Key word issues

[The Obsidian Lord]

Now going by what I have been told by the employee at my local GW store (I am going to use the Wight King and Legion of Death for this example. The Wight King with Black Axe, is still a "Wight King" And the Wight King with baleful Tomb Blade, is also a Wight King, it is a change of equipment. After all he did say "Since when did a Wight King with Black axe suddenly become just a bog standard Skeleton with a big ole Axe?"

In regards to the Strigoi Ghoul King, he has been entirely replaced by the Abhorrant Ghoul King, making the Charnel Pit Carrion totally useless (I know a couple of death players at my local got a little salty about that one as well!).

He told me that while the FAQ states:
Q: How do you determine what models and units make up a
warscroll battalion? When is it based on a keyword and when is
it a unit name?
A: When a warscroll battalion is referring to a keyword,
it appears in Keyword Bold. Otherwise, it is referring to
the name of a unit.

It still comes down to common sense as to if it is referring to a Model that doesn't exist or if they're saving space for no reason.

Also on a bit of a personal "Oh hey lookie here" note, the picture for the Deathrattle Legion of Death has a picture of the Wight King with Black Axe, so if all else fails - there's your Wight King they're referencing?

[deynon]

13 minutes ago, The Obsidian Lord said:

Now going by what I have been told by the employee at my local GW store (I am going to use the Wight King and Legion of Death for this example. The Wight King with Black Axe, is still a "Wight King" And the Wight King with baleful Tomb Blade, is also a Wight King, it is a change of equipment. After all he did say "Since when did a Wight King with Black axe suddenly become just a bog standard Skeleton with a big ole Axe?"

In regards to the Strigoi Ghoul King, he has been entirely replaced by the Abhorrant Ghoul King, making the Charnel Pit Carrion totally useless (I know a couple of death players at my local got a little salty about that one as well!).

He told me that while the FAQ states:
Q: How do you determine what models and units make up a
warscroll battalion? When is it based on a keyword and when is
it a unit name?
A: When a warscroll battalion is referring to a keyword,
it appears in Keyword Bold. Otherwise, it is referring to
the name of a unit.

It still comes down to common sense as to if it is referring to a Model that doesn't exist or if they're saving space for no reason.

Also on a bit of a personal "Oh hey lookie here" note, the picture for the Deathrattle Legion of Death has a picture of the Wight King with Black Axe, so if all else fails - there's your Wight King they're referencing?

 

There is not such a thing like common sense. It includes "wight king" in the name... no, it's not a reason and can't be used such a thing.

It's like to say : it's a model so use a terrogheist with the points of a zombie... it's the same.

A GKoT it's not a GK and viceversa. They have the Keyword in common but they are not the same model not the same name.  Or you can say prosecutors, liberators... they are the same model, so you can use one instead of the other one, it's the same, they are even stormcadts themselves...

About his joke a prefer to avoid to comment cause it would be too easy to say that: it is.

It can't even said "it's only a change of weaponry" cause each army have such situations: skeletons and grave guards; saurus and guards or even the heroes; and so on.

So based on waht you say I can use a GKoT as a GK, the riding model is the same and the mount is only an option (cause I want to remember you that exist also a "Wight king on skeletal steed" or you want to say me that that wight king has to be used differently...based on what?).

 

Using and defending such things is really like cutting themselves with their own words.

 

TRhe picture? Ok... so the ones without images? And the ones with the wrong subject? Cause do you remember that there are , right? And the units on the background of the photo? So even those ones are included so are usable for the warscroll battlaion.

Such type od defenses are silly ones.

You have to construct a lot of bubble castles only to see them popping easily. 

 

THe FAQ is clear. It has changed the way to see the warscroll battlaions. You have to follow them.

GW wants to make exceptions? It has to declare explicitily which ones are not usable and which one are and what can be used for. Otherway they can ssimply knock off the FAQ eliminating it or rewriting it better.

