Key word issues

[wayniac]

@deynon So answer my question then.  Let's take the new Hammerstrike Force from the NEW Stormcast book (you know, the one that came out after the ridiculous FAQ).  It requires 2 units of PALADINS (bolded) and 1 unit of Prosecutors (not bolded).  Is it legal to use?  Yes or no?

[deynon]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

@deynon So answer my question then.  Let's take the new Hammerstrike Force from the NEW Stormcast book.  It requires 1 unit of PALADINS (bolded) and 1 unit of Prosecutors (not bolded).  Is it legal to use?  Yes or no?

I haven't seen that warscroll directly if one is bold one and one is not bold.

Beh, the bold one is Keyword the other one is simply a name. It's legale to use when you use a unit with Keyword Paladins and a units names Prosecutors. If one of those is not...you can't use it, even if the unit is called Prosecutor instead of Prosecutors cause they're not the same name.

It's not about legal or illegal. Every warscroll battlaion is legal.

About usable...it's another thing.

And you cna't say it doesn't have sense. Cuase have the keyword Paladins can let you play a lo more different units with paladins keyword and instead require a specific unit called Prsoecutors.

That unit doesn't exist...who cares? It's not my business. Take the case about the Carrion pit warscroll battlaion: it's legal, but not usable.

Or it works for everyone or not.

And the difference in the tect tht you reported is not something that count as a problem, not at all. 

So: or the GW release a FAQ (no, the X, Y;Z of a mail/GW store said a thing different...I don't care) or is such.

You wnat to change the rules? You have to declare in the infos of the tournament and they have to be for everyone. You can't pretend to : oh...it's a new thing and I can't use it...cause it doesn't work so.

[wayniac]

So the answer is no you cannot actually field it because prosecutors is not bold and there is no unit with that exact name (it's Prosecutors {with weapons}). At the least you are consistent with your viewpoint even though I disagree I will give you that. However you still do not seem to understand this is a new book after The FAQ so obviously GW is not even paying attention to this kind of stuff because it is specifically not a keyword. It is fairly clear that if the unit has part of the name in it then it should count as that type but that is neither here nor there because it is not explicitly spelled out since this is GW we are talking about

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chunk85]

1 hour ago, deynon said:

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.

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?

 

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...

Ok, so I'm going to have to read around the grammer on this one.

Do not confuse the way GW had points values for the current 'Wight King with Cursed Sword' (or whatever have you) and the Compendium Wight King with infernal standard, or on skeletal steed.  Most likely its an oversite on GW's part, as both have identical options.  But, as you have clearly said, we must follow the rules exactly as presented.  The Generals Handbook states that their are points values for the old version of the hero. I choose to take the Compendium Wight King and can therefore take the Battalion:

Damn, meant to be a pic here...(https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Compendiums/warhammer-aos-vampire-counts-en.pdf  page 19)

As for your second point, no, I do not remember it.  I do know, however, that any TO can impose any extra rules he chooses, without the express permission of GW.  So, yes, they are guidelines and EVERY tournament will deviate from them from somewhere between slighty (minor losses for example, these are not in the Handbook or anywhere else) and Majorily (SCGT bespoke missions, preview points values, comping priority dice rolls). 

Perhaps you need to calm down a little about this subject and realise there is alot of grey area in a game not designed for tournaments.

[deynon]

8 minutes ago, wayniac said:

So the answer is no you cannot actually field it because prosecutors is not bold and there is no unit with that exact name (it's Prosecutors {with weapons}). At the least you are consistent with your viewpoint even though I disagree I will give you that. However you still do not seem to understand this is a new book after The FAQ so obviously GW is not even paying attention to this kind of stuff because it is specifically not a keyword. It is fairly clear that if the unit has part of the name in it then it should count as that type but that is neither here nor there because it is not explicitly spelled out since this is GW we are talking about

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I dont' say that it doesn't follow the rules. The rules are so. They made wrong, I don't care. They have to correct. About names they have yet doen so for the undead. The rules are such, such I aplly. The post a FAQ correction changing the name or putting the bold instead of the italic, it's ok. Till then not usable as the carrion pit and everything else similar. OR all similar o nothing.

