Monday, January 26, 2009

Episode 10 : Rambling about the F.A.Q.s

Episode 10 - Rambling about the F.A.Q.s

Show notes:

  1. Sponsorship : Capital City Games
  2. Listener E-mail : No Listener E-mail
  3. News/Rumors : Black Library pre-orders and Upcoming Grand Tournament season
  4. Feature : Discussion of the new Warhammer Fantasy F.A.Q.
I am joined by Brett Malone, one of the co-owners of a local game store in Springfield Illlinois, Capital City Games. We ramble on quite a bit throughout this episode about many things not pertaining to the F.A.Q. however we do get to it and discuss the latest F.A.Q. release from Games-Workshop for Warhammer Fantasy which can be found here Warhammer Fantasy F.A.Q.

We mention a number of books either up for order or pre-order from the Black Library and can be found on their website on the link. We point out that the Grand Tournament season is ramping up and give a quick rundown of what big tournaments are coming up in the first half of the year; the linkes to each GT can be found below.








Please if you enjoy the show leave comments; if you have I-Tunes please leave I-Tunes Reviews. Any questions or comments e-mail us at; you can use Skype to contact and leave Voicemails for me. As always; Thanks for listening!!!!

Download This Episode
Episode Length 1hr 55min 46sec


Anonymous said...

In just the initial defense, since I am not through with the cast yet, my boggle with the lance ruling was that the rule was under mundane weapons. And the lance, is a magical lance. And no where in the rulebook did it seperate or explain a ruling similar to that. Yes you could take RAI and explain certain instances, but the magical weapons specifically stated it overrided mundane weapons, if I am remembering the LRB correctly. So the RAW directly contradicted the RAI. Furthermore, others conceited the fact that charge bonuses would be lost, thats self explanatory, but would the additional properties of the lance, FOR ANY RACE, be lost, or mounted weapon. For instance could you still auto hit with the Dreadlance, could you still have flaming attacks with Balefire Spike, and so on and so forth. Orcs and goblins have Porko's Pigstikka, is that effected? High Elves have similar weapons, and so on accross the board.

However, I did see the argument from your point of view. But my boggle was always, These rules contradict each other and both do have somewhat valid points.

Futhermore, I never took the Dreadlance RED Fury(not blood fury)combo, I took the Balefire Spike Infinite Hatred combo on a Hellsteed. Which is what you have to take to avoid becoming dismounted(since I never wanted to get myself into that situation in the first place).

And yes sometimes, I am a chisler, we all are at one time or another, but ask Steve Stacy I role for odds and evens if there is a legitamite disagreement.

Anonymous said...

Speaking for HE the Star Lance specifically states while mounted so there never was an issue. If anything this item proved what eventually ended up in the FAQ. Porko's Pigstika also says mounted only. The only people that seem to be off the hook are Wood Elves because their Spears can be used on foot or mounted. I think the argument for the magic lance being used on foot was built about as good as a house of cards while the counter argument was actually built of brick and mortar. GW just had to throw a brick at some people since the obvious sailed right over their heads.

As for the hill situation it was slightly different and the key problem was that Dave made a previous ruling in the first round and I was applying that ruling in my second game. Not to say that the ruling was correct 100% but it was consistent and in line with Dave's original ruling.

Anonymous said...

Well we can never reproduce the situation exactly(well one could) but if two units were to be on hills then one unit obviously couldn't shoot down at them unless it was a teared hill. This is why a war machines behind even one rank of archers can't shoot over them if they are on the same hill. They have to be off of the hill.

The stack of cards is a great metaphor and alot of the rules stem from that. A bit more consistancy in the books or a new rendition of the core rulebook to include everything that has changed would be nice. I like before when they made cutouts that went into the books to reword sentences and whole paragraphs.

Anonymous said...

Don't really want to get into the hill situation via post I would rather actually discuss it on a Podcast since not everyone may read these comments.

Anonymous said...

there can arguments either way, the tournament organizer comes in if either player won't agree to a dice ruling. I would rather actually prefer that in any instance in which players dispute a rule where a faq doesn't exist. If rulings were made; however, prior then the presumption that, "thats the way it works," Then thats all you could base it on, and obviously that is what happened. However its passed now and put behind everyone so really no reason to expand

But every gamestore will have a different ruling, remember buildings in 5th edition with Tom, I got kicked out of a tournament because I defended my point of view, but the house rule ended up that a charge by a regiment of bretonian knights could be done through and up into the second story of a they fit, I don't know, especially onto a second level....

But after that point I simply use tactics that are legal and if there are questions iron them out in friendly, non-competitive games, likes instead of trying to play the rule book since interpretations change from faq to store to person who reads them...

Anonymous said...

I like your interviews.

Anonymous said...

Tabletalk interviews are key to good warhammer games, stay with it

Anonymous said...

Was good, keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

good job

Anonymous said...

Feb 12th they came up with another FAQ to do another show on, FYI