 

Such as it's written the units list of the warscroll battalions are not keywords (they are not bold written) and you have to match exactly the name of the units to use them. So: no legion of death, no stormcasts warscroll battliaons no skaven ones and so on those doesnt' respect the names, even id minimal.

Those are the rules. If you dont' want to follow them such as to be for everyone , not only cause a mistycal "common sense" that change based on the emotions.

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, deynon said:

 

it's not my fault,suche are the rules.

The list of the units in the warscroll battalion are not bold written so they are no keyword. It's useless to continue to refer them as keywords, they are not such.

There's the FAQ that says what are FAQ and what not and those are not.

The can be deaf and blond but such are the rules.

 

And the problem is to apply to every other warscroll, quite a lot have the same problem.

 

It's not ambiguos, it's crystal clear and it deny such use.

Considering those as keywords legion of death and other units are avalaible. And also the ROyal managerie can be playerd with ridden monsters and so on.

But the name are the names. If the name doesn't match perfectly., beh... no use. And there's also the FAQ that say that if the warscroll battlaion has units those not corrisponds that warscroll battlaions are not usable.

 

They have to change their way to use. It's not something new. The FAQ are out since December 2016, they should read them.

I am just messing with you.  

If it makes the game more enjoyable for you then you should play it that way and strive to play with people that also enjoy playing that way. In the end it is all about having a good time.

 

[deynon]

10 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I am just messing with you.  

If it makes the game more enjoyable for you then you should play it that way and strive to play with people that also enjoy playing that way. In the end it is all about having a good time.

 

Enjoyable I find enjoable playing the game with the rules of the game. If I want to change them in a private with my opponent...beh, it's our businesss. But in a tournament the rules has to be the same for everyone that parcipate to the tournament itself. And that FAQ is a rule that has the same valour as the one for the ring for the undeads or the lord of night only by the general.

You can't simply say: I don't like that rule so I change it...ehy, ops why I can't do this too...so why bother to follow the rules?

That rule is such. Take note and follow it. Lament about it if you wnat, but that is the rule.

 

Trying to defend your vision with "common sense" (that I can prove case by case that doesn't suit) and so on is useless.

Those warscroll battalions are not usable,as much many more. If you make an exception for those ones you are interested about the other ons those not fall in your exception?  It's the same. 

Learn the rule and apply it. 

You can do an HR, but that has to be detailed... good luck with the amount of specifications you have to do to include everything. Obviously you can declare the FAQ not valid...but why only that one?

It's like the helldrake FAQ on wh40k. It was complete not comform to the rules but it was used anyway.. 

 

So or you apply the rules as they are written always or if you do exceptions prepare to do a lot of them.

 

Private matches are not discussed cause it would be like saying which hand you have to use to drink water when you're at your home by yourself.


P.S. ah, don't worry, I didn't take ofence for the joke^^

[Andreas]

22 minutes ago, deynon said:

....

Sure, but the uphill struggle you are going to face if you really take a hard stand on this rules issue and go to tournaments is that you probably see lists in every tournament that brakes this rule (mostly Stormcast I guess but with the occasionally Legion of Death etc..) and no one will care. Just saying.

That said, I am not saying your are reading the rules incorrectly, it is just that it is what it is.

[deynon]

2 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Sure, but the uphill struggle you are going to face if you really take a hard stand on this rules issue and go to tournaments is that you probably see list in every tournament that brakes this rule (mostly Stormcast I guess but with the occasionally Legion of Death etc..) and no one will care. Just saying.

That said, I am not saying your are reading the rules incorrectly, it is just that it is what it is.

No care?^^ I'm not so sure about it. AoS is yet climbing the way of the competitive ones and soon such things will be common.

You're not playing the rules. Or you specify them clearly, otherways if I really want to mess with I can claim the victory istantaneously in the tournament against the opponent that doesn't follow the rules.

It's not so difficult: or you follow the rules or you declare before which one you don't use, why and when.

Simply the tournaments those not follow the rules can be skipped. 

