Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1

[Sedraxis]

The RAI part of the fleeing Horrors is pretty easy, since the ability reads:

"Should a Horror meet his end at the hands of the enemy, it is capable of splitting itself into lesser daemons and renewing its assault twice over."

The ability also mentions how to allocate wounds and what happens when the model is slain, but nothing about battleshock is mentioned anywhere.

And going by the FAQ that has the clear intention to get rid of Horrors flooding the board... yeah.

[Dead Scribe]

T

here is a difference between building a powerful list or bending the rules in a cheesy way.

RAI

I've heard that a LOT, with people arguing in our face that a rule we are interpreting is being bent in our favor and only because its in our favor and CLEARLY wasn't how the designers intended, only for them to eat their shoe half the time when the FAQ rolls down and shows that they were wrong. 

In this game, you never know what the faq is going to say.  

 

[michu]

43 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

 

I've heard that a LOT, with people arguing in our face that a rule we are interpreting is being bent in our favor and only because its in our favor and CLEARLY wasn't how the designers intended, only for them to eat their shoe half the time when the FAQ rolls down and shows that they were wrong. 

In this game, you never know what the faq is going to say.  

 

That's not an actual argument. You just had luck when the ruling was in your favour. There is always 50/50 chance that you read the rules intent right. That's the point of critique of RAI - it all depends on a luck that you interpreted the rules right. That's why using an interpretation that doesn't give you advantage is safer - if you were right with your interpretation, you can now play with better rule and don't feel like That Guy. If not - well, you still play the rule like you were already doing.

EDIT: And now we have GW's FB crew ruling (later, as people still didn't believe them, they added part about asking rules team).

And I really don't know  how people can think this FAQ is not clear  -it clearly says that Destiny Dice are unmodified rolls, except save rolls and battleshock - if something doesn't count as unmodified, it is modified. It's not warp-rocket science.

Edited February 6, 2020 by michu

[Dead Scribe]

That's not an actual argument. You just had luck when the ruling was in your favour. There is always 50/50 chance that you read the rules intent right. That's the point of critique of RAI - it all depends on a luck that you interpreted the rules right. That's why using an interpretation that doesn't give you advantage is safer - if you were right with your interpretation, you can now play with better rule and don't feel like That Guy. If not - well, you still play the rule like you were already doing.

Basically it means trying to use "RAI" as the basis of an argument is fail because unless you have direct access to the designers input, you have no idea what RAI really is.

The difference often between "that guy" and "not that guy" is how close to you agree with something.  If someone is doing something you don't like or disagree with, they are "that guy".  

[michu]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The difference often between "that guy" and "not that guy" is how close to you agree with something.  If someone is doing something you don't like or disagree with, they are "that guy". 

I think if you try to interpret unclear rules in a way that makes your army OP and unfun (it's different when the rules are clear or at least "clearish" and still OP, then it's only designer's fault) then you are "That Guy".

[Phasteon]

Its no coincidence most people I know dont like „tournament players“. 

Disclaimer: There are for sure many people playing competitively that are not this way. 

You read horror stories about things people did just to win a game in a tournament. Mindgames like timeplay, asking the opponent to play quicker just to force him into a mistake, measuring distances wrong on purpose, loaded dice, rule bending, even breaking parts of their models for LOS advantages and, and, and. 

Sorry but thats not competitive play, thats „the better cheater wins“. 

And even in forums you can often see who plays at tournaments just by the way they talk about the game and hobby in general. 

They more often than not say negative things about armies, balancing, background driven armies but couldnt care less about those things as all they care about is winning a game. Not in a fair manner of course, because if they get unlucky rolls they might lose.

But then again those people are always the loudest when it comes to pointing out „poor ruleswriting“ or „bad balancing“. THEY are the ones abusing both to the max, willingly.  

Back to topic: 

If a rule is CLEAR its everyones right to point it out and dont feel ashamed to take maximum advantage.

BUT if a rule is controversial and you play it to your advantage without at least talking about it with the other player (or if he starts discussing it as it comes up) you are just a bad sport. Thats not a thing of interpretation, thats fact. 