Fairly clear? Even not. Cause a warscroll battlaion that uses a mix of keywords and unit names can be intended by GW. You can't claim to know. You follow the rules, stop.

Or you change the rules, but they have to be fair, otherways it's not so.

 

@chunk85: nope. Cause doesn't exist a model Named only "Wight king" with the points so. The model from compendium isusable only if it has the name "Wight king on skeleton steed" if there isn't an appropriate rpofile is not usable at all.

The same way a model called terrorgheist you can both used the GA:Death version or the FEC one cause it's the name used.

There are not grey areas in a tournament.  Not wwhen is about listing. If a torunament deviate from the rules it has to declare where and when it deviate, not arbitrarily on the spot.

I'm perfectly calm. 

But you can't say that a thing is called in a way when it's said explcitily is not so.

As I said: you can change but you have to declare it clearly and it has to be fair. Saying Prosecutors yes, ghoul king not...is not an example of fairness cause the "common sense" is the same. 

It's not so difficult to understand.

[wayniac]

I think the problem ultimately is complete inconsistency in GW's rules.  They likely do not remember what the rule even is, and probably don't expect people to be as strict as this discussion is about it precisely (there is, of course, no way to determine this for sure, but judging how they have spoken in interviews and on streams, it's probable).  The issue here is trying to apply a blanket thing (e.g. the FAQ) when even GW doesn't write with that in mind (Hammerstrike Force being a clear example, since out of the box it's not even able to be fielded due to the FAQ; I would be willing to bet money that the FAQ didn't even factor into it, they simply forgot it was even a thing).  Whether or not it's a mistake (maybe Prosecutors should be PROSECUTORS in bold), the fact remains that very few people are going to wait until GW fixes it (which will probably never happen).  This is arguing semantics and fringe cases that should never happen because this is a social game.  Even if that IS the rules (which, by RAW, we can state is the rules), who would enforce it?  @deynon is arguing for it, but I think his argument (and I apologize as it's sometimes hard to follow what he is saying as English isn't his first language) is that by the rules, you can't do it.  I agree, but there's a difference between "By the rules" and "In practice".  I'm pretty sure most people won't have a problem with allowing it, even if it's "wrong".

[deynon]

6 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think the problem ultimately is complete inconsistency in GW's rules.  They likely do not remember what the rule even is, and probably don't expect people to be as strict as this discussion is about it precisely (there is, of course, no way to determine this for sure, but judging how they have spoken in interviews and on streams, it's probable).  The issue here is trying to apply a blanket thing (e.g. the FAQ) when even GW doesn't write with that in mind (Hammerstrike Force being a clear example, since out of the box it's not even able to be fielded due to the FAQ; I would be willing to bet money that the FAQ didn't even factor into it, they simply forgot it was even a thing).  Whether or not it's a mistake (maybe Prosecutors should be PROSECUTORS in bold), the fact remains that very few people are going to wait until GW fixes it (which will probably never happen).  This is arguing semantics and fringe cases that should never happen because this is a social game.  Even if that IS the rules (which, by RAW, we can state is the rules), who would enforce it?  @deynon is arguing for it, but I think his argument (and I apologize as it's sometimes hard to follow what he is saying as English isn't his first language) is that by the rules, you can't do it.  I agree, but there's a difference between "By the rules" and "In practice".  I'm pretty sure most people won't have a problem with allowing it, even if it's "wrong".

it seems I need to quite improve my english so^^

Anyway  I quote you totally. 

What I mind is not that you (intended generically) modify the rules. I don't care that. You decide the rule you wnat to use in a tournament; there're your HR.

I have my own too: 1) I measure from the bases (it's not anymore a HR, but I always used so) 2) you don't climb on my bases

But one thing is to say: I modified the rules and such are, onether one is says: this is the way the rules works. It's not so.

And sincerely I'm sick of the people who say: it's obvius that, it's common sense that, the intentions of the GD were these ones... trying to justify their vision.

I too decided unilaterally to allow the Black templar to dismount and charge form the Land raiders when the rules changed and their vehicles lost the rule, but it was my decision and not the rule and then it was to the BT to choose if follow the rule or my concession.

