Do VC Black Knights ignore the barding penalty? Seems to me like they do, but I am new to fantasy so perhaps I am missing something.

From rulebook p12: "Troops riding mounts with barding more more slowly because the weight of the armor impedes movement. A cavalry mount with barding suffers a -1" move penalty."

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Seems like ghost horses aren't encumbered by ghost armor plates. Am I way off base here?

That's the argument, yes.

There is a counter-argument that runs something like this:

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Therefore, barding confers no advantage at all, as the model cannot be affected by barding (an item that would otherwise reduce their movement).

I have no opinion one way or t'other, as I don't play VCs. As usual, GW runs into trouble by setting up a global rule, and then breaking it.

I guess ... I'd have to weigh in on the side that says if you want the barding save benefit you take the barding movement negative. Barding is extra points, right? And I'm guessing cheap enough to infer the movement negative isn't ignored?

- Salvage

There's also an intent argument some people use, that the word "item" is referring to magic items.

Yet another reason GW needs to put out a FAQ in the near future.

A reasoned argument can clearly be made either way thanks to an apparent lack in any sort of proofreading.

My personal thoughts are that they should be affected, as the rule in the description of black knights seems to be geared towards the 'ignoring terrain' aspect mostly, because remember, the steeds AREN'T ethereal, they just move like they are.

It's a simple mistake that can be very easily rectified.

I think I'd go with insufficientnoj here. And really, why would they say they're barded if it didn't matter?

no they are not slowed down and yes they get the +1 save.

i think we are really splitting hairs on this.the use of a comma does not mean that you can end the sentence. the whole sentence needs to be taken as a whole reference to the rule.

i cant just select all 3 things and take each as a whole. for example...

"They are also never affected by any special rule that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely"

"They are also never affected by any spell that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely "

"They are also never affected by any item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely"

this would make no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. "Dirty Bob never bathes, cuts his hair or changes his clothes" implies "Dirty Bob never bathes", "Dirty Bob never cuts his hair" as well as "Dirty Bob never changes his clothes." What's the problem?

Im gonna go with they move as if they were ethereal (ignore movement penalty) but are not actually ethereal so gain the +1.

they are at -1 move for the barding.
the rule is for game effects such as spells and terrain.

Yup, poor rule writing meets power gaming. Welcome to Hell.

I intend to run my barded BKs at M7. I also Invoke into combat.

If a VC player insists on M8 in an unpleasant manner, I would point out that that ignore means ignore- so no +1 AS either ;-) If they persist, bring up the no casting Invocation into combat, or Miasma, and watch their head explode.

For me, I prefer friendlier, less ridiculous games where I can be reasonable and expect reasonableness from my opponent. The absurdist arguments really exhaust me. Do some of these people forget these are toy soldiers that we spend outrageous amounts of time and money on to have fun?

Maybe it's just because I am a lawyer and so get my fill of ridiculous nitpicking and word parsing at work, where they have to pay me to do it.

So you would be paying an extra point for a piece of gear that does absolutely nothing? Even GW isn't that intellectually impared.

It's wieghtless armor, no penalty to movement.
It's magical, it adds the +1 to protection.

See, that argument makes sense.

Arguing a RAW interpretation that makes an item you pay for intentionaly useless, is absurd

Is it regular barding ? No
Is it better than regualr barding that way ? Yes

So you would be paying an extra point for a piece of gear that does absolutely nothing? Even GW isn't that intellectually impared.

This isn't much of an argument. An Ork warboss in 40k can buy 'eavy armour even though he's on a bike, and an Inquisitor can buy carapace armour even though he is already wearing it by default. And any number of characters have the option to buy a CCW even though they have no single-handed weapon to combine it with.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but it will need something stronger than "GW wouldn't let you pay points for something useless" to back it up.

(Wow, I am debating the rules of a game I don't even play. Go me.)

Slyde wrote:Do VC Black Knights ignore the barding penalty? Seems to me like they do, but I am new to fantasy so perhaps I am missing something.

From rulebook p12: "Troops riding mounts with barding more more slowly because the weight of the armor impedes movement. A cavalry mount with barding suffers a -1" move penalty."

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Seems like ghost horses aren't encumbered by ghost armor plates. Am I way off base here?

I agree that Barding does not slow the Black Knights.

P1. Barding has 2 Special rules, one of which reduces the movement of a barded model by 1 P12.
P2. Black Knights are never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely.

C. Black Knights are not affected by the special rule for barding that reduces their movement by 1.

I think the question is, are the mounts etherial, or is it the riders. if it's the riders, then there movment is hampered because it is the mounts doing the moving.

The Skeletal Steeds have the rule not the riders.

Negativemonkey: The problem is that it sort of cherry picks. Not affected means not affected. Barding is an item with 2 effects. One effect is the -1 movement. This triggers the steed rule so they are not effected by the barding.