If at a GW official tournament I could simply ask table win and then play anyway with yet the win game set. What's the different than playing using more points or using rules on your units that they don't have? They ae GW rules, FAQs too, if they are wrong they have to change them themselves.

During the presence of the FAQ such is the rule, when it's no more it's no more, but in the while they are valid. 

A faq says you that units can't be taken for multiple warscroll battlaions... so why don't ignore it? It's the same...

 

It's not "what it is it's what it is". It's "the rule is another one: follow it. You don't: that's the door.

Or you can change it, but not in a "personale way". Simply I had enough of things like ETC and similars. Do you want your own rules : it's ok and do it, but don't declare it as you are playing the same game.

The game that that FAQ pose is complete diferent from before it, as the presence of the FAQ for the ring , or the one about the ruler of night. 

 

You can't cahnge it ambigously and declare that it's "common sense"...cause it's not. It's a way to play what you couldn't cause you don't want to follow he rules.

[Solaris]

33 minutes ago, deynon said:

...

No deynon, you are wrong. In the Legion of Death, Wight King refers to the keyword. This has been specified in FAQ. The battalion can be used with either Wight King model.

Common sense always applies, and is sometimes necessary. If you and your opponent can't agree on how a rule works, use the Most Important Rule at the end of the core rules. Or, if you are at an event, ask an event official for a ruling. You can't ignore the social aspects of the hobby.

[Andreas]

4 minutes ago, deynon said:

It's not "what it is it's what it is". It's "the rule is another one: follow it. You don't: that's the door.

But how about the most important rule?

If you are a tournament regular I am sure you will get ample opportunities to try to clam instant wins when facing for example the hammerstrike force which is probably going to be common enough. I think it will be easier said (behind a screen) than done. It's all I am saying. But please report how it went if you actually do it. With pictures, it could be fun. 

[deynon]

7 minutes ago, Solaris said:

No deynon, you are wrong. In the Legion of Death, Wight King refers to the keyword. This has been specified in FAQ. The battalion can be used with either Wight King model.

Common sense always applies, and is sometimes necessary. If you and your opponent can't agree on how a rule works, use the Most Important Rule at the end of the core rules. Or, if you are at an event, ask an event official for a ruling. You can't ignore the social aspects of the hobby.

Nope. Again the list of units are not keywords. They are not bold written on the warscroll battlaion and only the bold wirtten onees are Keyword.

 

Reread the FAQ. 

 

Common sense always apply? Ok, so use the carrion pit warscroll battalion...what? the stigoi is not an abhorrant ghoul king cuase they don't have the same name? seriously?

 

The most important rules? What if I dont' wnat to agree with him?

The official event HAS to follow it's own rules otherway it has to declare bedfore clearly wchich urles are modified, and the same it's for every other tournament. In a tournament social aspects of the hobby? ahahah... ok, so for social aspects of the hobby some combos are to be forbidden.

"Social aspect" means nothing, the way it is used here is a way to say: I can play what I want , but you can't.

The rules has to be the same for everyone, otherways there are privileges and what's the point then to declare "social aspects".

 

Cause social aspects doesn't mean a casta interpretation. Cause if tou say: in the case of prosecutors is so but the strigoi not...or so on...

 

You ignore the FAQ and you alter also the rules.

 

And...rememebr those lists names on the warscroll battalions are not keyword, stop saying it, cause they are not such.

 

2 minutes ago, Andreas said:

But how about the most important rule?

If you are a tournament regular I am sure you will get ample opportunities to try to clam instant wins when facing for example the hammerstrike force which is probably going to be common enough. I think it will be easier said (behind a screen) than done. It's all I am saying. But please report how it went if you actually do it. With pictures, it could be fun. 

I yet seen something similar happen in the past. And even someone doing it on porpous in tournaments, even official ones cause they didn't verify the lists.

If I want to win a game stressing the arbiters and the opponents using the rules is quite simple; you have only to kick on my bad side.

