Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There is no part of the GW website that relates to WHFB that says that. There is an intro section that says these are the FAQ for fantasy, 40k etc. Then you click through to fantasy and it says these contain errata amendments and FAQs. At no point does it say they aren't as important.

But you are right, willful ignorance is fine. I hope I don't play you in fantasy and have you try to deep strike against me, since it was somewhere on GW's website, it MUST apply to fantasy.

Specific > general. In general magic doesn't apply, but specifically the pit of shades doesn't. When they remove the pit of shades question, then it will apply.

Killjoy00 wrote:There is no part of the GW website that relates to WHFB that says that. There is an intro section that says these are the FAQ for fantasy, 40k etc. Then you click through to fantasy and it says these contain errata amendments and FAQs. At no point does it say they aren't as important.

But you are right, willful ignorance is fine. I hope I don't play you in fantasy and have you try to deep strike against me, since it was somewhere on GW's website, it MUST apply to fantasy.

Specific > general. In general magic doesn't apply, but specifically the pit of shades doesn't. When they remove the pit of shades question, then it will apply.

Except that it actually does apply, because there isn't a single rule which makes a steam tank immune to pit of shades. Quote the actual rule which does. You can't, because your entire argument is based upon a rule that THEY DELETED, but you're not intelligent enough to know that.

Your argument is that the designers answering questions about the rules has no weight. Sadly, that isn't supported by what they've said.

Personal insults will not change that.

Guys - let's try to stay calm in here, OK?

And, as has already been pointed out, I'm not sure how this link here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440002a&categoryId=500004§ion=&aId=3000006

is construed as 'hot air' or "ambiguous' but hey, that's why we play the game, right?

Thanks Alpharius

My point is that the link you give above says

"FAQ section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

At no point does it say the FAQ is a less reliable source or soft in any way.

It is the people who make the game explaining the the FAQ _answers_ questions about the rules. Therefore, those are the answers.

Yea, that sounds good BloodGod, but you don't ignore a rule just because a new one changes something else. It says it is not affected by Pit of Shades. Period. Until they remove it from the FAQ, it sticks for most tourneys. You want to play in a friendly game that way, go for it, but don't expect a majority of places to rule in your favor.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Yea, that sounds good BloodGod, but you don't ignore a rule just because a new one changes something else. It says it is not affected by Pit of Shades. Period. Until they remove it from the FAQ, it sticks for most tourneys. You want to play in a friendly game that way, go for it, but don't expect a majority of places to rule in your favor.

It's not a rule. It's an answer about a rule which no longer exists.

There is no rule in the steam tank's profile which protects it from pit of shades, PERIOD.
Do what it tells you in the pink text of the errata and delete the section which states the steamtank has immunity to certain magic.
Now the steam tank no longer has any special rules at all which would effect pit of shades in any way.

I guess I'm the only one in this thread with any common sense. You're too busy arguing semantics in order to try and make empire stronger when there isn't even a rule to support it.

But I guess if you keep saying so, the designers will magically undelete the protection from magic they purposefully removed, Killjoy00. Cross your fingers and kick your shoes together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Yea, that sounds good BloodGod, but you don't ignore a rule just because a new one changes something else. It says it is not affected by Pit of Shades. Period. Until they remove it from the FAQ, it sticks for most tourneys. You want to play in a friendly game that way, go for it, but don't expect a majority of places to rule in your favor.

If you want to play a friendly game that way, go for it, but don't expect a majority of places to rule in your favor when you're arguing you're immune to spells for no reason whatsoever.

It is immune to that spell because the FAQ says so.

Tri wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:It is not in the Fantasy FAQ, therefore it doesn't apply to Fantasy.

Games workshop disagrees

No, Games Workshop does not disagree. You are making up stuff. Games Workshop makes no mention of any hierarchy. The change in the tonality of the FAQ's cannot be overheard either. Before, they would start an answer with "We suggest...". Nowadays, it says "Yes" or "No". I'm afraid that is not a suggestion or tipp anymore, that's a perfectly applicable ruling.

TheBloodGod wrote:
Willfull ignorance is fine though.
...
There's no longer any basis at all to argue that pit of shades doesn't affect a steam tank. It has no rule that says it is immune to pit of shades anymore. Period.

Here's the rule you are willfully ignoring:

"Q. Can the spell Pit of Shades from the Lore of Shadows affect the
Steam Tank? (p51)
A. No."