 

„I lose 5 Horrors to battleshock, now I can place my 10 Blue Horrors as the Pinks count as having slain“ 

„Uhm what? I dont think its like that“

“Of course it is, the rules say they are removed and then counted as being slain and the rules for Horrors say ‚when a model is slain‘“ 

If you get away with that, fine. 

You might or might not just won a game by winning an ingame discussion, not by superior tactics. 

If he still believes „being slain“ and „count as being slain“ are different things he has the same right as you and you should at least roll off for the game. Feels bad to have a 50/50 chance to be right? Well guess what, in this particular case you are not more than 50% right. 

A good sport would say „I dont want/need that discussion to win, I play as if the rules are definately not that way“ 

A WAAC will say „But I am definately right here, RAW they both count as slain give me my free win already!!!“ 

(hint: I might have exaggerated the WAAC part, but anyone who faced that kind of guy before knows how they argue during a decisive point of the game) 

 

[NJohansson]

52 minutes ago, michu said:

That's not an actual argument. You just had luck when the ruling was in your favour. There is always 50/50 chance that you read the rules intent right. That's the point of critique of RAI - it all depends on a luck that you interpreted the rules right. That's why using an interpretation that doesn't give you advantage is safer - if you were right with your interpretation, you can now play with better rule and don't feel like That Guy. 

 

And here is where you actually completely lost me. Either one player will get an advantage or the other player will get the advantage. Both player can’t play in such a way as to give the other player the advantage. In my experience (totally biased based on my own personal interaction with other people) most people who argue RAI against me will always end up reading the rules in a way that actually favors them. That is why RAW is clearer (not the same as always clear - but clearer) in that read as it is written and do not try to find the hidden meaning of the design team - if there is one it will be in a FAQ. 

[BillyOcean]

1 hour ago, michu said:

And I really don't know  how people can think this FAQ is not clear  -it clearly says that Destiny Dice are unmodified rolls, except save rolls and battleshock - if something doesn't count as unmodified, it is modified. It's not warp-rocket science.

I'm not going to state definitively that you are wrong - as far as I'm concerned whatever the Rules Team (not Community Team) decides on this is how it will be played, and I'm happy with that. But I want to lay out the counter argument to the case you are making, as logically as possible, because I don't think its as simple as you make out. The counter argument goes as follows:

According to the core rules "an unmodified dice roll refers to the result after any rerolls but before any modifiers apply”.  So there we have our definition of unmodified role. Its what the dice shows after potential rerolls but before we add or subtract any modifiers.

According to the FAQ "If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a battleshock test, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the number of models slain from that unit as normal." So... if we are using a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test we go about modifying it in the normal way.

Applying these two rules together: If we use a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test, we first select the dice, which replaces the roll we would have made. According to the Core Rule quoted above, this gives us the unmodified value of the dice. Then we add the number of dead models, which gives us the modified value of the dice. In other words, if we modify the dice "as normal", as the FAQ dictates, then the Core Rules dictate that the dice has both an unmodified value (before the modifier is applied) and a modified value (after the modifier is applies). If the unmodified value is a 1, then the Pink Horror Icon triggers. 

Like I said, if the Rules Team decide to come down on the other side, I'm fine with it. But as far as I can see, this is the most consistent way to apply the FAQ in conjunction with the Core Rules definition of modified vs. unmodified. As far as I can see, there is no conflict between the Destiny Dice being modified as normal in Battleshock test, and it still having an unmodified value of 1. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by BillyOcean

[michu]

11 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

I'm not going to state definitively that you are wrong - as far as I'm concerned whatever the Rules Team (not Community Team) decides on this is how it will be played, and I'm happy with that. But I want to lay out the counter argument to the case you are making, as logically as possible, because I don't think its as simple as you make out. The counter argument goes as follows:

According to the core rules "an unmodified dice roll refers to the result after any rerolls but before any modifiers apply”.  So there we have our definition of unmodified role. Its what the dice shows after potential rerolls but before we add or subtract any modifiers.