The most important rule is: you have to enjoy game with your opponent. But the rules has to be applied the same. Otherway you are forbidding me to enjoy a match where you use what you shouldn't and forbit me the same. Based on what?

[CoffeeGrunt]

This argument is going nowhere. People have their interpretations and clearly refuse to see things from another angle, whether out of fear of being proven wrong or just inflexibility when it comes to pushing tiny man dollies around a table for two hours.

The rules are not the Magna Carta, in fact the first and most important of them is, "do what you want idk have fun nerds." The first entry in the official FAQ is, "can we ignore this if we want to? Sure I don't care, just buy our stuff and do whatever."

Personally we've discussed this at the local store, and decided that the Legion of Death is entirely legal, as are other similar ones, because of the title-subtitle format of the Wight King's profile. The Legion of Death is hardly Kunnin' Rukk grade fromage, and it even has a picture showing the Wight King with Black Axe reading it.

A little common sense and expediency makes it fairly obvious that it would be allowed, Rules As Intended.

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, deynon said:

"Social aspect" means nothing.

We won't agree (which is fine) and original question of the thread is dead.

But I think this conversation is really interesting because we do really have two completly different hobbies that in reality are only similar in that we use the same name for it.  But it is great that it can include so many different aspects and people. Sometimes it will be very hard to understand each other but it is also very interesting.

[Solaris]

This argument is firmly beyond pointless. Happy wargaming everyone!

[deynon]

26 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

This argument is going nowhere. People have their interpretations and clearly refuse to see things from another angle, whether out of fear of being proven wrong or just inflexibility when it comes to pushing tiny man dollies around a table for two hours.

The rules are not the Magna Carta, in fact the first and most important of them is, "do what you want idk have fun nerds." The first entry in the official FAQ is, "can we ignore this if we want to? Sure I don't care, just buy our stuff and do whatever."

Personally we've discussed this at the local store, and decided that the Legion of Death is entirely legal, as are other similar ones, because of the title-subtitle format of the Wight King's profile. The Legion of Death is hardly Kunnin' Rukk grade fromage, and it even has a picture showing the Wight King with Black Axe reading it.

A little common sense and expediency makes it fairly obvious that it would be allowed, Rules As Intended.

It's not interpretations, It's rules.

You can't define keywords in other way than the FAQ say cause it define what keyword are. 

The rules ARE the MAgna Carta. Those are the rules of the game, as the Magna Carte was the rules of the kingdom.

You can say "you can ignore them", but you can't ignore them only when suits you but not your opponent. It's not anymore a fairgame, but a gaining advantages denying the same to the opponents.

You are inventing justifications based on shaloww reasion and you know it. Based n what you say so...only the Wight king with the black axe can be used for the Legion of death, not the other ones. Wait..so if someone has another model of wight king...it's not the one in the image...

 

Little common sense? It's not common sens, it's blending the rules when it's morecomfortable. You don't blen them for pit carrion warscroll battalion or other ones. SImply cause are you not interested in them?

RAI? ahahaha it's the most silly thing. RAI means nothing if you apply only when you wnat, call it RAIL (rules as I like), it's more suitable.

5 minutes ago, Solaris said:

This argument is firmly beyond pointless. Happy wargaming everyone!

Pointless based on the fact that ignoring the FAQ is ignoring rules...

[CoffeeGrunt]

Deynon, buddy...

18 minutes ago, deynon said:

Pointless based on the fact that ignoring the FAQ is ignoring rules...

Might wanna stop ignoring the FAQ there, amigo.

[wayniac]

Here is the problem:  I am used to another tabletop game where if a model has something in its name, then it counts as that type regardless.  For example, in this case a "Wight King with a Baleful Tomb Blade" is automatically the type "Wight King" because it's in the name, it gets that property in addition to anything else it has.  Thing is, that doesn't seem to be a rule in GW-land.  This is, also, the major problem with GW rules in general: They are totally vague, and playing as written is often the wrong approach (GW themselves wants to apply intent most of the time).  So you need to do RAI versus RAW or you run into fringe categories.

