Gwar breaks the game again: Lord of Tempests

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

Maybe it's to penalize enemy fallback moves?

**Gwar!**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe it's to penalize enemy fallback moves?

Page 45, BRB: Units normally fall back 2D6". Fall back moves are not slowed by difficult terrain, but tests for dangerous terrain are taken as normal.

**RobPro**

Does it affect Black Templar shooty-movey on your turn?

**Gwar!**

RobPro wrote:Does it affect Black Templar shooty-movey on your turn?

No, Ritgheous Zeal is a Consolidate move, which as per Page 40 of the BRB: "Units making a consolidate move are not slowed by difficult terrain and do not trigger dangerous terrain tests."

**Ripister**

Yeah i found this error a few minutes ago they are good powers but i play RAW not RAI so too bad for me

**Horst**

I'd say its right up there with SM librarian powers.

doesn't make a darn bit of sense he can't use his enhancement powers in the enemy assault phase.

**Gwar!**

Horst wrote:I'd say its right up there with SM librarian powers.

doesn't make a darn bit of sense he can't use his enhancement powers in the enemy assault phase.

Apart from the rules saying he can't?

**Strimen**

Or why people say you can't teleport out of assault with gate. Although in that case it doesn't say you can't it says you effectively can because you are to pick up the models and redeploy them on the field in 24". Yet people still bitch that you can't.

**Gwar!**

Strimen wrote:Or why people say you can't teleport out of assault with gate. Although in that case it doesn't say you can't it says you effectively can because you are to pick up the models and redeploy them on the field in 24". Yet people still bitch that you can't.

It doesn't say you can, so you cannot. Simple really.

**Horst**

gwar, i'm not arguing your able to. i'm just saying, its every bit as likely thats a rules oversight on GW's part, just like this is probably. Doesn't mean I won't follow the rules.

**JD21290**

Ouch mate, fethed over once again

what next eh?
Im still pissed that Bjorn has to slog, and im not even a fething pup player

Maybe if you played BA then you wouldnt have problems with powers

Also, told you that they would feth up the wording ages ago when it was just rumors

**Gwar!**

JD21290 wrote:Ouch mate, fethed over once again
what next eh?
Im still pissed that Bjorn has to slog, and im not even a fething pup player

Maybe if you played BA then you wouldnt have problems with powers

Also, told you that they would feth up the wording ages ago when it was just rumors

GW + fethed up wording = Mandatory. If a codex doesn't contain at least 15% poor wording or Ambiguous or non functioning rules, they fire the editor.

The Editor got a bonus when Tau Empire was released

**Afrikan Blonde**

Gwar! wrote:

Horst wrote:
maybe they intended it to be a counter against mystics?

-1 BS to those who shoot at the deep strikers

Well... now there is a thought. BS 2 Plasma Cannons are a lot easier to survive than BS 3 ones

It's just an extra inch when the blast template scatters. It could actually help depending on which direction the arrow points.

This discussion for me is just further evidence that RAW is often a poor manner in which to interpret the rules. I'm sure it will be clarified in the FAQ.

**Gwar!**

Afrikan Blonde wrote:This discussion for me is just further evidence that RAW is often a poor manner in which to interpret the rules. I'm sure it will be clarified in the FAQ.

At which point we will quite rightly tell you the FAQ's mean nothing and they need to errata it or not at all. Of course I want to know, if you do not follow the Rules as Written, what do you play? Rules as not Written? Rules as I think the Author may or may not have intended?

**Kaaihn**

Gwar! wrote:
Strimen wrote:Or why people say you can't teleport out of assault with gate. Although in that case it doesn't say you can't it says you effectively can because you are to pick up the models and redeploy them on the field in 24". Yet people still bitch that you can't.
It doesn't say you can, so you cannot. Simple really.

I don't want to sidetrack a Tempests thread with GoI arguing, that has been done to death. I feel it is important though to point out that the argument "it doesn't say you can, so you cannot" fails when there is no conflict needing an explicit permissive override in the first place.

Just a general rules structure thing. Please start a new thread if someone wants to argue GoI again.

**Gwar!**

Yes yes, Ok, no more bickering about rubbish Ultrasmurf Rules, lets talk about Njarl, and how Phil cannot write rules!

**herosson**

Is master of tempests a power in additon to his other psychic powers or is it an actual psychic power (ie. other rune priests can take it).

If it is then OOPS, if no then whats the big deal.

**Elessar**

It is neither an additional Psychic Power, or a replacement. It isn't a Psychic Power at all.

As for Gate strange Wolves didn't get it, considering the whole 'Bringing it back from the EoT with the Wulfen' thing...

That's a sidenote to the thread though.

I don't know if anyone is keeping score, but in 'Gwar! vs Phil Kelly' Gwar just got another point. That is stupid nonsense wording - he did it on purpose though. It's not poor, so much as intentional. It's a Big Two Fingers from GW.

