Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1

[Inquisitorsz]

1 hour ago, Sedraxis said:

We have now shifted from interpreting rules to interpreting words, what a time to be alive!

I think this topic has run its course.

 

In conclusion:

New Tzeentch book way to stronk, FAQ nerfed broken things, still needs more FAQ to clear up mess. Still really stronk, maybe too much stronk.

 

I think it's still the strongest army around, even if everything regarding battleshock, destiny cubes and horrors no longer works. But who knows, it's a lot less insane then before.

We will see what happens in a couple of tournaments, new subfactions coming out tomorrow might also shake things up. Peace ✌🏻

That's normal because rules are often seen as laws and just like laws exact wording is super important.  
And at the same time, we have lawyers (us) and judges (GW) to argue interpretation of those super specific words because language is hard. 

As I posted on page 11 (which all of page 12 people seemed not to read) slight changes in grammar or moving the parentheses around in the sentence, and even recognizing the later sentence instead of looking as just a single sentence in isolation all make a huge difference in how a single rule is interpreted. 

[Death1942]

Why is this topic even still going...

[JPjr]

3 hours ago, Death1942 said:

Why is this topic even still going...

New to the internet? I’d say this still has a good day or so of going nowhere circular arguments left in it before someone says something really really terrible and the mods lock it.

[Phasteon]

6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

We have a guy that uses sportsmanship as a form of pressure to get what he wants.

Meaning if you don't do what he wants you to do or you disagree with one of his rules interpretations, you are making his game unfun, you are that guy for twisting the game to break it, and you are a bad sport.

If you do what he wants and follow his rules interpretations, then you are a fun opponent, great to play, and a great sport.

 

Seriously? What‘s the intention of such a post? 

Other than discrediting me as a person of course, thanks for that. 

 

Edit: Sorry if you feel offended by me saying that good sportsmanship should be the most important thing when playing a game (even more if you are doing it competitively).  

Please show me were I said what you claim I did. 

I was just saying (in regard to the battleshock/split situation) that its advisable to find a solution BOTH players can agree on, so nobody feels cheated in the end. Its even BETTER if the player with the rule in question shows greatness and backs down before taking advantage of an interpretation that might be wrong.

If that makes you feel I want to „force“ people into „my“ view then I have no more words for you. Well, no words I cant get reported for at least. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Phasteon

[Phasteon]

33 minutes ago, JPjr said:

New to the internet? I’d say this still has a good day or so of going nowhere circular arguments left in it before someone says something really really terrible and the mods lock it.

Already happened. 

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

OK folks, sorry this post has taken as long as it is (I'm on holiday this week and building a skyport)...

Let's agree that the decision on what counts as modified/unmodified requires an FAQ - this question is by pure definition being asked frequently so falls into that category 😉

I will point out that the people in GW's social media team are not part of the AoS studio and to all intent and purposes exactly the same as us when it comes to the majority of rules answers.  The only official answer will be included within the Errata or Designers Commentary document - send an e-mail to AoSFAQ@gwplc.com with your question (politely phrased).

Can I please ask for people to not keep taking stabs at GW for "being incapable of writing rules", "rubbish at rules" or any such comments.  It's not adding anything to this topic and is actually pretty rude.

Can I also ask for people not to keep taking stabs at each other when you disagree with each others opinions.  We all approach the rules side of the game from different angles, if you're focused on competitive gaming you're going to look at it differently to somebody who plays more casually - we're all right in our view and the line you take will depend upon the situation and your opponent at the time the issue arises.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Seriously?!  Immediately after my warning members are taking snipes at each other?  Last warning folks, pack in taking shots at each other, I really don't want to start issuing warnings or bans

[hughwyeth]

I love all of you guys, you're all the best.

I do think this requires some serious clarification from GW. Perhaps in GH20 they will have updated Core Rules with "start of phase" stuff, "modified vs unmodified" etc and we don't need to wait until aos 3.0 to have all this cleared up in a unified manner.  Currently it seems we need to reference FAQ for faction A to figure out how a rules for Faction B might work for certain rules, and others need reference to FAQ, Core Rules, Battletomes and white dwarf articles to clear up (if they ever get cleared up). 