I see your interpretation, but I feel both are equally unreasonable. Again, if a player insists on ignoring the penalty, they should be well prepared to not cast Invocation or Miasma into combat. Discuss with your opponents or TO in advance.

I think this is just greed. If BK barding ignored the -1, I am fairly certain the rule would specifically state that and not leave it to such tortured deduction. So far, GW seems content to simplify and have barding reduce across the board (notice even the ithilmar barding rule is gone this time around).

jmurph, Barding has 2 separate special rules one that gives a bonus and the other gives a penalty. Each of these are mutually exclusive and one can be pacified while the other can still have effect.

As far as invocation is concerned there is more than enough evidence within the rules to imply that it can be cast in combat. The Rules for casting into combat do not require explicit permission but rather any indication that it can.

actually the rule states that a spell cannot be cast into combat unless it is specifically stated that it can in the spells description. the problem most people are commenting on is that thetre is a specific example in the army book that describes the spell being cast into close combat, or so I hear. I do not have the book because I do not play VC, and never will. I hate Vampires, and always have.

jmurph, Barding has 2 separate special rules one that gives a bonus and the other gives a penalty. Each of these are mutually exclusive and one can be pacified while the other can still have effect.

Alternative perspective:

Barding is an item, which has two rules. One of the rules reduces movement. Therefore, barding is an item which would reduce movement.

Ethereal creatures are not affected by items which would reduce movement. Ergo, Black Knights are not affected by barding. If they're not affected by barding, they don't suffer the movement penalty AND they don't get the armor bonus.

(Again, I don't really care. But the argument is valid - if you decide that Barding is an item, you're stuck with all the consequences thereof.)

Easy answer, in the case of a rules ambiguity, go with the interpretation that is gives the lesser benefit. Therefore, Barding on Black Knights gives +1 Save and reduces movement by one until GW tells me otherwise.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree with ozymandias.
In my opinion, one thing is clear: they wouldn't state that the mounts are barded, if you wouldn't get the advantage of barding. Ergo, you get the advantage, it's clear that's what the design team wanted. So the question isn't: do they ignore the barding completely or do they only get the advantages?
It will definitly keep the advantages, and till GW makes it clear, you should take the penalty with it to avoid arguements, unless ofcourse your opponent agrees to let you keep the unhampered movement.

Yup, that' my point Janthkin. It can be dangerous to get to carried away with RAW twisting.

I agree with you Oz. But by that token would you also not Invoke into combat?

I really wish GW would update their FAQs....

There is nothing in the rules that supports the idea that Barding is an Item. Until you can show me a rule that states it is an item I will treat it as a unit upgrade that confers 2 special rules.

The only things that are classified as items in the rules are Magic items listed in each army list.

Really? Then lances, great weapons, armor, and other mundane equipment are not items? Only the magical equivalents?

By your argument it is an upgrade that confers the movement penalty then? Hrm.... I don't recall upgrades being covered by the steeds rule. And if you want to get really nitpicky barding rules aren't "special"- they are basic rules in the rule book.

Again, I would refer to Oz's response which shows great wisdom and sportsmanship.

I would argue that Weapons are Weapons Armor is Armor and Steeds are mounts. There is nothing to indicate that they fall into the item category. Enchanted Items and Arcane Items are the only 2 things in the game that fall into the Item category as they are listed as items.

As I have said by RAW the only thing that is ignored by the skeletal steed special rule is that barding will not reduce the movement of the unit by 1. There is nothing in RAW that will support it any other way.

Janthkin, what you're missing is that the black knights have a rule that says their ethereal for purposes of movment, not in general.

So when they move, they're ethereal, and suffer no -1".

When you shoot or magic or hit them, they aren't moving, and aren't ethereal, and get the +1 to their save.

Wait, doesn't the VC book list barding as armor?

ed, I think you are assuming facts not there. It does not say during the movement phase, it simply says they ignore. And you also fail to address a number of arguments that say they wouldn't ignore it anyway.

Barding is armor, barding is not a special rule, etc...

I think reasonable minds can disagree on the result, but saying there is no ambiguity when so many people familiar with the rules disagree is a bit strange.

Well, I don't have the book in front of me, but I know the words 'for the purposes of movment' are in there. I'm not going to bother quoting the book, because I don't care enough to follow up when i have the book, but it's there.

RE: Invoking in to combat. They have always been able to invoke into combat and there is an example of what happens if you invoke into combat so I don't think its a comparable issue.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias: I wish it were so. The problem is thus: The basic rules say you cannot cast magic into combat unless the spell specifically says so. Invocation has no such specification (ironically neither does Miasma...). It simply states what happens to chargers who are affected by the spell. I know what you are thinking- well how else do you get into combat, duh! Except that there *are* other ways. Spells, for example. It is conceivable that the description refers to a unit that subsequently is Unseen Lurkers, etc.

