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.

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?