**Gwar!**

The big deal is 2 effects of his tempest do not "work" if the SW player is going second.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elessar wrote:I don't know if anyone is keeping score, but in 'Gwar! vs Phil Kelly' Gwar just got another point.

So it's 9001 to nil then?

**RobPro**

Gwar! wrote:
JD21290 wrote:Ouch mate, fethed over once again
what next eh?
Im still pissed that Bjorn has to slog, and im not even a fething pup player

Maybe if you played BA then you wouldnt have problems with powers

Also, told you that they would feth up the wording ages ago when it was just rumors
GW + fethed up wording = Mandatory. If a codex doesn't contain at least 15% poor wording or Ambiguous or non functioning rules, they fire the editor.

The Editor got a bonus when Tau Empire was released

Has the guy who wrote the Necron codex cashed in yet? I think it's done vesting.

**Afrikan Blonde**

Why would GW even bother writing FAQs and publishing them for mainstream gamers if they were not intended to be official? It is an urban myth to say that the FAQs were not intended to be used as official. Nowhere did GW publicly state that their FAQs are unofficial. If you tell a lie often enough and people do not check the sources available to them then some of the people will eventually come to believe the lie... The cake is a lie, people are so fond of saying.

I think I'll start a poll to see what is the general consensus on whether the FAQs are considered official or not.

**Thor665**

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Nowhere did GW publicly state that their FAQs are unofficial.

Well, if by 'official' you mean 'counts as rules in the rulebooks' then yes, yes GW has said they are not official.

**Eternal Newb**

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Why would GW even bother writing FAQs and publishing them for mainstream gamers if they were not intended to be official? It is an urban myth to say that the FAQs were not intended to be used as official. Nowhere did GW publicly state that their FAQs are unofficial.

Well, when it says that these FAQs are just their "Studio House Rules" and since house rules aren't official, it seems pretty clear that they aren't official.

**Gwar!**

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Why would GW even bother writing FAQs and publishing them for mainstream gamers if they were not intended to be official? It is an urban myth to say that the FAQs were not intended to be used as official. Nowhere did GW publicly state that their FAQs are unofficial. If you tell a lie often enough and people do not check the sources available to them then some of the people will eventually come to believe the lie... The cake is a lie, people are so fond of saying.

I think I'll start a poll to see what is the general consensus on whether the FAQs are considered official or not.

Read the GW website. We have covered this many times. That is all I have to say on the matter.

**Spellbound**

GW unfortunately said in the rulebook that FAQ are "pretty much" just an explanation of how GW's house rules work the more obscure scenarios in their own games. While around here we use the FAQs because if it's how GW plays it's how we play, someone who's more RAW just to be RAW as opposed to RAW to be fair will just ignore them and snicker.

We'll be using this as "until the next SW turn" around here, and giving a big two middle fingers to hard-ass RAW.

**Gwar!**

As they say, Hate the game, Don't hate the Player.

I just call them as I see them.

**Afrikan Blonde**

Thor665 wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:
Nowhere did GW publicly state that their FAQs are unofficial.

Well, if by 'official' you mean 'counts as rules in the rulebooks' then yes, yes GW has said they are not official.

A direct quote would be most appreciated.

**Eternal Newb**

Gwar! wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&_requestid=339942

ERRATA & FAQs
Welcome to the Errata & FAQs section of our website. Here you can find the latest Errata & FAQs documents for our current books in the form of downloadable pdf documents.

In this section we cover Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer 40,000 and The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game. We aim to have one pdf for each book belonging to these systems, including the three main rulebooks and all Warhammer Armies books, Warhammer 40,000 Codexes, and The Lord of the Rings Journey Books and Sourcebooks. If a book is not covered, it is either because we are not aware of any issues with it or we haven't got to it yet.

We aim to publish a first document within the first few months of a book's release. After this initial release, we'll review and update these documents regularly, adding new questions and errata, and correcting any mistakes we might have made when answering some of the questions.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Taken from your poll thread.

**Elessar**

Gwar! wrote:The big deal is 2 effects of his tempest do not "work" if the SW player is going second.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elessar wrote:I don't know if anyone is keeping score, but in 'Gwar! vs Phil Kelly' Gwar just got another point.
So it's 9001 to nil then?

No, Crack Shot. I'm sure there's ONE other point he got, somewhere...

Where's your thread on "Logan + Wolf Guard + SwiftClaws + SwiftClaws die, but WG leading them survives, = Scoring survivor of SwiftClaw squad"? lol

**Eidolon**

Itll be interesting to see how people play with this. Me personally, id play it RAI if the player was cool. If he wants to park njal two feet away from everything in a land raider and camp the whole game hes getting hosed on the rules.