Death fist.....dead

only a noob (new player) that would read the errata/FAQ document for the first time would think... hmmm, why is the faq saying something that the errata is clear about???
ALL that have been playing for a bit longer know that the Greedy fist is meant for Close Combat. anyone that wants otherwise is trying to cheat what the item was meant for.
I tried the Deathfist once and in the top of turn one deleted my (friendly) opponents Slann to lvl0. the rest of the game was of no fun at all.
Tried it, it worked... but I think i would like to win a game that is challenging, not by a lowsy FAQ that should have been deleted.

...my 2 cents...

only a noob (new player) that would read the errata/FAQ document for the first time would think... hmmm, why is the faq saying something that the errata is clear about???
ALL that have been playing for a bit longer know that the Greedy fist is meant for Close Combat. anyone that wants otherwise is trying to cheat what the item was meant for.
I tried the Deathfist once and in the top of turn one deleted my (friendly) opponents Slann to lvl0. the rest of the game was of no fun at all.
Tried it, it worked... but I think i would like to win a game that is challenging, not by a lowsy FAQ that should have been deleted.

...my 2 cents...

So, GW, by putting the FAQ in even before this errata was in there was just making us all cheat then by saying range was acceptable?

I completely agree with you, no fun at all for either party.

And thanks for the clarification on noob, btw.     

wouldn't want to hurt people's feelings or anything. 
Before GW put the errata in it was allowed. but even than I felt it was cheating a bit...
I think it is obvious the errata were meant to fix it.

I bet they originally meant for greedy fist to strip magic levels of wizards for all hits in close combat and shooting phases, just not in magic phases. But they were too loose on their "range" wording. I think they envisioned a tyrant/bruiser with a pistol or a hunter with whatever range they choose, or even golfgag with a pistol. I don't think they envisioned this working on a death slaughtermaster...

I'd like to see a FAQ "do hits from a spell count as coming from the wizard?".

After one memorable incident with an Empire wizard with a sword that allows him to "re-roll wounds" then claiming he could re-roll to wound when my unit moved through a flame cage cast by the wizard (yeah,  ) I had a good look into this.

There doesn't seem to be any FAQ evidence about this. There used to be an Empire FAQ about warrior prayers in the old book and an old lizardmen FAQ about the bane head but nothing in the current FAQs.

Any reason why we consider that spells comes from the wizard and not the spell? It kind of makes sense with magic missiles, but plenty of others are more confusing. Is a Skullstorm vortex causing hits or the caster? What about a Comet of Cassandora? Can it strip levels with Greedy Fist or wounds be doubled by the Bane Head? The Comet can cause hits even after the caster is dead!

Seems to me all of this would be a lot simpler if hits from a spell count as coming from the spell, not the caster. You wouldn't need to put in "except for spells" for every special rule like armour piercing or flaming attacks and it would prevent unforseen spell combinations with magic items like this.

wouldn't want to hurt people's feelings or anything. 
Before GW put the errata in it was allowed. but even than I felt it was cheating a bit...
I think it is obvious the errata were meant to fix it.

I agree totally with you, the only issue is that GW normally says that they do not refer to older documents (so a new army book never refers to an older army book, and a FAQ never refers to an older version)
That makes this a bit annoying


To the rest: let's keep it on the greedyfist/death magic combination and the FAQ/ errata and not go on all other issues with FAQ's

well as a long time player, I am still using Gfisting due to 1. it was FAQed as saying it removes levels from range and 2. I am sick of every match i play it is always death magic against me. Always. Copping 4 Psuns in one game is not much fun. Losing to a 14 year old kid cos his whole tactic was throw Teclis Max psuns and hope for IF is frustrating. a pendant LVL4 death caster on a peg is almost impossible to tie down/avoid and can vape a whole flank.

Having said that, I will alter my play for when and if the FAQ is updated.

I completley agree with above. You know whats "not fun"? A purple sun in my face. It burns and its hot and my ogres cry a little when people complain ohhhh you cant hurt my wizard thats cheating
. You know what it is a viable alternative to your shenanigans.and to people that say the faq part is optional you are so full of it. I guarantee you use the faq section of YOUR army when it benefits you. And my fellow ogrw players you gotta band together. If you dont like the fist dont use it, it isnt for everyone but dont roll over on the rest of us.

Can I ask a question?

Where are you guys getting close combat from? 

No where under Greedtfist are the words close combat.

Can I ask a question?

Where are you guys getting close combat from? 

No where under Greedtfist are the words close combat.

There's a section in the FAQ for Ogres (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710129a_Ogre_Kingdoms_v1.0.pdf) that says, under the Greedy Fist section;
Page 62 – Greedy Fist, second paragraph. Change the last sentence to “In addition, an enemy Wizard loses a Wizard level and a randomly selected spell each time they are hit in close combat by an Ogre wearing the Greedy Fist.”