Nobody is right here.  The best thing to do is to ask your local group or your event/tournament organizer and follow that.  Otherwise, this argument will go around in circles.  @deynon is correct in that, by the specific wording (i.e. RAW), this cannot be used anymore because it doesn't have the right keyword.  However, GW has also shown that they have forgotten that or just ignore it (see: Some of the NEW Stormcast battalions that also would not be legal by RAW, but clearly are intended to be).

There is no solution to this problem, since the problem is caused by a poorly-written set of rules that even the designers themselves don't choose to adhere to.  If GW can't be bothered to follow their own rules and FAQs, why should we?  Even under Open Play this keyword FAQ (which IMHO was nonsense anyways) would be in effect, so entire battalions including ones just released would not be allowed without ignoring the rules.  If that doesn't tell you that the rules are either A) wrong or B) meant to be interpreted not adhered to like a law, I don't know what else will.  

[Solaris]

46 minutes ago, deynon said:

Pointless based on the fact that ignoring the FAQ is ignoring rules...

No. The discussion itself is pointless based on the fact that it is not going anywhere, and that it's not constructive. The reason for this is that your behavior is entirely inflexible, and that your tone is abrasive and rather derogatory. Discussing this with a wall would in fact be more productive. Therefore, we should all stop wasting our time here, and move on with our lives. This discussion is not going to take a single step further forward.

[chunk85]

On 26/02/2017 at 4:02 PM, deynon said:

There are FAQs about it. 

The name of the units are not Keyword cause not Bold Written on the warscroll battalions. So If they don't match the name the warscroll battalion is not usable. Even the "Legion of Death" on the GA:D is not anymore usable cause doesn't exist units called simply "Wight King".

You brought this up before, and not to re-hash anything said above, you can use Legion of Death.

In the Compendium points values there are points for a 'Wight King with Infernal Standard' and 'Wight King on Skeleton Steed'.  There are no units with this specific name, but is an option of the generic Wight King as presented in the Vampire Counts Compendium.  As this unit has no suffix, it complies with your interpretation of the rules.

[L.Bromley]

Well guys looks like I opened a can of worms here!!

As someone who is pretty new to the game I asked a chap from my local gaming group who explained that the strigoi vampire was from old editions of warhammer, that's all I needed to hear.

As a small side note, I'm really enjoying the hobby, all my local gamers are a really great group,an the tournaments I went to were really fun with some fantastic characters attending, but at the end of the day it's a fun game with toy soldiers, there is no need to fall out

[chunk85]

32 minutes ago, L.Bromley said:

Well guys looks like I opened a can of worms here!!

As someone who is pretty new to the game I asked a chap from my local gaming group who explained that the strigoi vampire was from old editions of warhammer, that's all I needed to hear.

As a small side note, I'm really enjoying the hobby, all my local gamers are a really great group,an the tournaments I went to were really fun with some fantastic characters attending, but at the end of the day it's a fun game with toy soldiers, there is no need to fall out

I wouldnt worry too much, most TO's wont be as strict with their interpretations of the rules (as the most important rule of the game is that the rules are a guideline, so if the TO is cool with, its all good, thats probably a debate for another thread) and overall the community is very chilled about this sort of thing.

[TerrorPenguin]

So, just to clarify, if I rename My Abhorrent Ghoul King -

Strig Oi the Ghoul King

_{with Sharpened Claws, Fangs and a Terrible Attitude}

Can I use him with the Charnel Pit?

 

I jest of course. We don't want to end up with a ruleset that does not have any interpretation. We all know where that ends up - Warmachine. I think we can agree we don't want to go there. 

[wayniac]

Just now, TerrorPenguin said:

So, just to clarify, if I rename My Abhorrent Ghoul King -

Strig Oi the Ghoul King

_{with Sharpened Claws, Fangs and a Terrible Attitude}

Can I use him with the Charnel Pit?