I should also note that I am merely playing devil's advocate here. I firmly believe that Invocation should be castable into combat and BKs suffer -1 as these seem to be the most reasonable and just "feel" right. Fortunately, my local TOs seem to agree. I highly recommend VC players discuss this with opponents and TOs rather than making assumptions, though. The Canadian GTs, for example allow Invocation into combat while apparently several US Battle Bunkers do not. To me the Invocation issue is far more troubling than barding, which is just a nice perk if it works out. And since GW hasn't put out a FAQ in a while....

Well, I agree, and my club will just have to make a decision (we have several VC players). I'm sure it'll be FAQ'd in a couple years so no worries...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I just have to say I find it very disturbing when clubs make a 'call' on issues that are not ambiguous in the rules.

Black knights get all the pluses of barding and none of the minuses. Playing it any other way is playing contrary to the rules. There is zero ambiguity on the point in the rules. Absolutely no argument can be made to the contrary with any basis in the rules.

(same goes for invoc into hth, but that's a different issue).

If GW has no problem with it, neither should you. remember the MOST IMPORTANT RULE that GW puts in all of their rule books. the point of the game is to have fun, and if there is a question or problem with a rule, then find a compromise, or dice off. GW also says House rules are fine by them, and making a call on a quetionable rule is making a house rule.

I don't care what any club does when they play at their clubhouse.

But I don't want to hear the whining when I insist we follow the rules when you have to play me and we're not in your clubhouse.

This is not an issue of a questionable rule. It's crystal clear. Just because a rule doesn't work the way people want doesn't make a rule ambiguous.

And if it's just about fun, people should just follow the rules. Following the rules is fun for everyone, unless you're a tool used to getting your own way.

I agree that we should follow the rule as written. I do that anyways. my point is that it obviously isn;t as clear as you think it is if it such a huge debate. I happen to agree with you that the knights ignore the barding penalty, and get the +1. I don't know what your stance on invok into combat is, but as the spell doesn't say specifically that you can cast into combat, then you can't do it. the rule is that you cannot cast into combat unless the spell specifically says you can. but my gaming group has taken the stance that since they have always been able to cast the spell into combat, and with the example and everything, then we decided that we will let the VC players cast invok into combat.

The rule is crystal clear. Just because some people are too stupid to understand it doesn't change that fact.

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but the universe really doesn't care.

And even the design team admits you can't presently cast invoke into combat:

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51486

“This is one of the FAQs I'm compiling. The last paragraph of the text strongly implies that you can cast it into combat, but does not actually state it. The FAQ clarifies that the spell can be cast into combat.

Alessio"

So if the dev team says it can be and this will be in an upcoming FAQ, doesn't that mean you can cast it into combat?

yea, that's what i read. I don't know how you can get "VC cannot cast invocation into combat" out of "the intent from the beginnig was that they could cast Invocation into caombet."

Mauleed = RAW Dictator

You have your answer. Even in ambiguous situations where the DESIGNER has said what his intent was, Mauleed will still go with RAW. There is even a song about this condition, its called, "Blinded by the RAW."

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What part is confusing you guys? He said three things.

1. He intended for it to be allowed to cast into combat.

2. The rules don't say you can.

3. Someday, if you're lucky and they bother to release an FAQ, you'll be allowed to cast into combat.

If from that you get 'you can cast into combat now', you're probably the sort of person that thinks your Hillary really will make it all better.

Your comment about Hilary completely derailed any sense of credibility the rest of your post had.

1. It's an ambigous situation

2. We now know it was intended for it to be allowed to cast into combat.

3. It should therefore be allowed to cast into combat

You've got a funny idea of ambiguous.

The rules specifically say that you may not cast into combat unless specified otherwise. Alessio confirms it does not specify otherwise.

There's no ambiguity there.

I have to say, Ed is being consistent. He is playing strict RAW, which is better than some who try to claim the 8 BK movement and IoN into combat.

However, most Fantasy games/tournies/etc. I have seen tend to not be quite so literalist and I expect Alessio's statement will carry more weight than Ed gives it (for example, see how it changed the answer in the faq that Ed links to) and expect based on that that many TOs will allow IoN into combat. On the BK issue, we played it as the -1 at our tourney this weekend and I didn't notice anywhere where it made a difference. However, not allowing IoN into combat would have made a huge difference. As it was, vamps took top 2 without needing any OTT lists. (Neither had more than 10 pd, no BKs, no regenning banner, etc.)

The rules for the steeds do in fact say for Movement purposes only they count as ethereal. This indicates to me that they will still get the Barding bonus and will not be effected by the movement penalty

Jmurph: I don't mind at all if a tournament organizer says he'll be changing the rule and allowing IoN into hth, as long as he announces it in advance so I know what I'm getting into. I actually play it that way in all my pickup games where my opponent doesn't insist otherwise so that I get practice against it.