I simply want to call the things with their name and not having some "guru" who declre which are the ones are the real ones.

Saying "it's common sense" it's a mocking the inerlocutor cause it's not so, it'syour vision.

By the rules I'm right. You want to use different ones: declare which ones and how to apply them, not "use common sense" cause it's like saying "all the water are the same"...and such it isn't.

[chunk85]

16 minutes ago, deynon said:

But one thing is to say: I modified the rules and such are, onether one is says: this is the way the rules works. It's not so.

And sincerely I'm sick of the people who say: it's obvius that, it's common sense that, the intentions of the GD were these ones... trying to justify their vision.

I too decided unilaterally to allow the Black templar to dismount and charge form the Land raiders when the r

I simply want to call the things with their name and not having some "guru" who declre which are the ones are the real ones.

Saying "it's common sense" it's a mocking the inerlocutor cause it's not so, it'syour vision.

By the rules I'm right. You want to use different ones: declare which ones and how to apply them, not "use common sense" cause it's like saying "all the water are the same"...and such it isn't.

Not to worry, turns out I'd misunderstood you!

Perhaps it may have been better to say (and what I was trying to get at was) is that if there's any confusion, ask the TO first. 

[deynon]

8 minutes ago, chunk85 said:

Not to worry, turns out I'd misunderstood you!

Perhaps it may have been better to say (and what I was trying to get at was) is that if there's any confusion, ask the TO first. 

It's not something to ask to the TO, It's something the TO has to declare before. Cause otherway it's supposed to follow the rules that say something compeltely different.

[wayniac]

19 minutes ago, deynon said:

It's not something to ask to the TO, It's something the TO has to declare before. Cause otherway it's supposed to follow the rules that say something compeltely different.

Correct but not everyone will do that (also that could be a big list! haha), so its always a good idea to double-check things  

[deynon]

Just now, wayniac said:

Correct but not everyone will do that (also that could be a big list! haha), so its always a good idea to double-check things  

it's not so difficult. You have only to declare invalid that FAQ, or that the lists units are considered also Keywords.

Otherway you hav eto release a list on names associated to each warscroll battlaion that has problem.

And it's the work a TO have to do. It has to declare the rules, the user has to ask about specific questions ok, but such thing is a general one and a big one too so has to be declared in the TO rules.

[chunk85]

13 minutes ago, deynon said:

It's not something to ask to the TO, It's something the TO has to declare before. Cause otherway it's supposed to follow the rules that say something compeltely different.

Whilst I fully understand what you are getting at there, a TO cannot possibly know the answer to every possible question.

Again, alot of grey areas in a game not designed for tournaments, and not just army selection.  By all means, if they are aware of it, it should be included.  But it would be unwise to assume they know everything.

Anyway, thats probably more a topic for general discussion.

[deynon]

13 minutes ago, chunk85 said:

Whilst I fully understand what you are getting at there, a TO cannot possibly know the answer to every possible question.

Again, alot of grey areas in a game not designed for tournaments, and not just army selection.  By all means, if they are aware of it, it should be included.  But it would be unwise to assume they know everything.

Anyway, thats probably more a topic for general discussion.

notevery question, but the main ones yers. Cause this is a main one and quite important too.

The arbiters are supposed to know such problems so they dont' have excuses. 

[Andreas]

30 minutes ago, deynon said:

notevery question, but the main ones yers. Cause this is a main one and quite important too.

The arbiters are supposed to know such problems so they dont' have excuses. 

But to be fair this has never been a main one. These formations have been used in several large tournaments and this is at least for me the first time this question have been raised ie "can I run the new formations in the new stormcast book or can I run the legion of death".

[deynon]

1 minute ago, Andreas said:

But to be fair this has never been a main one. These formations have been used in several large tournaments and this is at least for me the first time this question have been raised ie "can I run the new formations in the new stormcast book or can I run the legion of death".

Strange that is new cause it's on the edge since the December 2016 when exit the FAQ. And even before there where some question.

[Andreas]

25 minutes ago, deynon said:

Strange that is new cause it's on the edge since the December 2016 when exit the FAQ. And even before there where some question.

