beastmen bug

[Sheerkhan]

when i added the fur of sharrgu to my wargor, who also had heavy armor, the program registered it as a violation.

the validation window says he has 'one or more options not valid'.

i called the GW rule-line and they said that item CAN be used with mundane armor.

 

[Ghaz]

Don't trust the roolzboyz as far as you can throw them. They're wrong at least half of the time. Considering the item's description does not state that it can be combined with regular armor why should it be allowed?

 

[Sheerkhan]

actually, i have researched this question, asking both my friends and GW staff and going to several forums. the answers are unanimous, it CAN be used with armor.

the item described is a cloak, and does not preclude magical armor.

also, the GW books are known for bad editing and unclear syntax. that's what the consensus is on this item, that GW printed an incomplete description of it in the book, and that the specific line stating "this item may be used with armor" was left out due to poor editing.

i went all out to find a ruling on this, got alot of responses, and they were unanimous. only then did i post it here, when i was almost certain.

 

[Ghaz]

So what if the description is that it's a 'cloak'. Fluff doesn't matter. It is listed as magical armour in the army book. The main rulebook states that you can not wear ordinary armour if you're wearing magical armour. It's only your 'opinion' that there's been bad editing on GW's part. You can't prove that GW left out that it can be combined with normal armour. You want the files changed just because you say so because you don't have any proof that the files are wrong.

The rules are clear. The Fur of Sharrgu can not be combined with normal armour.

 

[Sheerkhan]

well, the description says it gives a +2 to armor save. items with "+ armor saves" can usually be worn with armor.

also, this is more than my opinion, as you are the only person i've talked to that doesn't agree. and that includes the roolzboys. you may not like their rulings, or trust them, but their word is official, not yours. GW said it can be used with armor.

many veteran beasts players say they have used this combo in tourneys. so it is legal.

 

[Sheerkhan]

for those interested, i fixed this with ABCreator. i opened the chaos data files. i went into Item and selected The Fur of Sharrgu.

i clicked the Exlusions button, and in the window that opened i chose the column Usage in the row Armor and changed the 1 to a "-".

 

[Ghaz]

well, the description says it gives a +2 to armor save. items with "+ armor saves" can usually be worn with armor.

So? It still doesn't say that it can be combined with mundane armour, does it?

also, this is more than my opinion, as you are the only person i've talked to that doesn't agree. and that includes the roolzboys. you may not like their rulings, or trust them, but their word is official, not yours. GW said it can be used with armor.

First of all, the roolzboyz are NOT official. Not by a long shot. They have no more insight into the rules than anybody else. Secondly, it doesn't matter if everybody you've talked to agrees with you or not. You've still failed to answer the question. Where does it say that it can be combined with mundane armour?

So once again, from page 153 of the WHFB 6th edition rulebook:

If a character wears magical armour, he cannot also wear ordinary armour...

According to page 63 of the Beasts of Chaos army book the Fur of Sharrgu is listed as Magical Armour. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it can be combined with mundane armour and just because 'everybody says so' is not proof.

 

[GMTemplar]

I think it really should be usable with armour simply because otherwise there's no point in taking it in the first place. Heavy armour costs 11 pts less and gives you more protection. If the two cannot be combined the Fur is just waste of space. If you point me even one reasonable situation where one would take the fur over heavy/chaos armour I might change my mind. If not, I would seriously suggest changing the way it works in the Army Builder because a) that's how most seem to play it anyway and b) that's the way it works in AB2.2. If you still don't want to use the Fur with armour then simply don't but I think people should have the option in this case without getting a validation error.

I'm basing my opinion simply on common sense and perception of general consensus amongst players. For clarification, Rulezboyz don't have the power to make rulings and their word is no more official than of anyone here. Simply because they wear GW shirts doesn't give them the power to make rulings and they're notorious for making wrong 'clarifications' even in the most clear cut cases.

 

[Sheerkhan]

as far as i know, absent a ruling from the higher ups or special moderator, roolzboys rulings are legal in any tournament. that means they are legal.

also, they are proof. when having a rule disagreement, the roolzboys rulings are always accepted. i have seen people grumble, but they know they have to accept it. i have seen people whip out cell phones in the middle of a tourny to call and ask. only in house rules situations have i seen anyone not abide by their rulings. and i have been playing WHFB since 1989. people may not trust them, but this is what it is.

plus, my interpretation makes more sense. common sense. everyone knows the GW books have poor editing. everyone knows WHFB rules can be complex, byzantine, and need interpretation. everyone has come to a situation that needed common sense to resolve absent clear rulings. common sense.

no one likes rulz lawyers.