I'll play by whatever the rules are, be they GW rules or tournament rules, just so long as they're written down and/or universally consistent.

mauleed wrote:You've got a funny idea of ambiguous.

The rules specifically say that you may not cast into combat unless specified otherwise. Alessio confirms it does not specify otherwise.

There's no ambiguity there.

Warhammer works on the concept that army specific rules superceed generic rules.

The generic rule is that spells can't be cast into combat.

The specific spell is, by design, used by units in close combat.
There is an example of it being used in close combat.
Allessio confirmed that it was intended to be used in close combat.

The ONLY argument against it being cast into combat is the generic rule, while everything specific points to it quite clearly being designed to be used in combat.

Yes, the literal disclaimer this spell can be cast into combat was omitted. That's the result of poor editing and proofreading and not a rules decision.

The problem with RAW is that GW is pretty good at not Writting the Rules as intended.

While that might be a plausable excuse to ignore the rules for some, it doesn't fly for me.

Poorly written rules don't get to be ignored.

mauleed wrote:You've got a funny idea of ambiguous.

The rules specifically say that you may not cast into combat unless specified otherwise. Alessio confirms it does not specify otherwise.

There's no ambiguity there.

That's funny Ed cause you posted a link to this:

"Games Workshop has indicated that it was their intention was that Invocation of Nehrek could be cast into combat. However, they acknowledge that the rulebook was ambiguous and REQUIRES an FAQ. Alessio Cavatore has also indicated that they will be releasing the FAQ in a timely fashion.

A copy of the email text is reproduced here:

“This is one of the FAQs I'm compiling. The last paragraph of the text strongly implies that you can cast it into combat, but does not actually state it. The FAQ clarifies that the spell can be cast into combat.

Alessio""

emphasis mine.

GW thinks its ambiguous. They also said they always intended it to be cast into combat. See RAI arguments fail to RAW because its impossible for you or I to really know what the designer intended.... unless they tell us! In an ambiguous rules situation, if you know the designers intent (and I mean really know like an email from Alessio on a public forum) is a perfectly acceptable way to solve the issue.

Hopefully the FAQ will cover the barding issue as well.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

There is no issue with Barding as the rules for Skeletal Steeds clear states "For movement purposes only Skeletal Steeds are treated as being Ethereal." This is very clear as Barding will aways grant the +1 armor but never give the -1 to movement.

As far as invocation goes I have always been on the side that since the spell implies that it can be cast into combat then it can be cast into combat. Alessio has just confirmed that.

Just because GW says it's ambiguous doesn't magically make it ambiguous. (and note, GW didn't use the word 'ambiguous', the guy that sent them the email did).

The rule is crystal clear. It's just not what's intended. The gap between intention and execution is not bridged by ambiguity.

They wrote a rule that works perfectly (in terms of game mechanics and function) as written. If you read it as is, and apply all the rules, there is no problem. You simply can't cast into combat.

It's only when you throw in the curve ball of 'we didn't mean that' that there is even room for debate. But that debate doesn't change the fact that the rules work perfectly exactly as they wrote them.

If I build a car with a diesel engine and sell it, but you realize that diesel is $4 a gallon and don't like running it, and last year's model ran on regular unleaded, and I say I meant to build one that ran on regular unleaded, that doesn't change the fact that the car runs on diesel.

And this is no different. If you put in diesel it runs just fine. People just want to complain that they were dumb enough to buy it.

You are right that it works just fine as it is written. That doesn't mean that as it is written it is right.

And they said that GW acknowledged it was ambiguous and ALSO Alessio sent an email.

To continue your analogy, if you buy a car expecting it to run on regular unleaded and suddenly its a surprise that this year's model runs on Diesel, people are going to be pretty upset.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that you'll still have to put in diesel until they change the engine for you.

And I don't concern myself it rules are 'right'. I reserve moral judgements for other areas of my life. I just want to play with toy soldiers when I'm using GW's product.

Invocation of Nehek states in it's description "Models that are resurrected within a unit that has been charged that turn do not gain charge bonuses in the following Close Combat phase"

Vanhel's Danse Macabre states "If the target unit is engaged in close combat, in the following Close Combat phase, all models in the unit will benefit from the Always Strike First special rule and may reroll missed to hit rolls.

You know, it's not ambigous at all. IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY CAN BE CAST INTO COMBAT. Not only does the descritption spell out it's effect in close combat, Allessio confirmed it.

No convuluted logic needed to understand it.

NegativeMoney wrote:
There is no issue with Barding as the rules for Skeletal Steeds clear states "For movement purposes only Skeletal Steeds are treated as being Ethereal." This is very clear as Barding will aways grant the +1 armor but never give the -1 to movement.