There is also an entry that says, in the FAQ section;
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

That's the discussion

There is also an entry that says, in the FAQ section;
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

I can understand some people saying doing this would be in poor form, but how you can possibly argue that it is against the rules?  It can't get any clearer than that.

I can understand some people saying doing this would be in poor form, but how you can possibly argue that it is against the rules?  It can't get any clearer than that.

The errata is perfectly clear that it only works in close combat now. Therefore the FAQ contradicts the errata. That suddenly isn't very clear!

Given this FAQ caused a lot of nuisance, given that GW generally regard errata as "hard" rules changes and FAQs as "soft" house rules, given that the errata is more recent, it is more likely that the errata represents a change and the FAQ was left in by mistake than that they put in an errata for absolutely no reason other than to confuse people.

I can understand some people saying doing this would be in poor form, but how you can possibly argue that it is against the rules?  It can't get any clearer than that.

The errata is perfectly clear that it only works in close combat now. Therefore the FAQ contradicts the errata. That suddenly isn't very clear!

Given this FAQ caused a lot of nuisance, given that GW generally regard errata as "hard" rules changes and FAQs as "soft" house rules, given that the errata is more recent, it is more likely that the errata represents a change and the FAQ was left in by mistake than that they put in an errata for absolutely no reason other than to confuse people.

I still haven't found anywhere on the GW site that says that FAQ's are "House Rules." The page that explains the FAQ's and Errata and how they work (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3000006) says that the Errata "provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material."

Whereas the FAQ's "are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

Now, where in that does it say the Errata are the Gods of the FAQ and Errata section and the FAQ's are the filthy peons that cower in their wake, so to say. 

Indeed. But if the FAQ is supposed to cover a grey area (since Greedy Fist doesn't specify in close combat, there was the "grey area" question as to whether it worked with ranged attacks) and then an errata then removes the grey area, replacing it with a "hard and fast" rule, what purpose is the FAQ serving?

But as to the whole "hard" and "soft" actually they had it a bit more clearly before. After a bit of digging, the previous shrine of knowledge blurb (I knew I got it from somewhere!) actually used the terms "hard" and "soft" and referred to the FAQs as "studio house rules":

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. [...] The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

So the official interpretation from Games Workshop is that the Greedy Fist indeed does apply to ranged attacks.  Although it may be cheesy and not in the best form, in my opinion it is legal and not cheating.

Certainly a grey area and just plain stupid of Games Workshop to have such confusing information.  But, I don't think anyone should make assessments as to their intention or whether they forgot to remove the FAQ.

I took it a step further since I am going to Adepticon and asked them for a rules clarification.  Their reply was that the FAQ allows it.

Indeed. But if the FAQ is supposed to cover a grey area (since Greedy Fist doesn't specify in close combat, there was the "grey area" question as to whether it worked with ranged attacks) and then an errata then removes the grey area, replacing it with a "hard and fast" rule, what purpose is the FAQ serving?

But as to the whole "hard" and "soft" actually they had it a bit more clearly before. After a bit of digging, the previous shrine of knowledge blurb (I knew I got it from somewhere!) actually used the terms "hard" and "soft" and referred to the FAQs as "studio house rules":

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. [...] The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Be honest GI, I completely agree with you that GW putting Close Combat in the Errata and keeping range in the FAQ was downright silly. I don't really like the DeathFisting tactic because it seems a little cheesy. We can get around PSun with other not so cheese ways. I do still believe that as long as that FAQ is there, no matter if GW meant to get rid of it or not, I will still let the mice have their cheese because the Errata and FAQ clearly state that both situations are correct.

The way they read right now is that the Gfist makes wizards useless in CC. and then the FAQ says "Yes, it does work with range."

Now my question is, if the Errata came first, and they just added the range FAQ, would there still be an issue?

I do still believe that as long as that FAQ is there, no matter if GW meant to get rid of it or not, I will still let the mice have their cheese because the Errata and FAQ clearly state that both situations are correct.

That's fine. It isn't the first non-sensical FAQ we've had! It's a resolution to the contradiction. I just take objection to the stance that there isn't a contradiction!

Now my question is, if the Errata came first, and they just added the range FAQ, would there still be an issue?

Or if it had said "in close combat" in the actual printed army book and then the FAQ came out?

The answer is there'd be a whole lot more of an issue. Imagine that they said something similar: "Halberds give +1 strength in close combat. Do they give that bonus to strength tests outside of close combat? -- Yes." This would make a lot of people grouchy but not only that we start to wonder does that apply to other things? Or just halberds?

FAQs that are unnecessary or change something everyone was perfectly clear on can really make a mess. Take the one about "unmodified Ld" for example. Clearly that's meant to refer to units taking tests on unmodified ld but it has unfortunately sloppy wording and it's been taken to mean that any model's unmodified Ld is the highest in the unit. Spirit Leech was a perfectly simple spell before the FAQ and has lead to a whole pile of abuse like death snipe choirs with a vamp lord in the unit. Remove that stupid FAQ that we really didn't need and the problem goes away.