What part of that has been deleted, TheBloodGod?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

And, as has already been pointed out, I'm not sure how this link here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440002a&categoryId=500004§ion=&aId=3000006

is construed as 'hot air'.

You and others are claiming that it says something it doesn't, namely that FAQ's are irrelevant and must be ignored.

Let's all keep the arguments civil, please.

Kilkrazy, with pictures like that, you are not giving us much incentive.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Tri wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:It is not in the Fantasy FAQ, therefore it doesn't apply to Fantasy.

Games workshop disagrees

No, Games Workshop does not disagree. You are making up stuff. Games Workshop makes no mention of any hierarchy. The change in the tonality of the FAQ's cannot be overheard either. Before, they would start an answer with "We suggest...". Nowadays, it says "Yes" or "No". I'm afraid that is not a suggestion or tipp anymore, that's a perfectly applicable ruling.

Ah but as a whole GW does not give the same weight to every thing you are free to ignore that but it's why lots of the things get FAQ. Not sure if you're a big 40k player but if you are you'll remember some of the glaring mistakes found in the Blood-Angels and Space Wolves FAQ's. In fact the BGB FAQ still has mention to this ...

Army Specific Questions
Q. How many kill points is an Imperial Guard
Command Squad worth? Is a Junior Officer and
his four Guardsmen worth 1 point or 2?
A. A Command Squad is an independent
character and his retinue, as defined on page 48
of the rulebook. The rulebook clearly states on
page 91 that a character and his retinue are worth
1 kill point each. Therefore the enemy gains 1 kill
point for killing the Junior Officer, and 1 kill
point for killing the accompanying Guardsmen.

And commanders have not been IC for nearly a year now. It's the same as stating they're still worth 2KP.

But that is not really important to this thread. You can ether play that the FAQ is Right or Wrong, for the reasons above, and get on play. This thread should be debating the way's of killing a steam tank.

I presume you believe that Slann can cast transformation of kadon as well?

Killjoy00 wrote:I presume you believe that Slann can cast transformation of kadon as well?

FAQ wrote:Q. Can a Slann Mage-Priest cast Transformation of Kadon? (p42)
A. No.

I would say no because he's not on foot he's on the palanquin. I can see why people would be confused since the palanquin isn't really mention as a rule and he's still infantry. That is one of my biggest gripes with the FAQs: Yes and no answers are fine but would it kill GW to say why?

RaW there is absolutely no reason the Slann can't do it. But the FAQ says no and that's the way the game is played. That's my point.

Killjoy00 wrote:RaW there is absolutely no reason the Slann can't do it. But the FAQ says no and that's the way the game is played. That's my point.

? Again ignoring part of what i say: Slann cannot cast it because they are not on foot. The steam tank had magic immunity when that FAQ was added and now they don't. If you can find one thing that would block the spell, there for backing up the FAQ, then I'll happily agree that pit of shades doesn't work on a steam tank.

Tri wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:RaW there is absolutely no reason the Slann can't do it. But the FAQ says no and that's the way the game is played. That's my point.

? Again ignoring part of what i say: Slann cannot cast it because they are not on foot. The steam tank had magic immunity when that FAQ was added and now they don't. If you can find one thing that would block the spell, there for backing up the FAQ, then I'll happily agree that pit of shades doesn't work on a steam tank.

Man, you cannot infer rules stuff. You are looking for fluff reasons to back up your argument and that is not how games work. Period. The FAQ answers the question clearly! Pit of Shades does not work, until it is FAQ'd otherwise. Also, the Slann cannot transform, unless FAQ'd otherwise. Simple as that.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Tri wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:RaW there is absolutely no reason the Slann can't do it. But the FAQ says no and that's the way the game is played. That's my point.

? Again ignoring part of what i say: Slann cannot cast it because they are not on foot. The steam tank had magic immunity when that FAQ was added and now they don't. If you can find one thing that would block the spell, there for backing up the FAQ, then I'll happily agree that pit of shades doesn't work on a steam tank.

Man, you cannot infer rules stuff. You are looking for fluff reasons to back up your argument and that is not how games work. Period. The FAQ answers the question clearly! Pit of Shades does not work, until it is FAQ'd otherwise. Also, the Slann cannot transform, unless FAQ'd otherwise. Simple as that.

