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.

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.