[Dead Scribe]

I wasn't intending on taking shots at anyone.  I'm frustrated that we allow competitive players to get hit with "WAAC TFG" comments and "you're bad sports" comments for having opposing viewpoints, and we let those still stand in plain sight for everyone to read.  

[SleeperAgent]

25 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

I love all of you guys, you're all the best.

I do think this requires some serious clarification from GW. Perhaps in GH20 they will have updated Core Rules with "start of phase" stuff, "modified vs unmodified" etc and we don't need to wait until aos 3.0 to have all this cleared up in a unified manner.  Currently it seems we need to reference FAQ for faction A to figure out how a rules for Faction B might work for certain rules, and others need reference to FAQ, Core Rules, Battletomes and white dwarf articles to clear up (if they ever get cleared up). 

Due to the unforeseen (but totally foreseen) circumstances of a new Tzeentch battletome, the GHB 20/big summer FAQ can't get here soon enough.

 

Also please release new Nighthaunt and Stormcast battletomes. The first ones are dead.

Edited February 7, 2020 by SleeperAgent

[hughwyeth]

6 minutes ago, SleeperAgent said:

Due to the unforeseen (but totally foreseen) circumstances of a new Tzeentch battletome, the GHB 20/big summer FAQ can't get here soon enough.

 

Also please release new Nighthaunt and Stormcast battletomes. The first ones are dead.

TBH not sure they would really do a FAQ thing for GH20- it's usually for new rules, no clarifications!

[Phasteon]

15 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I wasn't intending on taking shots at anyone.  I'm frustrated that we allow competitive players to get hit with "WAAC TFG" comments and "you're bad sports" comments for having opposing viewpoints, and we let those still stand in plain sight for everyone to read.  

Except nobody in this discussion did that. 

 

 

[NatBrannigan]

Sheesh! I didn't realise people hated Tzeentch this much

I've never even considered NOT adding Blue Horrors for Battleshock tests, Counts as Slain I could never interpret as anything other than the models being slain. I mean... for me that would be like someone saying they're trying to figure out how many Blue Horrors to buy so they're proxying them with these blue marbles, they count as blue horrors, only for me to turn round and say counts as? so they're NOT blue Horrors, got it. Odd. I'd certainly be offended to be called a cheater in this case.

To clarify where i'm coming from I've also only ever won one game with my Tzeentch army because I play with  the models I like, so clearly not a WAAC player and I've also never considered NOT putting all the units in a Battalion down at the same time either, and it turns out it's pretty clear you can do that... Maybe i'm just not very good at rules, or the game full stop!

[Kirjava13]

35 minutes ago, SleeperAgent said:

new Nighthaunt and Stormcast battletomes

Edited February 7, 2020 by Kirjava13

[Phasteon]

17 minutes ago, NatBrannigan said:

Sheesh! I didn't realise people hated Tzeentch this much

I've never even considered NOT adding Blue Horrors for Battleshock tests, Counts as Slain I could never interpret as anything other than the models being slain. I mean... for me that would be like someone saying they're trying to figure out how many Blue Horrors to buy so they're proxying them with these blue marbles, they count as blue horrors, only for me to turn round and say counts as? so they're NOT blue Horrors, got it. Odd. I'd certainly be offended to be called a cheater in this case.

To clarify where i'm coming from I've also only ever won one game with my Tzeentch army because I play with  the models I like, so clearly not a WAAC player and I've also never considered NOT putting all the units in a Battalion down at the same time either, and it turns out it's pretty clear you can do that... Maybe i'm just not very good at rules, or the game full stop!

Funnily enough your example proved my point. 

Blue marbles that count as blue horrors are definately NOT blue horrors, they are blue marbles both players agreed to play as if they were blue horrors. 

When your opponent says „I dont want you to proxy models“ you cant just do that. 

Its the same way with saying „counts as slain“ is the same thing as „being slain“. 

If your opponent agrees on that its fine, if he doesnt you need to find a solution thats fair for both players. 

I dont know how to handle this situation for sure, nobody can until another FAQ drops.

Where is this offending? (Not asking you, I just wonder why people get offended by me saying this is „fairplay“ in my opinion) 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Phasteon

[Isotop]

31 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Except nobody in this discussion did that. 