 

I jest of course. We don't want to end up with a ruleset that does not have any interpretation. We all know where that ends up - Warmachine. I think we can agree we don't want to go there. 

I don't agree I find Warmachine rules to be worlds better than GW's, including anything GW ever put out at its prime, but I digress.  I thought they had ruled somewhere that the Abhorrent Ghoul King was a straight replacement for the Strigoi Ghoul King and that let you still use the Charnel Pit Carrion battalion, but maybe not this is GW we are talking about.

[TerrorPenguin]

26 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I don't agree I find Warmachine rules to be worlds better than GW's, including anything GW ever put out at its prime, but I digress.  I thought they had ruled somewhere that the Abhorrent Ghoul King was a straight replacement for the Strigoi Ghoul King and that let you still use the Charnel Pit Carrion battalion, but maybe not this is GW we are talking about.

 I'm only being silly. It's great that you enjoy both systems. 

Nothings perfect. If a TO told me I couldn't use my legion of death formation then I would probably... well... just carry on because it's not really worth getting upset about. Equally if they agreed that someone could use their charnel pit carrion then well, never mind.

Its good that we all have a hobby. 

[deynon]

5 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Deynon, buddy...

Might wanna stop ignoring the FAQ there, amigo.

ahahah...no, doesn't work it's in every manual GW, but why doesn't it apply to the ring or other things?

You're climbing the mirrors without using specialized set, it doesn't work.

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

Here is the problem:  I am used to another tabletop game where if a model has something in its name, then it counts as that type regardless.  For example, in this case a "Wight King with a Baleful Tomb Blade" is automatically the type "Wight King" because it's in the name, it gets that property in addition to anything else it has.  Thing is, that doesn't seem to be a rule in GW-land.  This is, also, the major problem with GW rules in general: They are totally vague, and playing as written is often the wrong approach (GW themselves wants to apply intent most of the time).  So you need to do RAI versus RAW or you run into fringe categories.

Nobody is right here.  The best thing to do is to ask your local group or your event/tournament organizer and follow that.  Otherwise, this argument will go around in circles.  @deynon is correct in that, by the specific wording (i.e. RAW), this cannot be used anymore because it doesn't have the right keyword.  However, GW has also shown that they have forgotten that or just ignore it (see: Some of the NEW Stormcast battalions that also would not be legal by RAW, but clearly are intended to be).

There is no solution to this problem, since the problem is caused by a poorly-written set of rules that even the designers themselves don't choose to adhere to.  If GW can't be bothered to follow their own rules and FAQs, why should we?  Even under Open Play this keyword FAQ (which IMHO was nonsense anyways) would be in effect, so entire battalions including ones just released would not be allowed without ignoring the rules.  If that doesn't tell you that the rules are either A) wrong or B) meant to be interpreted not adhered to like a law, I don't know what else will.  

No, those are the keywords and they are defined as another things by FAQ. You are used in a not correct way. You can't say that you are used to pass the red light at the stop so it's correct to do.

It'snot a vague writte rule in this case, it's crystla clear when to use. Those list names ar enot bold ones so: they are not kkeyword so the name has to match exactly, if not...bye bye warscroll battalion.

It's not a thing to ask, cause it's not a thing that you can misundderstand: that is the rule, that is to apply. It's the opposite its the torunament that has to specify, otherway I can claim the victory and the arbiters ha to give me cause I'm following the rules.

Intended? Doesn't exist such rules. Es. The Wh40k. I had some "fight"with che drop pods and the assault the first turn and some declare: "it's intendd so, it's moral so..." and baam the FAQ: "It's allowed and it's supposed to work so".. apity that it was opposite to that: it's intended to be so...

So please avoid such argument, it's only throwing rocks on own feet.

GW makes the rules, we follow those rules. If you want to break it's ok, but not in an unfairy way. Or it's for everyone or none, not on won opportunistic way.