As far as invocation goes I have always been on the side that since the spell implies that it can be cast into combat then it can be cast into combat. Alessio has just confirmed that.

Yeah, what he said !!!

adamsouza wrote:Invocation of Nehek states in it's description "Models that are resurrected within a unit that has been charged that turn do not gain charge bonuses in the following Close Combat phase"

Vanhel's Danse Macabre states "If the target unit is engaged in close combat, in the following Close Combat phase, all models in the unit will benefit from the Always Strike First special rule and may reroll missed to hit rolls.

You know, it's not ambigous at all. IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY CAN BE CAST INTO COMBAT. Not only does the descritption spell out it's effect in close combat, Allessio confirmed it.

Except you can cast invoc on a unit not in combat, then danse it in, and then it's a unit that meets that description. So it's certainly not allowed to be cast into combat.

Except that the charge condition needs to exist first, so that situation doesn't exist.

Even if you danced them into combat, instead of charging them, they would be IN COMBAT when you cast the Invocation of Nehek. It deosnt' matter how they get there, and there is no discalimer limiting when it applies.

Agreed, the wording is in the past tense. The need to clarify wouldn't exist as you are raising first and then charging.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Irrelevant. The rules require a specific exemption to be able to cast into combat. They didn't include it. So any description of what happens if you do is useless.

If some hottie says you don't get to make sweet love to her without putting an engagement ring on her finger, you describing how adeptly you'll do it if she lets you doesn't suddenly allow you to without actually putting the ring on her finger.

And don't forget, the game designers even agree they forgot to put it in there that you could cast into combat. So if you're saying I'm wrong, you're saying Alessio is wrong. (which should cause some sort of intent gamer head asplodin' paradox)

The only thing irrelevant is your hottie example.

Any description of what happens when you cast it into combat, in the spell desription in question, in the official rulebook, should be enough to give you a clue that it can in fact be cast into combat.

Not all of us need the instructions on the side of a shampoo bottle to grasp how to use it.

What you should do is take a red pen and just cross out the section of the main rules that says you can't cast spells into combat unless it specifically says otherwise. That should save you alot of arguments.

talk about a thread being derailed.

do the black knights ignore the barding penalty?

Yes they do. That was covered earlier in the thread

so, i was reading on the Podhammer website today, and Jeff Carrol, the host of the show e-mailed rick priestly about the IoH into combat question. Rick forwarded the question on to Alessio, gaot a reply and email jeff back. the e-mail said that the text strongly implies that the spell can be cast inot combat, but does not specifically state it, but that the FAQ he is working on will specifically say in CAN be cast into combat. www.podhammer.net

Agreed. So when the FAQ comes out, you can cast into combat.

or, you could just submit to the fact that you are wrong. the intention was for it to be cast into combat, the design team said that. now they have said that you can. you have always been able to, and that wasn't supposed to change. just because you can't stand being wrong doesn't mean you are right!

What am I wrong about? The design team said themselves that while intended, they never actually put it in the rule.

If I had said 'it's wasn't intended' I'd clearly be wrong. But I didn't.

I said it isn't legal, and it isn't. A hersay claim that it might be legal at some undetermined point in the future doesn't change that.

But hey, if you've got a time machine and want to jump to the future and play me, that's cool. But I might be too busy writing down stock tickers to actually play the game.

Nah, you'll probably still be here on Dakka beating some RAW interpretation of a rule into the dirt.

Ed one thing that you need to remeber is that the rules don't require that it explicitly states you can cast into combat, rather that there is mention of it. From the wording of the spell and what the Studio indicates that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it can be cast into combat at the current time.

This seems to indicate to me that the current rules support casting into combat rather than not.

Incorrect.

The rules say that you may not cast into combat unless the spell's description says otherwise. Page 107 makes that crystal clear.

And per the design team themselves, it does not say otherwise.

So remember, when you say I'm wrong, you're saying the design team is wrong. And 1000 intent oriented players heads asplode when you do.

And invoke doesn't mention casting into combat AT ALL. It merely mentions the effects on a unit that has charged that turn, which is possible to do without being in combat at the time of casting.

Mauleed, it says, "Has charged." Now, in the english language, "Has" is in the past tense. So how is it possible to cast IoN on a unit that HAS charged without it already being in hth?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Read the whole sentence. It says that a unit that has charged doesn't get any charge bonus. Charge bonuses matter in the combat phase, which is after magic. Hence past tense.

but if they would have already had to charged, otherwise they wouldn't get charge bonuses annyways. and once they are touching, they are in combat.

Read the whole sentence. It says that a unit that has charged doesn't get any charge bonus.