 

 

I am too scared to be identified as a "shooter" to present a contentual reaction to this. Let us agree to disagree on what sportsmanship is and what moral code is appropriate at the gaming table.

I found the discussion truly interesting, though. I am not a fan of the censorship going on in this forum but I understand that things should not spiral in an ugly direction. I will try to be more...conform next time (I guess).

Edited February 7, 2020 by Isotop

[NatBrannigan]

Oh the hypothetical offending was from pages ago and not directed at me personally, no hurt feelings here! Jut someone said if the splitting / battleshock rule was played like that against them they'd call the other player a cheat. Seemed harsh.

Maybe the proxy was a bad example because yes, your opponent could say "no proxies". Sure. But your opponent couldn't say "no destiny dice" could he? Or "No armour saves"? They can't just decide not to use a rule. 

For me, personally, with no affiliation to the rules team, with no intention of EVER going to a tournaments and who uses Burning Chariots because they're great. "Counts as slain" should mean the models count as slain, therefore are affected by rules that kick in when a model is slain.

 

[Realmhead]

If I'm understanding this discussion  right,  the Debate is over whether models lost to battle shock (which "count as slain") trigger the Horror units splitting ability (which triggers when a model is slain). 

Do other units with abilities that trigger when models are slain (Blood Warriors do I think), trigger when they lose models to battle shock? 

[Forrix]

47 minutes ago, Realmhead said:

Do other units with abilities that trigger when models are slain (Blood Warriors do I think), trigger when they lose models to battle shock? 

Blood Warriors and Vulkite Berzerkers (the ones I can think of off the top of my head) both specify combat phase only in their rules so no. Horrors of Tzeentch do not specify phase with their Split rules.

[Realmhead]

Ok, thanks for the clarification 

[Bishop3]

1 hour ago, Realmhead said:

 Do other units with abilities that trigger when models are slain (Blood Warriors do I think), trigger when they lose models to battle shock? 

Exist the ability of lord Arcanum but isn't Cleary like horrors ability, the same with wrathmongers. The ossearch have the abilities of one alliance that work on slain models but nobody use that so nobody ask a faq 

[NJohansson]

4 hours ago, Phasteon said:

Its the same way with saying „counts as slain“ is the same thing as „being slain“. 

If your opponent agrees on that its fine, if he doesnt you need to find a solution thats fair for both players. 

Here is where your logic fails (IMHO). There is no rules telling how to play counts as slain - but clear rules regarding slain. According to your logic the players are better making up their own rules rather than using the closest and most likely thing available (just saying that they are the same)?

[michu]

4 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

According to your logic the players are better making up their own rules rather than using the closest and most likely thing available (just saying that they are the same)?

No, he means that if two players have different interpretations of particular rule and there is no clear FAQ answer and no AoS equivalent of MTG judge nearby, then the only way to proceed with the game is to discuss the rule and make a ruling for that particular game. Using the closest thing available is just a one way to do it. Just both sides have to agree on that.

 

[Phasteon]

21 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

rather than using the closest and most likely thing available (just saying that they are the same)?

And thats where your logic fails imo, „the closest and most likely thing (I agree here btw) is still not the same thing. But I can totally see why you see it that way. 

The only thing that makes me wonder about the interpretation of „count as“ and „being slain“ being the same, why didnt they just word it „the difference between bravery and the modified role is the number of models that are slain.“

If it really is the same and was intended to be the same, why not just word it the same? 
For me it reads like „For Victory points /bringing slain models back purposes they count as being slain“ but they are removed out of sequence concerning ingame rules that interact with actually being slain. 

Thats just my take on it though and I have to admit I have no real proof that I‘m right here. 

But yeah, it‘s a bummer that this particular rule wont be addressed until it will decide a major tournament (either way). I hope we can agree on that 🙂 

 

Edit: I can imagine Tzeentch himself reading this discussion btw, rubbing his claws whispering „gooooood“ 😂

Edited February 7, 2020 by Phasteon

[michu]

13 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

For me it reads like „For Victory points /bringing slain models back purposes they count as being slain“ but they are removed out of sequence concerning ingame rules that interact with actually being slain. 

Ok, I can't agree with that interpretation. I think if that was their intent, they would write about it  like about DD rolls for BS and saves counting as modified.