PDA

View Full Version : pThagrosh errata omitted, Infernals change their minds?



MeniteTom
01-21-2013, 11:32 AM
An Infernal explicitly stated that Thagrosh would be receiving errata that would prevent him from using his feat on a Gargantuan. However, there is no mention of it in the new errata. Was this accidental or has the ruling changed?

Original post: https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?115521-Colossals-and-Re-Deployment&p=1612034#post1612034

DarkLegacy
01-21-2013, 11:38 AM
It is possible they are waiting for the model to be released.

Vex
01-21-2013, 11:45 AM
Maybe they decided to let the AA be good with at least one warlock?

x3tsniper
01-21-2013, 11:49 AM
It seems likely that errata wasn't included since the model is not actually released.

Valander
01-21-2013, 11:52 AM
It was decided not to errata Thagrosh's feat at this time.

Yes, this means he can return an Archangel. Enjoy.

DarkLegacy
01-21-2013, 12:00 PM
Well, that's a lot of fun. :)

x3tsniper
01-21-2013, 12:06 PM
So does it get around the placement thing with Thagarosh's feat? That confuses me.

Can't Gargantuans not be placed, and Thagarosh's feat requires placement? Is this why there is no errata necessary?


"Return one destroyed warbeast that was part of Thagrosh's battlegroup to play. Place it anywhere within 3" of him."

warlorddrax
01-21-2013, 12:07 PM
i thought that it was the whole "no place effects" thing that stopped the Archangel from being returned...

is the pThagrosh feat an exception to this rule?

Rynth
01-21-2013, 12:09 PM
So does it get around the placement thing with Thagarosh's feat? That confuses me.

Can't Gargantuans not be placed, and Thagarosh's feat requires placement? Is this why there is no errata necessary?

There are place effects and there are put into play effects that use the word place. Telekinesis and Mirage are examples of place effects; Thagrosh's feat and Ambush are examples of put into play effects that use the word place.

Colossal/Gargantuan rules do not prevent put into play effects that use the word place.

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?115521-Colossals-and-Re-Deployment&p=1612034&viewfull=1#post1612034
Infernal explanation of what I said.

Valander
01-21-2013, 12:09 PM
The place immunity for colossals/gargantuans does not exist while the model is not in play. Quoting poeticruse's original answer, with minor edit:


Answer is:

Colossals may not redeploy, because their place immunity prevents them from being placed.

Some other rules (reinforcements, ambush, Thagrosh's feat) say things like "place" when they are putting a model into play. Place immunity does NOT prevent a model from being put into play by those effects.

FearLord
01-21-2013, 12:13 PM
This is extremely sloppy. I understand that there was an unintentional difference in when some place effects can be used, but if this is so, these effects should be errated so they don't say place - Gargantuan's have a rule that says they cannot be placed - this should be universal for any effect that 'places' a model - if pThagrosh's feat is intended to work on Gargantuans, it should be errated so that it can be...

warlorddrax
01-21-2013, 12:14 PM
cool! good to know, thanks for the quick response

Mr. Golden Deal
01-21-2013, 12:17 PM
This is extremely sloppy. I understand that there was an unintentional difference in when some place effects can be used, but if this is so, these effects should be errated so they don't say place - Gargantuan's have a rule that says they cannot be placed - this should be universal for any effect that 'places' a model - if pThagrosh's feat is intended to work on Gargantuans, it should be errated so that it can be...
How do you expect them to say those effects? "Put them on the table"? By your expectations, deployment is 'placing' so you'd never get to put a Colossal/Gargantuan on the table, ever.

x3tsniper
01-21-2013, 12:17 PM
This is extremely sloppy. I understand that there was an unintentional difference in when some place effects can be used, but if this is so, these effects should be errated so they don't say place - Gargantuan's have a rule that says they cannot be placed - this should be universal for any effect that 'places' a model - if pThagrosh's feat is intended to work on Gargantuans, it should be errated so that it can be...

This. I don't even care if it gets errated at a future date, but to say one place effect doesn't equal another place effect in rules makes me want to table flip.

poeticruse
01-21-2013, 04:35 PM
Use of colloquial english makes writing rules very challenging. Every effort is made to make them very clear.

"Place the model in play from out of play" is different than "place the model from one place to another".

Calling for errata because you do not understand that difference after being told is merely argumentative.

poeticruse
01-21-2013, 04:42 PM
An Infernal explicitly stated that Thagrosh would be receiving errata that would prevent him from using his feat on a Gargantuan. However, there is no mention of it in the new errata. Was this accidental or has the ruling changed?

Original post: https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?115521-Colossals-and-Re-Deployment&p=1612034#post1612034

Just confirming what Valander said, this was not accidental.