No it doesn't. Invocation of Nehek states in it's description "Models that are resurrected within a unit that has been charged that turn do not gain charge bonuses in the following Close Combat phase."

You do charges BEFORE the magic Phase. Models that are resurrected into a unit that charged that turn, do not get charge bonuses, but the rest of the unit does.

They charged into combat in the movement phase
You cast Invocation of Nehek on them in the magic phase
The engage in combat in the close combat phae.
Those who were there to actually charge get the charge bonus.
Those who were summoned into the unit after it charged do not receive the charge bonus.

It says that a unit that has charged doesn't get any charge bonus.

Your argument makes no sense.
First you say that you can't cast IoN into combat.
Then you say that when you cast IoN onto a unit who charged, who is in close combat by default, they don't get charge bonuses.
Also, you somehow try to deny the entire unit of their charge bonus, even though the effect pertains only to those who were ressurected.

So remember, when you say I'm wrong, you're saying the design team is wrong. And 1000 intent oriented players heads asplode when you do.

Intent Oriented players know you cast IoN into combat, and the design team confirmed the intent.

You are arguing that the ommission of the text "This spell can be cast into combat" somehow invalidates the intent and that we are all somehow barred from doing so untill GW produces an offical errata.

We can freely accuse you of being wrong, without invoking any sense of Paradox.

Or....

1. You DON'T charge in the Movement phase.
2. You cast IoN on a unit.
3. You cast Van Hel's on the unit, causing it to charge a target.
4. During the combat phase, you follow the combat-phase instructions from IoN, and don't apply the charge bonus to any freshly-raised bodies in a unit that has charged.


I read Ed's point as:
P1. IoN lacks the specific language necessary to cast IoN into combat.
P2. The design team has acknowledged this lack of specific language, and promised a fix via FAQ...someday.

P1+P2 =>
C1. Hence, the design team has acknowledged that *at this moment* you can't cast IoN into combat.

P2 + C1 =>
C2. Arguing that you can *at this moment* cast IoN into combat is ignoring the expressly statement of the design team that permission to cast IoN into combat is lacking.

The important thing is they will release an ammendment (aka FAQ) that will allow the spells to be cast into close combat. If the spell's description made it legal to be cast into close combat then there would be no need to release an ammendment allowing it. Now the FAQ isn't out, and until then it isn't legal (despite the writers intentions). Seems GW's marketing strategy of writing poor rules to make players passionate about all sorts of armies (that they may never even play) is working!

Your example strains to find a loophole that doesn't exist.

1. You DON'T charge in the Movement phase.
2. You cast IoN on a unit and completely resovle it, since no models have been charged.
3. You cast Van Hel's on the unit, causing it to charge a target.
4. During the combat phase you resolve combat normally

The disclaimer in Invocation of Nehek applies to when they they charged previously to the casting of Invocation Of Nehek.

Arguing that you can *at this moment* cas IoN into combat is expressly going along with the intent of the design team that permission to cast IoN into combat was always intended.

Remember the whole D6 to resolve things, because this game is suppossed to be fun ?

If anyone would straight faced make the argument with me that I can't IoN into combat, knowing that it was intended to do that, and willing to ignore the text that supports it, becuase it would it give them an advantage to gimp IoN due to the unintended ommission of the specific text, I would simply pack my miniatures up and find another opponent.

The Designers didn't admit that they were shortsighted on the design aspect of IoN into combat.
The Designers admitted that they ommitted a line of text that makes the Rules Lawyers happy about it.

If you play against a VC opponent, and deny him IoN into combat, you are willfully being a and trying to use a loophole in the wording to cripple his effectiveness.

Rules As Intended should superseep Rules As Written in any case where the designers have confirmed the intent.

VC players aren't trying to exploit a loophole to thier advantage. They are trying to use the spell the way it was intended.

Arguing the RAW interpretation to the VC players disadvantage is the exploit.

Arguing the RAW interpretation to the VC players disadvantage when you know the designers intent, and that the RAW interpretation is flawed, and will be FAQed out of existance, is just poor sportsmanship.

look, the RAW Reterds arn't gonna give ground. They don't care about the spirit of the game nor do they care if their opponent has fun. all they care about is how many victory points they can win by. and just so there is no confusion, i don't and probably never will p[lay VC. i hate vampires. but to deny them somthing that was intended for them to have, and has been stated as much is, I agree, poor sportsmanship. even in competative sports like american football and baseball, teams make concessions on rules violations because they don't care. i am a football coach, and if I got beat by a team, and I later found out that that team used an player that wastechnically ineligable to play because he lived on the wrong side of the street to be able to attend that school, i wouldn't care. they still beat me.

Arion, is there really a need to make personal attacks?

I play VC, and I hate the fact that I can't (by RAW) cast into combat. (Thankfully, I play in Canada where the GW Events Manager has allowed it in all official tournaments.)

