A few controversal cards from the new expansions

[Red_Zeke]

Also, acrobatic can help you on non-lethal hits, where Soultrap is only going to play on killing blows.

[Hesa_First]

36 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

toss up on this one. Technically it's a 4+ save vs an extra 5+ save. However, acrobatics give you another defence die to possible prevent a tie, and thus prevent your guy from getting pushed. It also give you another chance at a crit mildly complicates teh math. I fyou are running skaven i'd say for sure acrobatics. If you are running reavers it's a toss up.  I say this as skaven have a great guard card and on skritch acrobatics is so dumb when you are on guard <.< 3 dice rolling shields/avoids/crits is nice stuff. 

The extra defence die is not really another 5+ save, as it can still result in a failed save, when the attacker rolls a crit or simply more successes.  But as You said, the number of dice makes a huge difference. In a game with mostly 2-3 attack dice, the second defence die is rather appealing. The possibility of defending against two successes apart from a crit is a huge factor. The chance of rolling at least on success with two defence dice is around 55% agains the 33% of just one die. The crit chance goes up to around 30% from roughly 17%.

Remember that You still can go on guard, getting the most out of the defence die!

11 minutes ago, Red_Zeke said:

Also, acrobatic can help you on non-lethal hits, where Soultrap is only going to play on killing blows.

This is the main factor imo. Soultrap works only on the killing blow, Acrobatic helps not suffering damage and not being pushed. Plus Soultrap naturally only works on the first killing blow, Acrobatic can help on consecutive "killing blows".

I think Acrobatic is better in most cases. Soultrap is still a good card imo, but Reavers lack really an outstanding fighter that You want to keep alive at all costs.

[Requizen]

Acrobatics also doesn't go away after the first time. Unless you get one shot, it'll outweigh Soultrap any day of the week imo.

Garrek + Acrobatics + Bloodslick + Great Fortitude is pretty tanky.

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Ploymaster said:

@Sleboda it is NOT an errata - the answer in FAQ simply explains the "golden rule"

The reason I say it's "effectively" an errata is that it adds to or changes the rules on the card. As the card reads and interacts with the rulebook, you could Move or Attack using it. It is only the new, additional restriction placed on it by the FAQ that prevents Moves. Thus, effectively an errata.

[Ploymaster]

8 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The reason I say it's "effectively" an errata is that it adds to or changes the rules on the card. As the card reads and interacts with the rulebook, you could Move or Attack using it. It is only the new, additional restriction placed on it by the FAQ that prevents Moves. Thus, effectively an errata.

That is simply not true.

[mmimzie]

48 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The reason I say it's "effectively" an errata is that it adds to or changes the rules on the card. As the card reads and interacts with the rulebook, you could Move or Attack using it. It is only the new, additional restriction placed on it by the FAQ that prevents Moves. Thus, effectively an errata.

I'd agree with @Ploymaster on this one.  As an faq it's more of an explanation of how the rules are to read instead of a rewarding. As such its faq can be applied to other similar rules etc. 

[Sleboda]

42 minutes ago, Ploymaster said:

That is simply not true.

Ok. I'm game. Why not?

[mmimzie]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Ok. I'm game. Why not?

Because in the rules for moving and charging they say you can't move or charge if you have taken a move action already. Where as, in the charge rules it's stops activations. Which is fundamentally different from the taking a action.

 

You are incorrect in the same way, as when you corrected some one else when they said time warp is effectively another activation.

[Ploymaster]

9 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Ok. I'm game. Why not?

Because errata is something that corrects the error. When someone finds the error the errata is needed, for example they had to errata "Out of action" paragraph and add: "...and clear all tokens from their fighter card.". That is errata.

