AoS Realmshaper Engine good ro useless?

[Asvic]

The FAQ you quoted was one of the first before faction terrain was a thing

So it works for faction terrain until clarified otherwise. No need to invent the rules that aren't there.

 

[Blitzkriyg]

So it works for faction terrain until clarified otherwise. No need to invent the rules that aren't there.

Except faction terrain is an allegiance ability that is to be taken as part of your army. I'm not making up anything

 

[Killer Angel]

Except faction terrain is an allegiance ability that is to be taken as part of your army. I'm not making up anything

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not listed under "allegiance abilities". And faction terrain is not automatically included, you "can" take it.

This specifically refers to things like the
Numinous Occulum or azerite ruins that have warscrolls but you can't take in an army and aren't used in matched play, not faction terrain

Are you sure? Numinous Occulum, Azerite ruins and all generic terrains are not included in the tome "pitched battle profiles", while faction terrains are... and that FAQ explicitly refers to terrains that have a pitched battle profile

The FAQ you quoted was one of the first before faction terrain was a thing

even if, the entirety of the FAQ is rules. If they don't update an old FAQ it it's not my fault, it remains a rule unless clarified.

 

[Blitzkriyg]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not listed under "allegiance abilities". And faction terrain is not automatically included, you "can" take it.



Are you sure? Numinous Occulum, Azerite ruins and all generic terrains are not included in the tome "pitched battle profiles", while faction terrains are... and that FAQ explicitly refers to terrains that have a pitched battle profile



even if, the entirety of the FAQ is rules. If they don't update an old FAQ it it's not my fault, it remains a rule unless clarified.

So what you've just said is according to the FAQ, you cannot use faction terrain at all because when asked if you can take it in your army, it states no. I hope you don't intend on taking it and if you play anyone using any faction terrain, you refuse them.

If you want to argue, argue with the battle tome that states they are part of a players army on page 62

 

[Erta Wanderer]

So what you've just said is according to the FAQ, you cannot use faction terrain at all because when asked if you can take it in your army, it states no. I hope you don't intend on taking it and if you play anyone using any faction terrain, you refuse them.

that is a very uncharitable reading of the whole thing. but then again that has been your whole modus operandi so far so not really surprised.
almost every one that has either reviewed or played this so far agrees with angel

 

[Blitzkriyg]

that is a very uncharitable reading of the whole thing. but then again that has been your whole modus operandi so far so not really surprised.
almost every one that has either reviewed or played this so far agrees with angel

How so? You're arguing the faq is law without interpretation, the faq says terrain with pitched battle profiles cannot be taken in your army. I'm literally using your argument.

 

[Killer Angel]

that is a very uncharitable reading of the whole thing. but then again that has been your whole modus operandi so far so not really surprised

Please don't do this.

So what you've just said is according to the FAQ, you cannot use faction terrain at all because when asked if you can take it in your army, it states no.

basically it's
rule 1: terrains are not part of the army
rule 2: you can include the terrain in your army

they collide, no doubt about it. We had various examples of colliding rules (Lord Kroak can cast multiple times the same spell - rule of one - warscrolls supersede general rule - no, kroak is subject to rule of one - … - and so on).
to me, any one that wrote faction terrain rules that explicitly say that terrains are included in the army, was wrong… or lazy because the general FAQ has not been updated.
So, my take is: terrains are not a part of your army, but you can field your faction terrains. But once fielded, they are "neutral", as all terrains are. Which explains also why my opponent can garrison the RE.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Please don't do this.

fair you have my apologies

 

[Asvic]

How so? You're arguing the faq is law without interpretation, the faq says terrain with pitched battle profiles cannot be taken in your army. I'm literally using your argument.

Summoned units are not part of your army roster, yet you can summon them no problem. The same with terrain.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

How so? You're arguing the faq is law without interpretation, the faq says terrain with pitched battle profiles cannot be taken in your army. I'm literally using your argument.

i haven't mentioned the FAQ at all so no not my argument. mine was that no one will care and it doesn't go into warscroll builders(admittedly that one was wrong)

 

[Blitzkriyg]

rule 1: terrains are not part of the army

Page 62 of the battle tome says it is

 

[Killer Angel]

Page 62 of the battle tome says it is

rule 1 - FAQ: terrains are not part of the army
rule 2 - Battletome: you can include the terrain in your army

hope this is clearer. The reast of the reasoning is unchanged and I'm going to quote it for the sake of simplicity:
the 2 rules collide, no doubt about it. We had various examples of colliding rules (Lord Kroak can cast multiple times the same spell - rule of one - warscrolls supersede general rule - no, kroak is subject to rule of one - … - and so on).
to me, any one that wrote faction terrain rules that explicitly say that terrains are included in the army, was wrong… or lazy because the general FAQ has not been updated.
So, my take is: terrains are not a part of your army, but you can field your faction terrains. But once fielded, they are "neutral", as all terrains are. Which explains also why my opponent can garrison the RE.