 

4 hours ago, Solaris said:

No. The discussion itself is pointless based on the fact that it is not going anywhere, and that it's not constructive. The reason for this is that your behavior is entirely inflexible, and that your tone is abrasive and rather derogatory. Discussing this with a wall would in fact be more productive. Therefore, we should all stop wasting our time here, and move on with our lives. This discussion is not going to take a single step further forward.

The discussion should not exist cause the way it's said to be used it's the wrong way. Stop.

It's not derogatory, simply you can't say: I decided it's so even if against rule and suppose that you can decide.

In a forum we discussrules, if we do't do it here where, when you play a tournament? Ehm no... I want to play, not to quarrell at a tournament.

3 hours ago, chunk85 said:

You brought this up before, and not to re-hash anything said above, you can use Legion of Death.

In the Compendium points values there are points for a 'Wight King with Infernal Standard' and 'Wight King on Skeleton Steed'.  There are no units with this specific name, but is an option of the generic Wight King as presented in the Vampire Counts Compendium.  As this unit has no suffix, it complies with your interpretation of the rules.

There are. You can see in the comepndium. Otherways you should admit that each option has the own point so if there are not points for those opstions you can't play it...not suitable.

It complies with my itnerpratation: doesnt' exist the rules for the model? You can't play it, simple. Moreover the wight king presented has both the skeletal steed option so no problem at all.

2 hours ago, L.Bromley said:

Well guys looks like I opened a can of worms here!!

As someone who is pretty new to the game I asked a chap from my local gaming group who explained that the strigoi vampire was from old editions of warhammer, that's all I needed to hear.

As a small side note, I'm really enjoying the hobby, all my local gamers are a really great group,an the tournaments I went to were really fun with some fantastic characters attending, but at the end of the day it's a fun game with toy soldiers, there is no need to fall out

Old why? It's common sense taht is tha GK. What...here doesnt' suit the common sense? Really? So the cmmon sense is onyl when you like it?

 

2 hours ago, chunk85 said:

I wouldnt worry too much, most TO's wont be as strict with their interpretations of the rules (as the most important rule of the game is that the rules are a guideline, so if the TO is cool with, its all good, thats probably a debate for another thread) and overall the community is very chilled about this sort of thing.

Are you sure, remember the carrion pit warscrollbattleion and the firm opposition to play it cause the strigoi...what, in that case was ok and now no?

Tules are a guideline? And why someone can decide to not follow the rules as he likes?

So I don't like the FAQ about the ruler of night, it's an indication: we don't use that one...

 

25 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

So, just to clarify, if I rename My Abhorrent Ghoul King -

Strig Oi the Ghoul King

_{with Sharpened Claws, Fangs and a Terrible Attitude}

Can I use him with the Charnel Pit?

 

I jest of course. We don't want to end up with a ruleset that does not have any interpretation. We all know where that ends up - Warmachine. I think we can agree we don't want to go there. 

Warmachine? It's a silly system. No balanced at all and proposed as a solution where is so full of bugs and preconcepts to be crazy.
Surely I dont' want to go there.
But it doesn't mean that here has to be the far west.

21 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I don't agree I find Warmachine rules to be worlds better than GW's, including anything GW ever put out at its prime, but I digress.  I thought they had ruled somewhere that the Abhorrent Ghoul King was a straight replacement for the Strigoi Ghoul King and that let you still use the Charnel Pit Carrion battalion, but maybe not this is GW we are talking about.

The GW would say: do.

THey ar ethe players who say: no...strangely anyway those same guys who sayyou that they wants to ignore tha FAQ cause it's common sense...

[wayniac]

@deynon GW doesn't follow their own FAQs either.  so again:

IF GW CAN'T BE ARSED TO FOLLOW THE RULES, WHY SHOULD WE?