According to the FAQ "If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a battleshock test, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the number of models slain from that unit as normal." So... if we are using a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test we go about modifying it in the normal way.

Applying these two rules together: If we use a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test, we first select the dice, which replaces the roll we would have made. According to the Core Rule quoted above, this gives us the unmodified value of the dice. Then we add the number of dead models, which gives us the modified value of the dice. In other words, if we modify the dice "as normal", as the FAQ tells us we must, then the Core Rules dictate that the dice has both an unmodified value (before the modifier is applied) and a modified value (after the modifier is applies). If the unmodified value is a 1, then the Pink Horror Icon triggers. 

Like I said, if the Rules Team decide to come down on the other side, I'm fine with it. But as far as I can see, this is the most consistent way to apply the FAQ in conjunction with the Core Rules definition of modified vs. unmodified. As far as I can see, there is no conflictbetween the Destiny Dice being modified as normal in Battleshock test, and it still having an unmodified value of 1. 

Disagree. They said that Battleshock and Save rolls DD are not "unmodified". For me it looks like that:

- regular roll starts as an unmodified roll that later can get modified,

- DD for BS and Saves start as already modified rolls that later can get even more modified.

You say something about modified dice and umodified value of the same roll. You can't separate dice and value, that's not how it works. The roll is either unmodified or not.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by michu

[BillyOcean]

1 minute ago, michu said:

You say something about modified dice and umodified value of the same roll. You can't separate dice and value, that's not how it works. The roll is either unmodified or not. 

Every dice roll in AoS has both a modified and unmodified value. 

If I were to naturally role the 1 on the battleshock test, then it would have an unmodified value of 1 and a modified value of 1+(dead models).

If I roll a 6 to hit against a unit that is -1 to hit, it has an unmodified value of 6 and modified value of 5, therefore triggering any abilities that work on an unmodified 6, but failing to trigger any abilities that work on a 6+ to hit. 

etc, etc...

[Phasteon]

3 minutes ago, michu said:

Disagree. They said that Battleshock and Save rolls DD are not "unmodified". For me it looks like that:

- regular roll starts as an unmodified roll that later can get modified,

- DD for BS and Saves start as already modified rolls that later can get even more modified.

You say something about modified dice and umodified value of the same roll. You can't separate dice and value, that's not how it works. The roll is either unmodified or not.

 

The sad thing is it was already stated by Age of Sigmar on FB and he still argues against it. -.- 

[michu]

2 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

Every dice roll in AoS has both a modified and unmodified value. 

I should specify that I mean "not at the same time"! 
Listen, I said it already - according to FAQ, DD used for BS or saves are never unmodified. They are used as already modified dice.

[BillyOcean]

6 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

The sad thing is it was already stated by Age of Sigmar on FB and he still argues against it. -.- 

Well, there is a plenty of precedent for Community Team not reflecting Rules Team thinking. And I already said I'm absolutely happy to play it either way, whatever the Rules Team decides. All I'm trying to do is make the case that it does need a clarification from the Rules Team, because its not as black and white as presented here. Do you disagree? You would rather the Rules Team not clarify?

Edited February 6, 2020 by BillyOcean

[michu]

6 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

All I'm trying to do is make the case that it does need a clarification from the Rules Team, because its not as black and white as presented here

It is clear - using DD for BS and saves? Results are modified from the beginning. No Horrors returning on 1.

[BillyOcean]

5 minutes ago, michu said:

It is clear - using DD for BS and saves? Results are modified from the beginning. No Horrors returning on 1.

OK - if thats your opinion, I respect it. 

My opinion is that there are two sides to the argument and I want the rules team to adjudicate. 

[NJohansson]

12 minutes ago, michu said:

It is clear - using DD for BS and saves? Results are modified from the beginning. No Horrors returning on 1.

Just to clarify - did they not pull said clarification from the FB and was it not clearly stated that that was not the official ruling but their opinion?

Edited February 6, 2020 by NJohansson
Forgot half the question

[Nezzhil]

Borth are clear for me.

You modify the roll changing the result. And this result could be modified if it's a BS/Save.