 

[deathlynx]

I have to agree that the roolzboys are actually a very falible source as far as debates go...they frequently misquote rules as they don't even try to doublecheck their answers...And two different ones will give you two contradictory answers...I've had them completely ignore exceptions and rules blatantly stated and explicetly worded in the books...

The only valid source of info at any given tourny is the host/judge and the rules that have been posted...Generally they simply state Core Rulebook, Armybooks and Chronicals/Annual but disputes that aren't covered by these are up to the judge to sort out...

All that being said I agree that by the strict wording of the various rules the cloak cannot be combined with other armor...
However I also agree that the intent for it is that it is supposed to be able to and GW screwed up the printing (wouldn't be the first won't be the last)...

 

[Sheerkhan]

anyway, i fixed it in my army builder, so whether or not it gets fixed in the next update is no big deal for me.

everyone knows roolzboys are iffy, but you need a convincing argument to dispute them in a game. at least whenever i've played.

if anyone else agrees with me, i have posted the fix for them above.

 

[Ghaz]

as far as i know, absent a ruling from the higher ups or special moderator, roolzboys rulings are legal in any tournament. that means they are legal.

No, roolzboyz are NOT official. In a tournament, it is the tournament organizer who decides who is official and who's not. Back when the roolzboyz could be contacted by email it was made very clear that their response were NOT official.

no one likes rulz lawyers.

And no one like people who just make up their own rules, which is what you're doing. You've yet to provide one shred of evidence to back your position other than 'everbody says so'. That's not going to cut it. And obviously not everbody says so or else we wouldn't be having this discussion and the fact that the files don't allow it means that he must not agree with you as well.

 

[GMTemplar]

as far as i know, absent a ruling from the higher ups or special moderator, roolzboys rulings are legal in any tournament. that means they are legal.

Absolutely false information. The only official rules are printed in Army Books, Rulebook, Chronicles/Annual or GW web site. Anything else is just commentary and opinions which may or may not affect judge's ruling on the matter but is not by a far shot 'official'. Gav himself has done a lot of rules commentary on various forums and this is his signature: "Any rules answers/ clarifications, etc are unofficial until printed (and that doesn't mean printed on your laserwriter…)." A lot of his commentary is disregarded completely in tough rules debate because he too sometimes makes rules comments in direct contradiction to the rulebook.

So, Gav can't make rulings on the run so what on earth makes you think Rulesboyz can?

I still think the Fur was intended to be used with armour. If it's not, well, that's just stupid waste of printing ink as both chaos and heavy armour do the same thing or better for a lot less points.

 

[Sheerkhan]

as far as my experience goes, only rules lawyers are so prickly about things the way you guys are. i didn't come here for debate on this. everyone in the NYC community i know has no problem relying on roolzboys rulings, even in the GW shops. and that's alot of people.

the roolzboys rulings are legal when other sources, say a tourny judge, says they are legal. and since this has happened, they are legal.

if you agree that the fur should go with armor, then you must be agreeing with the roolzboys. guess they aren't wrong 100% of the time, huh?

also, why would people want to play with such rules lawyers? what kind of fun can you have being so petty about the rules? it is obvious that most people, common sense, agrees with one reading of the rule. so, that's how most people are gonna play it. the GW rulebook itself says you must interpret many situations yourself. this is one of them.

anyway, even here 4 out of 5 of the opinions agree with me. so, i made my own fix, posted it for others who are interested, and now i will take my leave of this thread.

 

[GMTemplar]

if you agree that the fur should go with armor, then you must be agreeing with the roolzboys. guess they aren't wrong 100% of the time, huh?

And I claimed that when exactly? I'm not wrong 100% of the time either, can I make official rulings now?

anyway, even here 4 out of 5 of the opinions agree with me.

Ghaz and deathlynx disagree with you. I seem to be the only one agreeing. That's 1/3, better check your math.

 

[Ghaz]

as far as my experience goes, only rules lawyers are so prickly about things the way you guys are. i didn't come here for debate on this. everyone in the NYC community i know has no problem relying on roolzboys rulings, even in the GW shops. and that's alot of people.

You're wanting a change in a product used by hundreds of people, yet you can't prove that it needs to be changed. So far all you've provided is because so and so says so. Sorry, but WHFB is a game. Games have rules. So either provide something in the rules that proves your right or there is no reason to change the files. You may bitch about 'rules lawyers', but at least their opponents can read the rulebooks and know what to expect. It's people like you who try and make up their own rules and then try and defend their actions by calling anyone who disagrees with them a 'rules lawyer' that gives this game a bad name.

the roolzboys rulings are legal when other sources, say a tourny judge, says they are legal. and since this has happened, they are legal.