"Time trap" game text is correct from the start. It does not need to be corrected. Yes, many people keep asking, because they don't understand the rules, but it does not mean it needs errata. So they included clarification that basically says: "RTFM". I'm not sure what you meant by "the new, additional restriction placed on it by the FAQ that prevents Moves" - I hope that you are not talking about the example in the parenthesis - and if you are talking about: "You cannot use this action to do something you could not normally do", then it simply reminds you the "golden rule" from the rulebook - that is, you still need to obey all the rules not contradicted by the card. So as you see there is nothing "new" and nothing "additional" that restricts the "Time trap". It's all in the rulebook.

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, mmimzie said:

Because in the rules for moving and charging they say you can't move or charge if you have taken a move action already. Where as, in the charge rules it's stops activations. Which is fundamentally different from the taking a action.

I thought that might be the thought.

Please reconcile that with page 17 "Some cards allow you to do things that you wouldn't normally be allowed to do by the rules printed in the book. Whenever a card contradicts the rules printed in the book, the card takes precedence." 

 

And 

 

Page 23

"Some ploy cards allow you to make  Move or Attack actions with your fighters - you can do this even if normally they would not be able to (e.g. because they have made a Charge action).

 

Again, if the specific FAQ for Time Thingie had not errata-ed the card by adding additional rules restrictions, the rulebook itself would have been sufficient to cover the issues. 

In other words, we were fine on this aspect of the card until the FAQ introduced a specific change to complicate things.

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

I thought that might be the thought.

Please reconcile that with page 17 "Some cards allow you to do things that you wouldn't normally be allowed to do by the rules printed in the book. Whenever a card contradicts the rules printed in the book, the card takes precedence." 

 

And 

 

Page 23

"Some ploy cards allow you to make  Move or Attack actions with your fighters - you can do this even if normally they would not be able to (e.g. because they have made a Charge action).

 

Again, if the specific FAQ for Time Thingie had not errata-ed the card by adding additional rules restrictions, the rulebook itself would have been sufficient to cover the issues. 

In other words, we were fine on this aspect of the card until the FAQ introduced a specific change to complicate things.

Wounds fair but still it's faq format. Which means that it is interpeted the same when looking at all other card in similar situations

[Sleboda]

13 hours ago, mmimzie said:

Wounds fair but still it's faq format. Which means that it is interpeted the same when looking at all other card in similar situations

That's never been the case with a GW FAQ. A ruling for one unit/card is specific to that unit/card.

[mmimzie]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

That's never been the case with a GW FAQ. A ruling for one unit/card is specific to that unit/card.

Nah that's not true. Faqs like the ring of immortality was pretty informative on how flame pheonixs shoule be treated in coming back. 

 

I mean if you look at 49k there are even more. 

 

That's the point and distinction between faq and errata. Errata changes words, and Faqs change or clarify how we read rules. 

[Zimagic]

On 27/02/2018 at 11:25 PM, mmimzie said:

Because in the rules for moving and charging they say you can't move or charge if you have taken a move action already. Where as, in the charge rules it's stops activations. Which is fundamentally different from the taking a action.

Extending this to "Ready for Action", if I have completed a move, battle or charge action with the upgraded figurine, does "Ready For Action" allow me to only do those actions I have not yet completed with that figurine (or nothing in the case of a charge) or does it allow an additional move, battle or charge action even if it's of a type already used?

Conversely, if I have not yet activated the upgraded figurine in the phase, does using an action with Ready for Action stop me from repeating that same action when I want to activate the upgraded figurine?

[Spinsane]

Ready for action lets you take a Move or an Attack action, regardless of any "Moved" or "Charged" tokens. Alas, I don't have my rulebook with me to point you to the specific rule, but there's one section somewhere titled something like "But my card says..." that basically tells you if a card tells you to do something (i.e. Attack/Move, in this case) that you're usually not allowed to do (Move, for someone who has a "Moved" token), you're allowed to do it.

Note that moving with the Ready for Action card will require that you place a "Moved" token next to the fighter, so no, you won't be able to move again afterwards.

Also just wanted to add that you're free to make as many attack actions with a fighter as you want, as long as it didn't Charge...