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.

This one is dear to my heart, as I love the Casket.

In the FAQ specific to the Tomb Kings, they make it clear that if the Casket happens to (potentially) affect a unit with magic resistance along with its many other non-magically resistant targets, then the dispel attempt which would save all of those targets DOES benefit from the extra dice afforded by the one unit with magical resistance.

But in the more recent general FAQ, they make it quite clear that a spell has to specifically be targetted at the one unit with magic resistance, otherwise the defending player will not get the extra dispel dice.

So does this over-ride the previous FAQ?

No, as the FAQ for the casket is more specific (And specific only to the casket)

There is much debate about this issue. The common consensus that I have herd is similar to skyth's opinion on the matter. I do believe that the intent was to overrule that FAQ with this one, however I play by RAW not RAI so I will follow the TK FAQ for this matter.

Also recall that the previous FAQ was written for 6th ed, I believe, and MR has changed slightly since then.

Most recent FAQ wins, of course.

Thats the thing. The Casket isn't cast on anything at all. You could say it's target is itself, as all effects are measured from the casket.

Thus, Magic Resistance would not help, according to the latest FAQ, which does indeed supercede any earlier ones.

While I agree that the most recent FAQ should win. GW's policy when it comes to rules is that the more specific rule wins. In this case the Casket Rules are more specific and thus trump the new MR rules.

I do however believe that this will be cleared up by GW in the future.

Army specific FAQs trump general FAQs, so until GW makes a statement that the new General FAQ does indeed pertain to the Casket as well then their boned. At least till their book is redone.

I think it is clear from the following that the Casket has nothing to worry about in terms of magically resistant units:

- The TK faq was released for 6th Ed, not 7th

- In 7th Ed, the rules for magical resistance changed slightly

- GW have officially stated that any FAQ contains 'guidance' on rules calls. whereas an errata contains actual corrections to the official rules which all players must abide by

- In the current Errata list, GW have changed the wording of the second sentence of the first paragraph on rules concerning MR, so that the reading goes:

"...when trying to dispel each spell that is targeted
against the magically resistant unit."

When it used to be:

"...when trying to dispel each spell that affects the magically resistant unit."

GW highlights the phrase 'is targeted against the magically resistant unit'. In the Errata, to show that they intend for certain spells not to trigger MR while others will. And the implication is that the wording of the spell rules has to bear clear on whether the spell targets something specific or has a more inclusive effect.

Vaul as stated many times in this thread. Recent changes do not overide more specific FAQs. The Casket has a specific FAQ that states models with MR benifit from it. Regardless of when the FAQ was written it is still an offical publication and is valid. Until GW pulls that FAQ or updates it, models still get their MR against the Casket.

No - GW have stated that an Errata takes precedence to an FAQ.

While that is usualy the case we do have something rather unique here. The FAQ for the Casket explicitly states you get MR. The Errata just changes the wording but does not invalidate that FAQ.

However the FAQ addressed the 6th ed. rules, not the 7th, so it is not entirely clear (just as previous FAQs were sometimes invalid in 7th to the degree that the conflicted with rules changes).

I would just discuss it with opponents and TOs. Personally, I would play no MR.

I don't see the issue here. The Old TK question is an FAQ, the new MR rule is Errata. Errata > FAQ.

I'm not sure how you can logically state that the Errata doesn't invalidate the TK FAQ. The new method of determining what triggers MR is a whole new rule to the game.

The TK FAQ would need an Errata on the Casket of Souls for me to think that it applied under the new MR rules.

Just an editorial comment from me, but I really loath the new MR ruling. I would much prefer a simple check: "Does this spell affect your unit with MR(X)? If yes, you get X dispel dice to toss at it." So very easy.

As it stands, paying any points for MR most clearly just protects a character from the most obvious of sniper spells, and all the debate about what 'target' means now, despite spells not being consistent in any way, is just irritating. Admittedly, as a player who relies on 1 scroll caddy or no counter-magic at all, the change to MR really hurts my game in particular.

- Salvage