And since when does an tourney judge have the right to say what's legal or not after the tourney's over? He doesn't. If a tourney judge wants to make them 'official' for a tournament, then that's his business. Outside of that tournament, they're answers are unofficial.

if you agree that the fur should go with armor, then you must be agreeing with the roolzboys. guess they aren't wrong 100% of the time, huh?

Doesn't mean that they're right 100% of the time either, does it?

also, why would people want to play with such rules lawyers? what kind of fun can you have being so petty about the rules? it is obvious that most people, common sense, agrees with one reading of the rule. so, that's how most people are gonna play it. the GW rulebook itself says you must interpret many situations yourself. this is one of them.

Looks who's talking about being 'petty'. You wants the rules changed, yet you can't provide a reason why. That's being 'petty'. Common sense to me is to play by the rules as written and not to let personal bias interfere with my reading of the rules.

anyway, even here 4 out of 5 of the opinions agree with me. so, i made my own fix, posted it for others who are interested, and now i will take my leave of this thread.

Last time I looked, the rules don't magically change just because of a majority. The rules still say the exact same thing as before. So go ahead and change the datafiles all that you like and when someone calls you on an illegal list, remember that we told you so.

 

[Sheerkhan]

http://oz.games-workshop.com/errata/default.htm

"Welcome to the Shrine of Knowledge, the place that contains many of the answers to questions that arise while playing Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer, or The Lord of The Rings Strategy Battle Game.

When in Doubt, Use the Most Important Rule!

What is the "Most Important Rule," you ask? Well, it's an idea that you will start seeing in Games Workshop rulebooks, and you should assume that it's in effect even if it's not in your particular rulebook yet. Whenever you run into a rules question during a game that you can't resolve, that's when MIR kicks in. Here's what the MIR says:

If you encounter a rules problem during one of your games and cannot find the answer in the rulebook or any other Games Workshop resource, dice off to decide on a temporary answer and get on with your game.

Okay, Now What?

After the game, take another good look through the rulebooks. The pressure of an ongoing battle can cause anyone to miss a small reference in the rules. If you still can't find your answer in the rulebooks, then that's when the Shrine of Knowledge can help.

If the answer is not here either, you can make up a "house rule" between you and your regular opponents to solve the problem.

Don't forget to visit your local Games Workshop Hobby Centre, Independent Retailer, or gaming club. Chances are that the veteran players at these locations have already encountered your particular rules question. They can either tell you where the well-hidden rule can be found or give you advice on how to resolve your dilemma.

Lastly, remember that the Hobby Specialists who staff Games Workshop's Hobby Service departments are very knowledgeable and can often help you with rules questions. Plus, if you have found a genuine grey area in the rules that has no answer, the Direct Services Hobby Specialists will notify the Games Development team. Your important feedback will help us craft new Errata documents that will hopefully resolve these rules questions. Thank you in advance for your help!"




since my GW staff, the roolzboys, and everyone i have asked in person agrees with me, not only do i have the more compelling case, but my methods have followed the GW advice for rules quandries exactly. so, according to GW, that is all i need.

even one of the data files authors agrees.

 

[robert]

ok time out :~)

its pretty reasonable that the fur of shargu can be used with armor. i will go ahead and change it. however, it will still count as magic armoor, so you wont be able to take it and chaos armor.

 

[deathlynx]

Although Robert has said he will change it (personally I would make it a validation issue so it can be done but people know it might not be leagal) so there's an answer...But it doesn't make it any more official then the rulesboyz saying so...Keep that in mind...

I agree that that was probably the intent...Unfortunately there are strict rules dealing with magic items...This isn't a case where they have potentially contradictory rules...This is a case where they (MAYBE) forgot to include an important phrase which actively contradicts the basic rules of the game...

You can "die off" in one off games if you wish...In tournies and campaigns you need to speak to the organizer ahead of time for a ruling...That pretty much covers every type of gaming situation doesn't it? Any which way, you technically need to find out if it's allowed as it does break the letter of the rules even though not nescessarilly the intent...

However this type of ommision isn't always accidental...I remember when the Vampire Counts came out for 6th everyone thought immunity to poison was an accidental ommision (compared to the Ravening Hordes list) but it was, in fact, intentional...

As I said I do think this was an accidental ommision but until there is errata specifically dealing with this item in a Chronical (do they have "Official" online FAQs? I know WD isn't truly official anymore) or a revised Armybook the true Leagal status is that it cannot be combined...