Nevertheless, you can't look down on people who want to play by the rules and berate them for being poor sportsmen. If you're simply going to play by what "feels" right, why play by any rules at all?

For example, the other day I was playing in a tournament. At my fourth and final game I stood and shot with my Treeman's strangle root attack. My opponent was shocked and demanded I show him where it said I could stand and shoot with that attack. I showed him where it says the strangle root was a specialized shooting attack, and therefore followed all the normal shooting rules.

He then called me a "cheap" player, and claimed that standing and shooting with strangleroot wasn't the intent of the weapon. He tried to use the Lizardmen Salamanders as a reference point, since the attacks are similar, even though the Salamander rules specifically say they cannot stand and shoot. At the end of the tournament I noticed I had received exactly 3/4 for total Sportsmanship...I'm sure that opponent had zeroed my Sportsmanship score.

So my question is - was I being a bad sportsman to play by the rules? I do agree that strangleroot is very powerful, especially as a Stand and Shoot reaction. But that's what the rules say.

Similarly, if I played in the States, I would have no problem with my opponent not allowing me to cast IoN into combat, because that is what the rules say.

If you felt Salamanders should stand and shoot, despite what the rules say, would you think of me as a poor sportsman for not allowing you to do it?

Zoned

And how much fun is it for your opponent, that you are willing to insist that your units can do something that ISN'T reflected in the rules?

Look, the problem isn't someone who is privvy to this discussion - it's when you start a game with someone who DOESN'T read Dakka, and hasn't come across these second- and third-hand accounts of designer intent. If you start a tournament game with someone who knows nothing about VC, and they're reading the Lore of Vampires for the first time, are you seriously going to walk away from the game if they want to play by the rules as recorded on the page, rather than what you are telling them you read on the Internet?

If so, good riddance.

Arion wrote:look, the RAW Reterds arn't gonna give ground. They don't care about the spirit of the game nor do they care if their opponent has fun. all they care about is how many victory points they can win by. and just so there is no confusion, i don't and probably never will p[lay VC. i hate vampires. but to deny them somthing that was intended for them to have, and has been stated as much is, I agree, poor sportsmanship. even in competative sports like american football and baseball, teams make concessions on rules violations because they don't care. i am a football coach, and if I got beat by a team, and I later found out that that team used an player that wastechnically ineligable to play because he lived on the wrong side of the street to be able to attend that school, i wouldn't care. they still beat me.

But you'd sure as hell blow your top if they used a player from the dominican republic with a phoney birth certificate that was 2 years older than your kid. I coach football as well and I know I would not accept any sort of cheating that impacted my kids.

Taking an advantage for which the rules do not entitle you is, bluntly, cheating. Justify it any way you like, but even if the lazy, incompetent game designers would let you cheat, you're still cheating.

And cheating is the height of bad sportsmanship. And if you're willing to cheat, or let people cheat, then it is you that doesn't care about the spirit of the game or people's fun.

1.) We are not discussing the situation with sheltered internet deprived players. We are disscussing it with people in this forum who are much better informed than a hypothetical hermit.

2.) Treemen and Salamander are apples and oranges to this situtaion. The Salamanders specifically say that they can not do something, while the treeman unit says it can.
The guy hosed you on Sportsmanship becuase he was a jerk. His argument about intent is completely flawed as he has nothing but his personal opionion on "how it should be" to back it up. Armies frequently has similar, but different, powers. If they didn't we could all use the same army book for everything..

3.) As I stated earlier if anyone would straight faced make the argument with me that I can't IoN into combat, knowing that it was intended to do that, and willing to ignore the text that supports it, becuase it would it give them an advantage to gimp IoN due to the unintended ommission of the specific text, I would simply pack my miniatures up and find another opponent. I would feel they aren't worth playing against.

If they are unaware of the situation, my FLGS and my home, the two places I play, are equipped with internet access and I would gladly educate them of the situation.

4.) Tournament organizers are the ones that need to be up to date with the situation, so they can educate and make rulings. Canada and Austrailia already agree on IoN into combat, and I'm sure we will here of more support as the year goes on.

Yes, let's make a moral argument (complete with straw men!) out of moving around toy soldiers. Because playing with our toys matters that much :-/ Seriously, I really wonder what some of you people are like outside of the internetz. Do you really act like this around people? Or just other obsessive gamers? I mean, I haven't actually had this become an issue at all. We just discuss it briefly, maybe laugh a bit at the absurd arguments people have online about this crud, then get back to rolling dice and moving toy soldiers.

If the game designers, that is those who make the rules and decide what is legal and not, let you do something, by definition it is awfully hard to call it cheating.....

The game designers didn't say you could do it. They said they intended for you to do it, but forgot to actually let you do it.

I'm really baffled that this is so difficult to grasp.