Sure but from memory they were only regarding the compendium stuff never regarding new releases. Even if you can argue that new releases must also be checked against this FAQ I dont think anyone have bothered. Well ofcourse someone have somewhere, I just havent seen it or read about it.

[deynon]

6 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Sure but from memory they were only regarding the compendium stuff never regarding new releases. Even if you can argue that new releases must also be checked against this FAQ I dont think anyone have bothered. Well ofcourse someone have somewhere, I just havent seen it or read about it.

In italian commnities has been done and also int his section when they exited.

[Andreas]

8 minutes ago, deynon said:

In italian commnities has been done and also int his section when they exited.

Yeah, it's a big community. Havn't seen that (and dont read Italian).

Must be a very different discussion going on regarding the new Stormcast Book in italy.

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Ever have those moments where you realise the failure of Internet communication in resolving arguments like these? Like, I've never had a rules argument this bull headed before in real life. 

Sometimes you may lament the inability to slam your hands on the table and shout, "it's toy soldiers man, calm the heck down."

I mean if we directed half the effort Deynon has spent shouting down opposing views towards the deep injustices of the world, we'd have a utopia by Christmas. 

For my part, I'm out and this thread can achieve nothing worthwhile. I pity those who find themselves across the table from Deynon if he's half as contrarian and anally-retentive in real life as he is on here. 

I just wish that I could care as much about the minutiae of rules as he does, but I have other silly concerns like a job, finances and other silly things to worry about that dilute it somewhat.  

[AverageBoss]

10 hours ago, deynon said:

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

The arguments presented are much closer to saying an Apple w/ Green Skin and an Apple w/ Red Skin, are both Apples.

Your example would be like saying my Ork Megaboss is a Celestant Prime, which nobody is.

[wayniac]

Incidentally I noticed something that I think puts this argument to bed. Look at the war scroll for prosecutors or in this case the wight king. The name Wight King is in larger font and underneath it in smaller font it says with black axe or with tomb blade. So technically Wight King is the name of the model and then there are two different options for it with different scrolls. This is different than something that only lists the name of the unit.

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

[deynon]

13 hours ago, Andreas said:

Yeah, it's a big community. Havn't seen that (and dont read Italian).

Must be a very different discussion going on regarding the new Stormcast Book in italy.

 

 There are more users than here...so...which one is a big community. A bigger community is righter and better? Why? Based on what? On bigger numbers...if so...such is not this forum in that case. 

Discussion can ever be. There are discussions even on the angel's gender. 
IF we're tlaking about rules the rules are the base to talk about.

Then can be seen the alternatives, but can't be said the alternatives are the real rules, cause such it isn't.

There's quite a difference.

Moreover...really you want to make a saying abour small communities when you ar ein a forum that is supposed to be worldwide? So...why case about england...is such a small country. Or you mean the ones whould really talk who'd be only chinese people? They're the biggest numbers in share population? What? You dont' uinderstand chinese so you don't care? 

The ideas and arguments doesn't follow the bigger or smaller.

The rules are such as I said, cuase those are the rules.
They can be changed, but they have to be fair to everyone.
The modifications can be better, but they can't be said to be as the rules are: they're still a modification.

12 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Ever have those moments where you realise the failure of Internet communication in resolving arguments like these? Like, I've never had a rules argument this bull headed before in real life. 

Sometimes you may lament the inability to slam your hands on the table and shout, "it's toy soldiers man, calm the heck down."

I mean if we directed half the effort Deynon has spent shouting down opposing views towards the deep injustices of the world, we'd have a utopia by Christmas. 

For my part, I'm out and this thread can achieve nothing worthwhile. I pity those who find themselves across the table from Deynon if he's half as contrarian and anally-retentive in real life as he is on here. 

I just wish that I could care as much about the minutiae of rules as he does, but I have other silly concerns like a job, finances and other silly things to worry about that dilute it somewhat.  

You are the type of opponents that like to abuse movements and so on based on what you write. You can't distinghuish between discuss about rules and play.

Your irony is bad located cause it's the last edge before the falling in the trolling.

I dont' have problems on the table except those ones who try to mock or try to use dirty tricks to win.

You can't deny the rules are such. YOu can change them, as I said it's perfectly udeful, but you can't say you're right, cause you can't.