You keep saying you can't apply intent, only what is written; I disagree but this is a perfectly valid stance to take.  So how do you explain GW releasing the new Stormcast book with battalions that, per your definition (which, let us assume is correct per RAW) are not legal for play?  Are you going to argue that you can't use that battalion either, even though it's in a newer book?  Do you not see the absurdity of this by saying "But its the rules/FAQ" when GW is releasing something that contradicts the FAQ?

You seem to be giving GW way too much credit to A) Write rules that don't require interpretation and B) Are not ambiguous enough to allow multiple interpretations and C) remember their own rules and apply them in a reasonable manner.

I do not even get what you are arguing.  The Legion of Death battalion says it requires "1x Wight King".  Are you trying to say that a "Wight King with Black Axe" is not the same thing as a "Wight King" (with no extra words following it) even though it has the Wight King keyword?  You are applying what looks like strict boolean logic:

"Wight King" <does not equal> "Wight King w/Black Axe" because you are looking at the exact name.

To put it another way, the NEW stormcast book has the Hammerstrike Force that says it requires "Prosecutors" (not bolded).  There is no unit that just has the name "Prosecutors" its either "Prosecutors with Celestial Hammers" or "Prosecutors with Stormcall Javelins".  @deynon are you saying that the Hammerstrike Force battalion is not valid?  In a book that just came out a couple weeks ago, after the FAQ in question that you are referencing was released?

[deynon]

16 minutes ago, wayniac said:

@deynon GW doesn't follow their own FAQs either.  so again:

IF GW CAN'T BE ARSED TO FOLLOW THE RULES, WHY SHOULD WE?

You keep saying you can't apply intent, only what is written; I disagree but this is a perfectly valid stance to take.  So how do you explain GW releasing the new Stormcast book with battalions that, per your definition (which, let us assume is correct per RAW) are not legal for play?  Are you going to argue that you can't use that battalion either, even though it's in a newer book?  Do you not see the absurdity of this by saying "But its the rules/FAQ" when GW is releasing something that contradicts the FAQ?

You seem to be giving GW way too much credit to A) Write rules that don't require interpretation and B) Are not ambiguous enough to allow multiple interpretations and C) remember their own rules and apply them in a reasonable manner.

I do not even get what you are arguing.  The Legion of Death battalion says it requires "1x Wight King".  Are you trying to say that a "Wight King with Black Axe" is not the same thing as a "Wight King" (with no extra words following it) even though it has the Wight King keyword?

You can not follow the GW rules, but such has to be fair to everyone and such behaviour is not such in this case.

GW mistaken, not the first time, but the FAQ is such.  I can argue yes, and I'm rright about it cause till you declare on the description of the tournament that you invalid that FAQ and that those lists names are Keyword, otherway the FAQ is valid and those warscroll battalion and much more ones are the same.

But says you have to ask...no. It's not so. It's something that has to done by the organizer/arbiters, not by the player. Moreover cause the problem isknown.

You do it and everything work, but you can't avoid it and declare that it's all ok, cause you don't follow the rules that you say you do.

A) I dont' need to interprrete if the rule is clear such the FAQ

B) I can put in doubt much more than you think

C) you are not GW so what gives you or another one to arbitrarely decide what and how everyone has to play? fi you do you have to be fair, not pending only on one side. Say " its's so cause I say so" or "I'ts common sense" and then "I don't care" when someone give you example when you do the opposite about the same cases...beh...it's not something to do.

Yes. They are not the same, as arre not the same A liberator and a Celestand: both are StormCast but they're not the same. 

You continue to say "keywords" but the lists name are not keywords.  You continue to pretend it, but such they're not cause the FAQ, Stop to pretend is such.

You wnat to ignore the FAQ, it's ok to say " I delte that FAQ and the lists units of the warscroll battlaions are Keywords). 

But not try to justify as by the rules, cause is not such. You're lying if you do so. 

And it's what I continue to repeat and you seem to not want to understand. The lists names are NOT Keywords based on that FAQ. NOT  Keywords. So stop to call them Keywords.

It's like to see a banana and call it apple. They're not the same thing.