Radagast vs Mumakil...

Rangefinder · **Posted:** Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:26 pm

I have been following this thread for a while. It started smart, devolved, and has come back full circle now. It is a great example of RAW vs. RAI. I have 3 Mumakil, and was seeing it both ways really.
I have a buddy who has Radgast. He loved the idea that Radgast could make the Mumak vanish. And I quote, "HA HA HA HA..." But he concedes the intention of this spell is for Cavalry, and not the Mumak.
A far cry from an Official ruling, but this is how we are running it.

Spud14 · **Joined:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:03 pm **Posts:** 33

I wonder if anyone actually thinks it was ever intended for the spell to work on a mumak rather than simply being an oversight that wasn't considered in the writing of the books? I can't really see anyone saying it was intended. That being the case isn't it just sensible to agree that it shouldn't work and we won't allow it in the games we play? I can understand wanting an official ruling for tournaments but maybe we should just remember that this is a game we play for fun and where we can see obvious errors we just agree to correct them.

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:15 pm

Spud14 wrote:

I wonder if anyone actually thinks it was ever intended for the spell to work on a mumak rather than simply being an oversight that wasn't considered in the writing of the books? I can't really see anyone saying it was intended.

The use of the term 'saddle' in regards to throwing the rider suggests this rule does not apply to Mumaks amongst the other points laid out earlier in the thread. In particular "the Mumak itself is too dumb-witted to fear anything..." line clearly implies you can't scare this great beast. No Terrifying model affects it. No effect for force being 'broken'. No mind control spells affect Mumak. Why would a scare, mind control spell work? I think the lack of clarity is an oversight and not intentional

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:31 pm

The new rules don't say anything about mind control spells. They mention Command, Immobilise, Transfix and Compel, but no Panic Steed. I agree that they just have a typo in there and/or forgot about Panic Steed, but people can make the arguement that it works on the mumak now.

Valamir · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:43 am

It is a highly annoying loophole. But I think that the argument can go either way, and if precedent is considered, then it should be judged in favor of Panic Steed not effecting the Mumak.

Rangefinder · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:07 am

+1. Smart thought.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:47 pm

The highest available authority said that Panic Steed does work on a Mumak, so as much as I would hate to say this, until officially conformed or refuted that i the best we have.

ScarpeIron · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:57 pm

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

The highest available authority said that Panic Steed does work on a Mumak, so as much as I would hate to say this, until officially conformed or refuted that i the best we have.

Werewolf, I respect you highly; but I am going to have to disagree on this. For what we have is hearsay. Thats all. I am not claiming the person saying that what transpired is lying, just that its one persons unofficial view on the wording and with no knowledge on how they came about this decision (was there a conversation about it? was there cross-referencing? etc./etc.). I love this site and all the insight into clarification of GW-vagueness, though I have to once again say that I don't know these people...not in a face-to-face sense, but in a who-are-they sense. The only one I can say that I would "I follow their interpretation of "x" and "y"," would be Jarvis (whom I've never met either).

cereal_theif wrote:

Nick said "if you take radagast and they don't have a mumak or great beast, then you don't have a sorcerors blast"
Which is a fair point. blasting the great beast would be just as useful

and why does not having something constitute the validity of being able to do something?

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:18 pm

Because in this case Im sorry you cant argue that.

The spell says it targets mounts
The mumak is a mount.
The mumak's list of immunities are specific and does not reference panic steed
Therefore the spell works

This is not a case of proof by counter but proof by exception. In the absense of a rule saying it can't work, it can work.

Also my conversation with Nick n co was not accompanied by a rule book (it being a fantasy tournament they were running) but by me explaining the problem and the changes to the phrasing. Nick or any GW ref is welcome to state an alternative or contradictory view having read the books specifically for this case. In leau of that we have to just accept one ruling for now or play house rules

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:09 pm

Since the wording of the Mumak's resistance no longer includes the sentence "only spells which deal damage can affect the Mumak" we can assume that there is a change to the rule to accompany this, and as cereal-theif argues that is the closest to official we have atm.

ScarpeIron · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:38 am

True there is a list of specific spells listed, but it ends with " - or indeed any other magical powers or abilities that would prevent it from moving normally." [FRp33] I still attest that if you panic a steed/mount you are preventing it from moving normally.

I know the description for Panic Steed. I refuse to simply have any mount affected by Panic Steed to simply go "poof" off the table.

I'm going to agree to disagree and still go on loving you guys!

- :puppy:

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:08 am

It doesn't matter if the Mumak is a mount or not. Or whether the spell is listed. It clearly states the Mumak is not afraid of anything! It doesn't mention Panic Steed because it is a spell that tries to scare the mount (Mumak). What else is there to argue about?

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:19 am

LoL thanks Scarpe, it is your love that binds this community together....

Erkie
You are arguing RAI not RAW that is the problem. RAI is all well and good for funsies but us plebs who play too seriously have to play RAW otherwise other rules change too.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:30 am

The RAW has changed in the new books. In the One Rulebook the RAW and RAI were the same, now the RAW do not say that the Mumak is immune to it, regretably.

Go Scarpe!

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:50 pm

cereal_theif wrote:

Erkie
You are arguing RAI not RAW that is the problem. RAI is all well and good for funsies but us plebs who play too seriously have to play RAW otherwise other rules change too.

But your argument is also RAI - there is no clear RAW on this matter. The only time there was, was when the ORB Mumak rules took precedence.

Refer back to the original ORB, "Because of it's sheer size, and wild animal fury, magical powers that affect the mind cannot affect the Mumak, only magical powers that deal damage can affect it." I consider this detail (which i know has since been omitted) as clear as any RAW. The GW team have overlooked the importance of this sentence. Your argument revolves around the lack of this rule. In the case of uncertainty interpretting rules in the spirit of the game is appropriate. Did the design time mean to create the opportunity for a 275+pt model to be removed from play on a dice roll of a 2+?

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:28 pm

The fact that they removed that all important and crucial last sentence suggests that offifially, the rule has changed, thus Panic Steed does work.

However in my SBG experience Mumakil are not very common, and nor is Radagast. (both are more common in WotR)

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:31 pm

And yet the rules change still includes "the Mumak itself is too dumb-witted to fear anything..."

No Terrifying model affects it. That means a model that causes Terror or can cast a spell to cause Terror on itself has no effect. Why would Radagasts spell which casts on a 2+ (the easiest spell to successfully roll) affect the Mumak? It isn't afraid of ANYTHING! Not Sauron, nor the Balrog or any other thing! So why Radagast? The rules are right there for all to see, but the shortening of a passage now has lead some to believe there has been a rule change. GW have excluded plenty of fluff from the ORB in their recent sourcebooks, they have not changed the rule concerning the Mumak and its 'fearless rule'. Until the day comes when GW categorically claims the Mumak is affected by Panic Steed or changes that rule, then no the Mumak cannot simply be removed on a roll of a 2+. Please...

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:37 pm

At no point in the description of Radagast's spell does it mention Terror. Terror is very specific terminology so the Mumak's immunity to Terror does not affect Panic Steed.

I know Panic Steed shouldn't work on a Mumak, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:43 pm

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:03 pm

What is the spell called? "PANIC steed"... how can you panic something that isn't afraid of anything? LOL

Radagast vs Mumakil...

Who is online