’t think GW ‘designs’ anything. They throw out a bunch of armies and rules and abilities and see what sticks.  Is the balewind’s physical, molded plastic scale intended for one wizard?  Probably.  But as far as it’s intent?  It’s a stretch to think that they anticipated all the possibilities associated with an item and they frequently adjust once players have found a creative use for it.

#thatguy

[jamie.white]

I think at the end of the day , that’s the key.  It’s clearly not designed or intended for two models on the balewind . 

It’s a good discussion , but not being that guy is key for me 

[Planar]

2 hours ago, Well of Eternity said:

Arkiham - Thanks for your answer!

So it`s more like "common sense" ("move used in more basic "normal" term") that indicates that there is no way to transform Vortex into "Two-seater" than confirmed "hard" rule.

 

There is no written rule against using loaded dice either. There cannot be rules for everything that's why we have to use our intuition.

"Dont be that guy" is actually some of the best advice in the game...

[jamie.white]

Exact that , hero keyword required. 

Could be argued that’s only needed to summon though 

[Vextol]

Hey!  Someone having issues with the same thing I do in another thread 

I think you can put two models on top because you can teleport stuff onto it.

a. Multiple models can go on top.  Horrors have done it.  I’ve seen it done and it looks ridiculous.  Same with sisters of the Thorne.

b.   GW faq says you are in NO WAY allowed to put a monster on a balewind, no matter how you got him there.

That ruling would be completely unnecessary if you couldn’t teleport onto a Balewind Vortex.  

[Well of Eternity]

17 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

I believe move is used in a more basic "normal" term here.

models cannot move within 3" 

Id say that's including charges, set up etc. Opposed to move as in their movement value, they are talking about physically moving a model

Just like how monsters can never be moved on top of the balewind, the model itself cannot be moved there 

Arkiham - Thanks for your answer!

So it`s more like "common sense" ("move used in more basic "normal" term") that indicates that there is no way to transform Vortex into "Two-seater" than confirmed "hard" rule.

 

[Arkiham]

I believe move is used in a more basic "normal" term here.

models cannot move within 3" 

Id say that's including charges, set up etc. Opposed to move as in their movement value, they are talking about physically moving a model

Just like how monsters can never be moved on top of the balewind, the model itself cannot be moved there 

[Well of Eternity]

I don`t want to use that rule/trick. I don`t need to. I`m just curious if there is something that doesn`t allow me to do that (other than "Try to not be THAT GUY").

[jamie.white]

Rules as written versus as intended . This would go round in circles forever . 

If you feel the wording allows it go for it , as long as your opponent is happy , I wouldn’t be , but there you go. 

Ask GW for clarification they may faq it ! 

I am sure you know that two characters shouldn’t be on the vortex , but hey it’s just a game ?

 

[Well of Eternity]

12 minutes ago, jamie.white said:

Don’t most teleports / Summons count as the move. ?  You can’t move after traitors mist so I would say that counts as a move and therefore rolling vortex of magic prevents it 

Traitor Mist allow to set up unit on the table. Set up as stated in FAQ: Q: What is ‘set-up’, exactly? A: ‘Set-up’ is typically when a unit is placed on the table during deployment, but can also refer to a unit being deployed in a location other than on the battlefield, or being put into play once the game has started (a unit using the Stormcast Eternal Warrior Chamber’s Lightning Strike, the Chameleon Skinks’ Chameleon Ambush, or the Treelord’s Spirit Paths ability, for example). Models can set up within 3" of the enemy, even if they are set up in the movement phase, unless noted otherwise in the rules for the ability that allows them to be set up once the battle is under way

...So it`s not move (or i missed something).

 

[jamie.white]

Don’t most teleports / Summons count as the move. ?  You can’t move after traitors mist so I would say that counts as a move and therefore rolling vortex of magic prevents it 

[Well of Eternity]

11 minutes ago, Screwface said:

You kind of answered your own question in your first sentence. Why would teleporting provide an exception to a model not being able to move within 3" of the BWV?

Because restriction apply only to move units within 3" not to set-up them on top of the balewind votex (set-up via spell or ability)

[Screwface]

You kind of answered your own question in your first sentence. Why would teleporting provide an exception to a model not being able to move within 3" of the BWV?