If a senator says "I intended for people not to have to file their taxes by april 15th", are you going to file your taxes later, because clearly it's intended.

Rules are rules, regardless of intention. And if I got someone to pack up their minis because I wouldn't let them break the rules, that would be the sweetest win possible.

It's not difficult to grasp.

The designers said they intended for you to do it, omitted the text that says you can do, and they are going to correct it, so there is no doubt you can do it.

Your argument is that untill they put out the FAQ, we are just suppossed to ignore the fact that we were intended to do it from the beggining and intentionally handicap ourselves and diminish our enjoyment of playing becuase of a simple omission in text.

Your free to make that decision for yourself.

I live in Massachussets where litterllay hundreds of Puritan Blue Laws are still on the books. Technically all sorts of things are illegal on paper here that are ignored by the populace because common sense dictates otherwise.

*Sodomy, hell anything other than the missionary position is considered sodomy and illegal
*No one shall be a freeman, or give a vote, unless he be converted, and a member in full communion of one of the Churches allowed in this Dominion.
*If any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished, and not suffered to return but upon pain of death.
*No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day.
*No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting-day.
*A person accused of trespass in the night shall be judged guilty, unless he clear himself by his oath.

So according to your strick RAW mentality, I suppose you want us to wrangle up and lock away all the homosexuals who violate the sodomy laws ?
How about those mothers who have the audacity to kiss their children on a Sunday ?

adamsouza wrote:It's not difficult to grasp.

The designers said they intended for you to do it, omitted the text that says you can do, and they are going to correct it, so there is no doubt you can do it when the actually get around to correcting it.

There, I fixed that for you.

Thank you for entirely ignoring the gist of my post and amusing yourself by misquoteing me. I think it really highlights the lack of strength of your side of the argument.

Mauleed and Janthkin, I understand where you guys stand and that you will always default to the RAW. But the fact is, the description implies it can be cast into combat though it doesn't explicitly state it as such. GW has acknowledged that this is confusing and ambiguous and has stated that they always intended for it to be that way and will fix it *hopefully* soon in the next FAQ. GW Canada and Oz/NZ have responded to this by allowing it in their own FAQ's of the book.

Can you really not see why we may feel that it should be allowed?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Mauleed and Janthkin, I understand where you guys stand and that you will always default to the RAW. But the fact is, the description implies it can be cast into combat though it doesn't explicitly state it as such. GW has acknowledged that this is confusing and ambiguous and has stated that they always intended for it to be that way and will fix it *hopefully* soon in the next FAQ. GW Canada and Oz/NZ have responded to this by allowing it in their own FAQ's of the book.

Can you really not see why we may feel that it should be allowed?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Sure, I see why you feel it should be allowed. You're just wrong.

To be more specific, the rules you play under aren't the same as the ones I play under. I follow what's written, as long as it's possible for the game's mechanics to function properly. You on the other hand like to 'negotiate as you go'.

That's fine. But don't expect me to play that way.

You know how people like you can shut up people like me? Simply tell the truth. Say 'the rules clearly don't allow me to do this, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway and all of you who like to follow the rules can go to hell'. Then I'll have no rebuttal and we can all stop posting and get back to work.

maybe you should just get back to work and post at times that your not on the clock.

'the rules clearly don't allow me to do this, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway and all of you who like to follow the rules can go to hell'

let me also try

Swiper NO Swiping !
Swiper NO Swiping !
Swiper NO Swiping !

and

I renounce you Satan and all of your evil works !!

and for good measure

The Power of Christ compells you !!

What else can I think of...

I'm sorry, but I'm happily married and don't do those kinds of things

CRACK IS WHACK !!!

How do you pronounce Deeluam?

mauleed wrote:

You know how people like you can shut up people like me? Simply tell the truth. Say 'the rules clearly don't allow me to do this, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway and all of you who like to follow the rules can go to hell'. Then I'll have no rebuttal and we can all stop posting and get back to work.

See the reason we are having this discussion is because it's not clear to me and not clear to a whole bunch of other people. If it's clear to you, great, but you and I often disagree on stuff so I don't really care. I don't foresee us ever playing a game together so no sweat.

Ok, back to work.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I completely agree with Ed.

I'm a very RAI player, and would happily agree to let my opponent cast the spell into combat if he were to tell me before the game that he is used to playing that way and the FAQ plans to fix the misunderstanding.

BUT if I were playing VC and, after discussing the situation with my opponent before the game, if he were to state that the RAW state I cannot cast into combat, I would agree with him. Most likely he'd see the dilemma and we'd agree to go RAI on this particular situation, but you have to realize what Ed is arguing:

Right now, without that FAQ released, the *rules* *as* *written* prevent you from casting it into combat simply because of that one particular paragraph out of the main rule book, which I'm sure we're all familiar with by now.