 

Count as is not the same as it is slain. 

[michu]

@NJohansson That doesn't mean they were wrong. People just didn't believed them. People were disbelieving them about 40k "deepstrike" rule change some time agoeven when it was announced as official rule team statement.

@Nezzhil First one -agree. Second one - I'm not sure.

[NJohansson]

3 minutes ago, michu said:

@NJohansson That doesn't mean they were wrong. People just didn't believed them. People were disbelieving them about 40k "deepstrike" rule change some time agoeven when it was announced as official rule team statement.

@Nezzhil First one -agree. Second one - I'm not sure.

Just so I understand you right - you post a photographed quote of a ruling as proof of you point being right - knowing full well that said ruling was removed directly after posting? That is not even RAI - that is more “read as I want and wish for”.

[michu]

2 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Just so I understand you right - you post a photographed quote of a ruling as proof of you point being right - knowing full well that said ruling was removed directly after posting? That is not even RAI - that is more “read as I want and wish for”.

Nope, I just added it into discussion, even wrote that's just FB crew answer and it later dissapeared. I never said it's a proof. All other posts present my arguments and proofs.

[NJohansson]

15 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Borth are clear for me.

You modify the roll changing the result. And this result could be modified if it's a BS/Save.

 

Count as is not the same as it is slain. 

Then please clarify the meaning “count as being slain”? Not with what you think it means but from the rules - because I have not seen any such definition (if there is I will gladly back down). I know there is a definition of slain - and a rule saying counts as being slain but no actual wording on the difference.

[Drcrabs]

The proof seems pretty obvious. The FAQ clearly states that battleshock tests and save rolls regarding Destiny Dice are considered modified rolls. The Pink Horror Icon Bearer rule is frame worked at the very beginning clearly stating that if the unmodified roll of a 1... If they intended otherwise they would of wrote another exemption/exclusionary rule for this instance but they didn't. Sure they could change that down the line but as it is right now it seems very clear based on rules of the FAQ and the Icon Bearer rules.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

Basically it means trying to use "RAI" as the basis of an argument is fail because unless you have direct access to the designers input, you have no idea what RAI really is

I totally agree. Over the decades I've lost count of how many times I've heard people with absolutely zero connection to the designer, let alone understanding of the collaborative process, that they know intent.

No you don't.

It's not 50/50 that you know.

It's not 10/90 or 90/10. 

It's zero.

Here's a big point for those who would disagree - those who held a position on the intent of a rule that later turned out to coincide with the eventual ruling -

You still didn't know the intent.

You had an opinion on what it might be and that opinion happened to match the eventual FAQ entry.

You knew bupkiss.

What we all know, all of us, is what the rule is, not what someone else intended it to be.

If you can tell me you know what is (not just have an opinion on what might be) in someone else's head, then contact me. We can make a ton of money together.

[BillyOcean]

20 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Then please clarify the meaning “count as being slain”?

Indeed! And then let's try to apply consistent logic to the Icon rule, where a lot of arguments are hinging on the FAQ's statement that Destiny Dice in a battleshock test count as unmodified. "Counts as" can't mean "different from" in one case, and not the other. 

I will keep advocating for the position that both of these things are unclear and the Rules Team should be asked to publish a new, carefully-worded FAQ that accurately conveys their intent. I don't see this position as particularly controversial. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by BillyOcean

[Phasteon]

38 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

Indeed! And then let's try to apply consistent logic to the Icon rule, where a lot of arguments are hinging on the FAQ's statement that Destiny Dice in a battleshock test count as unmodified. "Counts as" can't mean "different from" in one case, and not the other. 

I will keep advocating for the position that both of these things are unclear and the Rules Team should be asked to publish a new, carefully-worded FAQ that accurately conveys their intent. I don't see this position as particularly controversial. 

I absolutely agree, but until a clarification comes out the player with the rule in question should play it safe and dont force others to accep his interpretation of RAW as the right one. 

 

Thats a kind of behavior I rarely see people doing, except some wargaming channels on youtube. Respect for that sportsmanship!