Nope. The FAQ does not create entirely new special rules. Erratas add new rules to a book. FAQs answer questions that came up because of those rules in the book.

The only magic immunity rules of the steamtank (look in your empire book) have been completely deleted in the latest update. THOSE are the current stats of the steamtank.

You're free to ignore common sense and believe you have some magical immunity even when there is no rule in existence to give you it. Unless they add something to the errata "Add special rule - Agile: the steamtank is fast and pit of shades doesn't work on it" or something, then you've got no legs to stand on. The army book quite clearly lists the stats of a steam tank and its abilities, none of which give magic immunity. It has no statement that it reacts to magic any differently than any other chariot (which is what it counts as.)

And when there are two contradictions in an update, the ruling that makes sense is the one that should be used. There is no rule in the book where "in all vague places, use the stupidest possible ruling."

When they screwed up Cauldron of Blood's text and talked about it's crew getting +1 attack when frenzied and their poison weapons (with the crew being Witch Elves which all have Frenzy and Poisoned weapons) they screwed up and forgot to add Special Rules: Frenzy, Poisoned attacks to the top. The common sense ruling was the one the updated Errata went with. Not because of "silly fluff." There was no support for the leaving off of Frenzy/Poison being anything other than a bad editing job. Gladly, next round of typo-fixing they'll delete that FAQ paragraph because it deals with a rule that does not exist because the ERRATA specifies that the immunity is deleted.

The Steam Tank does not need a special set of rules that outline Magic immunity for it to still be immune to that spell. The FAQ says it is, so it is. You can argue that all you want, but I have yet to encounter a judge who would rule otherwise. It may not "make sense", but that isn't how rules work. We cannot infer or assume anything - they are as they are.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:The Steam Tank does not need a special set of rules that outline Magic immunity for it to still be immune to that spell. The FAQ says it is, so it is. You can argue that all you want, but I have yet to encounter a judge who would rule otherwise. It may not "make sense", but that isn't how rules work. We cannot infer or assume anything - they are as they are.

The way the rules work is it says a rule in the BRB or the Army book and that's used in the course of a game. A deleted rule is a deleted rule. You can talk about judge rulings when you have a credible source to back that up. You don't.

YOU'RE just wishful thinking that the clear pink text which explains they removed the steam tank's magic immunity never happened. It did happen so it does not matter how you feel about it. It's no longer different from any chariot with regards to magic now.

In the case of a contradiction, the most recent pink text clearly supercedes outdated text. There is no argument about it.

Yea, there is an argument. You don't ignore a line just because of some pink text. There is no precedent for that.

Here is how this works:
Player 1 casts Pit of Shades on Player 2's Steam Tank.
Player 2 says "Hey, that won't work."
Player 1 says "Really? Why not?"
Player 2 says "Oh, because the FAQ said it was immune to that specific spell!"

Not that hard. No need to get into some debates on logic and how we are meant to interpret things or what takes precedence because it is pink or not. It is pretty clear they didn't remove that single line granting it immunity to that specific spell. Does every other spell work? Afraid so, since it removed all other instances of Magic Immunity.

So, if the above scenario was Purple Sun instead of Pit, they would look to the FAQ and see no reason not to have Purpose Sun kill the Steam Tank.

Easy, right?

... Isn't this thread dead yet?

Malleus wrote:... Isn't this thread dead yet?

...almost.

All you have to do is use the Lore of Metal, poisoned weapons, because I play against Lizardmen, which are really annoying. You also could use the Lore of Heavens with Comet of Casandra, which has increasable strength, plus most of the spells don't allow armour saves. no matter what though, you can ALWAYS wound on a if using weaker horde armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:5x10 unit of skaven slaves for 100 points, tar pit it there the entire game and ignore it

One problem, if you do that, then it still can fire all of it's guns, just not move

it can fire its cannon in combat? I knew it could fire the steam gun but the cannon too?

not only can it fire, but it causes D3 Strength 2 wounds, as said in the army book, it isn't much, but there is a possibility to kill a few extra soldiers, though it's too bad they took away the magic resistence in the FAQ. Now the lore of Metal always wounds on a 2+.....Good for you,not me.

It is generally very unwise to fire the steam tank's cannon. that should be the least of your worries, unless you're already winning so hard that your opponent is desperate. a 1/6 chance of wounding yourself for d3 wounds... ugly.