And if you change the rules you can't justify with: " I want to play this, I can, you can't".

You continue to assess "common sense", but then you fail in doing it cause you justify only those ones you are interested in and the cases are to be equal for everyone.

It's silly to talk about "much biger interests" we're on a forum talking about miniatures and rules about them, not the sense of the ife, otherways you shoul not even play anything cause it's bad towards everyone who suffers in the world . Aboid such ridiculous defence, cuae it's only a disgusting way to try to seem superior about nothing.

If you're so interesting in jb, finances...take your concerns there and I should ask you: why do you play so? You have so many thngs better and more important than these to care about... 
You seems like the creationists talking and it's not a compliment.

6 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

The arguments presented are much closer to saying an Apple w/ Green Skin and an Apple w/ Red Skin, are both Apples.

Your example would be like saying my Ork Megaboss is a Celestant Prime, which nobody is.

They're both models...
If you don't understand the difference between bold and not bold characters is not my fault, sorry, I suggest you to make a search about it....

46 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Incidentally I noticed something that I think puts this argument to bed. Look at the war scroll for prosecutors or in this case the wight king. The name Wight King is in larger font and underneath it in smaller font it says with black axe or with tomb blade. So technically Wight King is the name of the model and then there are two different options for it with different scrolls. This is different than something that only lists the name of the unit.

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Yet notices but it's not so, cause there's nothing to identify the difference. GW used that space as the name of the unit, so such is.
The options are referred in the box in the warscroll, but "with..." it's still part of the name of the unit". Cause it Keywords are useful. But such is not the case.

[CoffeeGrunt]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Incidentally I noticed something that I think puts this argument to bed. Look at the war scroll for prosecutors or in this case the wight king. The name Wight King is in larger font and underneath it in smaller font it says with black axe or with tomb blade. So technically Wight King is the name of the model and then there are two different options for it with different scrolls. This is different than something that only lists the name of the unit.

Already brought this up, and all but one are in agreement.

[Andreas]

We are all somewhere on a scale how we try to read and apply the rules.

But I do think most people are somewhere in the middle and that this issue are well within what is acceptable for most.

Then we have outliers in both directions. I would probably allow the 10 giants army even if it would decide the tournament in some way just to see it on the table.

[deynon]

1 hour ago, Andreas said:

We are all somewhere on a scale how we try to read and apply the rules.

But I do think most people are somewhere in the middle and that this issue are well within what is acceptable for most.

Then we have outliers in both directions. I would probably allow the 10 giants army even if it would decide the tournament in some way just to see it on the table.

Again with "common sense".

HAve you read what have I written?

Rules are such as I said.

You can change them, but not call them as the original rules.

If you want to change them you hav to make them fair and not favourite to only someone.

Continue to call "common sense" when before it has been forbidden cause RAW the same thing...it's at least hypocrit.

Cause I could ask you. So why against carrion pit when common sense has that the strigoi is a gk? And cariron pit is a warscroll battaion that has points. But there not cause the name is different...beh, the situation is the same, strangely the answers are different cause someone wants to be blind when he likes it...

So avoid to call the "common sense" as justification. What most people do is not necessarily correct and can't be claimed to be.

The solutions are simple and they don't alter the playing most people do to a TO, butit requires to realize that is a side version of the rules, and it has to be declared how it work clearly.

You can't claim that a strigoi and a prosecutors are different when they are the same. You cant claim that characters not bold written are bold written.

You can say that you for that TO consider the lists names as Keywords too. Or that you deny the FAQ. But it's something that has to be declared, not something that is obvious, cause if you don't say anything the rules say something different.

 

It's not keeping off anything from anyone, simply doing things as should be done. Change is not a problem, declare that you play a different version is a must anyway.

You have to be fair if you want to call "common sense" to change a rule, not change only as you like, cause it's not anymore "common sense".

 

The base of  TO is "Exactly as the rules are wirtten" if differers: declare it. Cause it you say that what I say is "as the rules are written" you say I'm right. And such it is. None forbid you to play a different way, simply you have to declare it, otherway you can't say I'm wrong cuase you first hand admit I'm right.