 

[Blitzkriyg]

rule 1 - FAQ: terrains are not part of the army

Except they are. Show me what faq has started that page 62 of the seraphon battle tome stating it is part of a players army has been changed.

I don't know how many times I have to state the same thing. I suggest you read the page I am referring to before simply posting the same incorrect information again.

 

[Grotpunter]

The FAQ you quoted was one of the first before faction terrain was a thing

This definitely tilts me back to thinking it is a part of your army. Im wondering though, isnt the keyword Seraphon essential to be a part of your roster? I wonder why the RSE doesnt have that keyword.

 

[Blitzkriyg]

This definitely tilts me back to thinking it is a part of your army. Im wondering though, isnt the keyword Seraphon essential to be a part of your roster? I wonder why the RSE doesnt have that keyword.

It's an extra bonus that you get from being seraphon, it is not seraphon owned, thus why others can garrison in it. I have attached the relevant image showing it is also part of the army

 

[Killer Angel]

I don't know how many times I have to state the same thing. I suggest you read the page I am referring to before simply posting the same incorrect information again.

sweet jesus, apparently i'm not the only one who is stubborn.
I KNOW the page you are referring, right? i know it. And i also know that RAI you are right.

What I'm saying is that the previous FAQ states that terrains are not a part of the army.
They need to get rid of the FAQ, or update it. Because otherwise anyone will be able to pick the FAQ and say "this prevails"

By raw (the pag. 62), you cannot field a RE in a tournament where terrains are already placed. It's simple as that. But I bet the referees will allow you to do it. That FAQ is a weak point and anyone could use it as proof.


IMO, the most (and probably the only) valid reasoning would be that:
1 - the FAQ says "warscrolls are included for those instances when a spell or ability allows you to set up the terrain feature".
2 - If a terrain feature is fielded for a reason different than spells or abilitiies, the FAQ doesn't apply.
3 - the RE is not listed under "allegiance abilites", so the FAQ doesn't work in that case, and so the RE it's a part of the army, as written in the battletome.


but this needs to be the reasoning. To simply say "the FAQ is older" won't work by itself.

 

[Blitzkriyg]

Except that faq isn't talking about faction terrain. But I'm done talking about it, you're arguemnt is with gw, not me, tell them they are wrong.

 

[Killer Angel]

Except that faq isn't talking about faction terrain.

Faction terrains are terrains. in the warscrolls the keyword is "terrain", not "faction terrain"

But I'm done talking about it, you're arguemnt is with gw, not me, tell them they are wrong.

I know, we are just debating over the usual mess in the rules. I think that debates like this happened since the 2nd WHFB edition.


An anyway, even if the RE is a part of your army, in all the rules for terrains "friendly unit" refers to the player who's actually controlling the objective. So a seraphon opponent that controls "your" terrain can use its entire abilities.

 

[ILKAIN]

hey guys... um... you both seem to be overlooking one really important thing that GW does. when they release a new BT, GHB or now the separate time book that's just the points (I forget the actual name) they always state the release date of the publication, and state that it overrides any and all publications with an earlier date.

If the relevant FAQ has not been updated with a later date than the Seraphon BT, then by GW the Seraphon BT specifically over rides it. as much as I often disagree with @Blitzkriyg he's right.... just not the way he thought he was right lol

 

[Grotpunter]

hey guys... um... you both seem to be overlooking one really important thing that GW does. when they release a new BT, GHB or now the separate time book that's just the points (I forget the actual name) they always state the release date of the publication, and state that it overrides any and all publications with an earlier date.

If the relevant FAQ has not been updated with a later date than the Seraphon BT, then by GW the Seraphon BT specifically over rides it. as much as I often disagree with @Blitzkriyg he's right.... just not the way he thought he was right lol

Pretty sure that is only warscrolls etc. FAQs dont get “outdated”, otherwise every new release would be a complete mess.