Dark Elf FAQ update

Fr0 · Post by **Fr0** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:17 pm

Er, I believe they changed the points cost of WoS for a reason. Unlikely to be changed. We have waited some time, and holding out til just after New Years won't kill us.

Dagger of assassination · Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:26 pm

Mayby the faq comes with second wave or at new year...

Kergoth · Post by **Kergoth** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:44 pm

The web team is historically poor at posting stuff in a timely manner unfortunately. Seems to have become even worse with the new web site for some reason as well. Not sure why unless they are trying to figure out how to link each question into the online store like everything else...

Isn't that already the case?

I thought I ones saw a FAQ behind a space marine picture there. Could be the WD too.

Chivalrous · Post by **Chivalrous** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:07 pm

riker666 wrote:The errata should just remove the web of shadows from the book. Forever...

It's useful in cahallenges where you're just going up against a unit champion. you usually come out with a reasonable overkill bonus. Trouble is that that is all it's good for.
It's an item that's pretty good for unit champions as and where they can take them. 50 points prices it out of their hands though, sadly.

Silashand · Post by **Silashand** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:18 pm

Personally I have never actually found a use for the WoS even in the old book. It never seemed to do anything worhtwhile and was a mediocre choice to begin with. At 50pts IMO it's a definite non-choice. JMO though...

Cheers, Gary

Ehakir · Post by **Ehakir** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:48 am

I once ran a sorc with the web and a scroll in the last edition, and took steed of shadows. My opponent (HE) wasn't very pleased to find his archmage dead next to his dragon... :lol:

Iyagd · Post by **Iyagd** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:43 am

Guys, don't drift, stay on topic please! This thread is clearly not about Web Of Shadows.

Ehakir · Post by **Ehakir** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:26 pm

Sorry

I hope the FAQ will be on in short time

Melikai the wicked · Post by **Melikai the wicked** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:39 am

So is there any news aobut when we will see this FAQ? I cant wait anymore....

Silashand · Post by **Silashand** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:48 am

None yet apparently. Dunno what's up with it.

Cheers, Gary

Dagger of assassination · Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:15 pm

I still think that faq comes with the second wave because that would sound obvious...

Dooks dizzo · Post by **Dooks dizzo** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:17 pm

The good news is we don't have to worry about a movement through cover nerf with the Hydra according to the new BRB FAQ

Really it's just the Manbane+Stars and maybe the Pendant ruling that we really need.

Oh, and Black Horror is not effected by Magic Resistance!

The skaerkrow · Post by **The skaerkrow** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:33 am

There's a new FAQ for the main rulebook up at GW's website. Nothing for the Dark Elves, though.

Ebonyphoenix · Post by **Ebonyphoenix** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:36 am

I'm starting to sense one of two things. 1) GW likes making Dark Elves wait for things we need, or 2) They have been planning to release it with the "second wave" like others have been saying.

Post by **Dark Alliance** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm

Dooks Dizzo wrote:
Oh, and Black Horror is not effected by Magic Resistance!

Why not?

Marauder mitch2 · Post by **Marauder mitch2** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:46 pm

Looks like someone is taking the no targetting rule a bit too far. If in doubt given the opponent benefit of the doubt is my rule.

Post by **Dark Alliance** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:06 am

It says in the main rule book "pick a target for your spell"...

Silverheimdall · Post by **Silverheimdall** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:23 am

Dark Alliance wrote:It says in the main rule book "pick a target for your spell"...

Long debate on Warseer and TWF, I end up looking as the "guy who makes stuff up" for bring page 107 up and showing them that you pick a target before casting.

They say spells that don't mention having to target simply don't target and they made a list of spells that 'now ignores MR and Ring of Hotek completely'...

-_- sigh.

GWShop FAQ was nice but it brought confusion on a few points now, especially the contradictions.

Post by **Dark Alliance** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:19 am

Personally I give no creedence to Warseer...

As for TWF, I'll have a look but it doesn't change page 107.

Post by **Dalamar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:36 am

hmm. the way I understand the FAQ it means that all area spells are unaffected by MR/RoH :s

In case of Black Horror your target is a point in space where the template will show up when the spell is successfully cast, and affect all units it touches. Problem is according to this FAQ affecting doesn't mean targetting.

Like for example Wind of Undeath. Does it target all units on the table... or just affect them? (I don't have VC book)

Silly GW and their FAQs <.<

Shrike · Post by **Shrike** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:07 pm

I think Black Horror is targetting whatever it hits- otherwise you could place it on models in combat and say, "Nah, I'm not targetting those models in combat, I'm just targetting the ground beneath then... honest!" :lol:

The skaerkrow · Post by **The skaerkrow** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:19 pm

Black Horror does not have a target unit. If GW has changed the wording of Magic Resistance to require the unit be "targeted" as a quantifier, then Magic Resistance no longer applies against Black Horror. I don't really care for that, but it's clearly how the rules are written, so there you go. If Black Horror can't be cast into combat, it'll be because of the rules preventing you from intentionally placing templates so that they hit units in combat.

All this FAQ has done is illustrate to me that GW needs to hire new people to handle its FAQs and errata. They have a team that comes up with a lot of good ideas, but they need to hire a rules lawyer (or three) to fashion those ideas into tight, concise rules that are consistent with one another. Make the rules tournament quality and encourage people to take them lightly for friendly games, instead of writing rules casually and expecting players to hash through many ambiguous grey areas in order to make tournaments work.

Desert icon · Post by **Desert icon** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Hmm, not too sure here, but I think that we may be drifting off topic just a tiiiiiny bit...

So much for it coming out shortly after New Year's! The suspense... she is killing me.

Post by **Dark Alliance** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:04 pm

The problem with Black Horror and other similar spells is the potential for causing ill-feeling during the game. There are times when the MR will not be applicable, but there will also be times when it is, and just because the word "target" is not included in the spell description, woe betide anyone who tries to claim they are targeting the ground my unit is standing on.

Tbh, the majority of the comments in the various threads I have read so far about this, are just further indications of why people ought to play more games and spend less time locked away dissecting every last letter in the given rules.

Geez...

The skaerkrow · Post by **The skaerkrow** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:42 pm

While I understand the sentiment DA, the problem with Black Horror is that it has no target. You simply place the template anywhere within 18" of the caster, and off you go. You cannot claim that a unit is targeted by something just because it's in the area of effect (if GW wants to change this, then they need to switch out "targeted" with "effected").

Now, if you want to have this discussion with your opponent before the game and make a house ruling, that's absolutely great. But, once the game begins, it's a bit too late to propose a rules change.