Contradictions between text/errata and FAQs are never good. At least in this case there's a simple explanation of how it went.

1) Ambiguity in the rules
2) Ambiguity resolved via FAQ, causes unintended cheesy loophole
3) Loophole (and ambiguity) closed by errata
4) FAQ not removed, causing contradiction.

Learn to win without it. Seriously. Its cheese. Moldy cheese.

It wasn't even real cheese. It was more like processed cheese product that was trying to be cheese, everyone thought it was cheese, but it really wasn't cheese. It was just another thing you could do. Gimmicky

A bit like the Hellheart, people scream about entire armies having their wizards dimensional cascade every game against it when really it's going to give you one free magic phase if used at the right time with the right dice roll. Still, people got butthurt against it.

It seems that since the OK book came out every is butthurt about anything you do, and then when you lose they rub it in your face that they beat an Ogre player. (either that or the people I play with are jerks. Hahaha) I stopped playing competitive lists...too much whining. 

Welcome to playing with a strong book. As any Daemon player that started the army before 7th ed.

Yeah, I started on Wood Elves, I've been used to being balance challenged... Haha

A bit like the Hellheart, people scream about entire armies having their wizards dimensional cascade every game against it when really it's going to give you one free magic phase if used at the right time with the right dice roll. Still, people got butthurt against it.

And the hellheart isn't even worse then cupped hands.

A bit like the Hellheart, people scream about entire armies having their wizards dimensional cascade every game against it when really it's going to give you one free magic phase if used at the right time with the right dice roll. Still, people got butthurt against it.

And the hellheart isn't even worse then cupped hands.

How so?  I'm a big fan of hellheart, but I fear I might be under-estimating cupped hands.  I thought it was a 1-shot, 2+ roll gives 1 other enemy wizard a miscast?

What do you all mean, 'cupped hands'?

@GotG - Cupped Hands {of the Old Ones} is a Lizardmen arcane item that can, on a 2+, transfer the effects of a miscast from the bearer to an enemy wizard within line of sight.

@hmjeus - Cupped Hands is 5 pts cheaper than the Hellheart, allows you to get a spell to go IF with no penalty, gives a miscast to an enemy wizard and works ~84% of the time.  The HH costs all of a Hero level characters item budget, can cause multiple miscasts, can generate extra dispel dice, and has a very random area it affects (5-30 inch radius).  Cupped Hands wins out because of reliability and the fact that it allows an IF with no penalty (making it both offensive and defensive in nature).  The fact that it is cheaper is just icing on the cake.

@GotG - Cupped Hands {of the Old Ones} is a Lizardmen arcane item that can, on a 2+, transfer the effects of a miscast from the bearer to an enemy wizard within line of sight.

@hmjeus - Cupped Hands is 5 pts cheaper than the Hellheart, allows you to get a spell to go IF with no penalty, gives a miscast to an enemy wizard and works ~84% of the time.  The HH costs all of a Hero level characters item budget, can cause multiple miscasts, can generate extra dispel dice, and has a very random area it affects (5-30 inch radius).  Cupped Hands wins out because of reliability and the fact that it allows an IF with no penalty (making it both offensive and defensive in nature).  The fact that it is cheaper is just icing on the cake.

-Snark

Cool, that clears it up.  Thank you.

@hmjeus - You're welcome

Back on Topic - It is my opinion that to be adequately protected from your typical IF-to-win spells, we really only need 2 options out of the following 4 (or 5) available to us:  Dispel Scroll, Hell Heart, Poison Sniper Maneaters, Runemaw Banner, and the debatable Deathfisting.  I believe the first two are the most efficient source of protection, unless you run a horde or are in an environment where the HH is comped, in which case the Runemaw banner + Dispel Scroll is an adequate alternative.  Poison Sniper Maneaters, Deathfisting, and to a lesser extent the Runemaw - all come with a heavy opportunity cost.  Lore of Death is arguably the weakest lore for our army, Sniper is so much worse a special rule than Stubborn/Swiftstride/Scout, and a Runemaw BSB in combat is like a cardboard cut-out compared to a BSB with Dragonhelm+Crown of Command+Luckstone.

Deathfisting was a neat trick, but compared to a Lvl 4 Heavens+Maw or Lvl 4 Maw+Beasts or Lvl 4 Maw+Firebelly or Tyrant+2 Firebelly combination, it just isn't very effective.  Choose one of those lore combinations with two of the more efficient magic defenses listed above, and you will find your army better for it.

TL:DR - Whether it's dead or not is moot ... it was never really that good.

-Snark

PS:  My favorite is either to run:  Lvl 4 Heavens + Armor of Destiny/Gruts and a Lvl 1 Maw + Hellheart with a Runemaw BSB
- or -
Lvl 4 Maw + Fencers/Dispel Scroll/Greedy Fist and a Lvl 2 Firebelly + RRR/Dispel Scroll with a Stubborn BSB.