Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Klak

Adepticon Judges FAQ

Recommended Posts

Flee! and Expendable are surprising to me - the wording makes sense but that makes those both extremely powerful upgrades. Skaven is quite stacked atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for Expendable, the model is removed from the battlefield without being taken out of action but it's count as taken out of action. This is ludicrous. So removed from the battlefield is very, very different from taken out of action: there is no reason why the opponent gains a glory points , models are removed from the battlefield all the time without glory points being earned. But when it is written on an other card the very words "a friendly fighter that is out of action" (There Is Always More) or even better "a friendly fighter that was taken out of action" (Skritch's card), removed from the battlefield means exactly the same thing.

Being removed from the battle field means: being out of action, having been taken out of action but nothing like being taken out of action.

 

Another little question, as logic is gone drinking her sorrow to oblivion: Expendable doesn't say that you remove the wound tokens

Expendable says "during an attack action that will cause any damage" it's not said  "play this during a attack action that would" like Last Chance or "Play this during a Attack Action that would succeed" like in Rebound. Is the attack action interrupt? It is not written "you can remove the model form the battle field instead".  The action continues and the wound token are put on the model's card.

So let's say, the wound tokens are taken, not removed: resurrections will bring the model back with it and the model will be taken out of action right away, removed from the battle field (he opponent gains his glory point ;) ) and only at this moment the wound token would be removed.

Edited by Biboune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the tokens were allocated to the Rat when off the table, it still wouldn't give a Glory when rezzed, otherwise it would already do so for every Skeleton or Skaven rezzing normally. 

It makes Expendable super good but honestly it's probably not a problem. The Skaven player still needs to have it equipped (so in hand, with Glory, and nothing else to Upgrade), and you need to target that one guy, and then they need to use a Ploy or Action to bring him back. It's a good card but not the end of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Even if the tokens were allocated to the Rat when off the table, it still wouldn't give a Glory when rezzed, otherwise it would already do so for every Skeleton or Skaven rezzing normally. 

It makes Expendable super good but honestly it's probably not a problem. The Skaven player still needs to have it equipped (so in hand, with Glory, and nothing else to Upgrade), and you need to target that one guy, and then they need to use a Ploy or Action to bring him back. It's a good card but not the end of the world.

You are right, i got confused because it looks like the token are already removed when the model is taken out of action, removed from the battlefield. Removing things twice is not a big problem.

And it is a super problem, the Judges FAQ is a nonsense at the grammatical level. The cards written is bad, the errata and FAQ are adding more confusion, the french translation is full of big mistakes...  

Another problem is that I don't get what the upgrade is suppose to do "on the field", the skaven commits suicide? very unlikely. Is he sacrificed by his boss? But not killed by the enemy?

And then, it is a real balance issue. The skavens needed nothing like that. As every upgrade you need to equip it, great. But put the Skavens on an objective, it means 1 action and 1 wound to take it off. Resurrection and another objective is blocked...1 action, 1 wound more and still no glory earned. Just play shadeglass dart on and the skaven and he will just be the nightmare off objectives base decks.

Edited by Biboune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually how we have been playing Expendable. The reason why Expendable doesn't grant glory points is because the rat didn't die from taking damage (this bit I interpreted from FAQ 1.2). Also I think it's a very fitting card for Skaven :) Just one more rat forced on a suicide mission, doesn't matter in the least to Skritch if it dies. Zapp Brannigan would approve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand if you don't earn glory point but in this case the model should not be resurrected by Skritch or even by the ploy.

The skaven has been removed from the battlefield without suffering damage (but as I said, "the attack action that will cause" is not the same thing as "an attack action that would" and it's not written that you removed the model "instead" of having him suffering the damages, but let's say he hasn't), and been taking out of action means suffering enough damages. So, ok, no glory point.

But then if you read Skritch's card with the same state of mind, it is written "a friendly fighter that was taken out of action". The skaven in question has not been taken out of action, just removed from the battlefield: no resurrection for him. You can't have a very subtle interpretation of the rules to deny our opponent something and then, for the very same card, just ignore what is written black on white or adopt another subtle and contradictory interpretation at your benefit. 

Imagine you see someone owning you money doing a huge shopping:

"hi, i don't understand; you told me you give me my money back as soon as you get paid...

-Ho but i did not get paid, i found/rob/ what ever the money. I am not breaking my promise

-Haa... but you don't usually go shopping on Thursday 

-Yes but I have the habit to go shopping to celebrate pay day, and as I got some money i feel the same way"

That is the way this FAQ makes me feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can understand why the ambiguity can be frustrating, although I might not share your levels of frustration with it :D (after all, it is their first game of this type, so I'm ready to cut them some slack)

I do hope that when/if a new core set for WH Underworlds comes out, GW will have learned from their mistakes, understand how important it is to stick to keywords defined in the rulebook, and rewrite the rulebook with this in mind, adding proper keywords and definitions for stuff like "remove from the battlefield". If the same types of mistakes continue in season 2, then I will start getting considerably more annoyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice ruling for the timing of re-rolls (they're immediate, attacker must choose to re-roll before defender rolls).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Some completely invented stuff in there. Makes me glad I'm no longer able to play in the event if they are going to just plain make stuff up like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earthquake and Expendable rulings are completely opposite to how they were played at the WHW Grand Clash.

 

Earthquake was played as a simultaneous push action.

 

Expendable was up to you and your opponent. Either your opponent got a glory and you could resurrect or your opponent doesn't get a glory but that fighter cannot be brought back to the table. If you tried the best of both worlds (opponent gets no glory but you get to rez the fighter), the judges would step in.

 

People are trying to say this FAQ is fact as approved by GW but it is at ends with WHW GW as a lot of Adepticon's rulings are the opposite. Still waiting for an official FAQ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the final ruling on Earthquake will be that they move simultaneously. Separate movement is less intuitive and Earthquake is good enough with simultaneous movement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earthquake is simultaneously push in that FAQ too. It's only faq how to use that card. All pushes are done in that same "game moment". Its only about how to handle that card. I bet when they would write simultaneously push all fighters, someone would answer "how to push 2 band of undead, 14 fighters total, in that same time with only two hands". They just wrote that you choose direction then push one, then another, then another and so on until all fighter are pushed. At least i understand it that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reggi said:

Earthquake is simultaneously push in that FAQ too. It's only faq how to use that card. All pushes are done in that same "game moment". Its only about how to handle that card. I bet when they would write simultaneously push all fighters, someone would answer "how to push 2 band of undead, 14 fighters total, in that same time with only two hands". They just wrote that you choose direction then push one, then another, then another and so on until all fighter are pushed. At least i understand it that way

Okay, but then why mention "in whatever order you choose" and then directly after that reiterate that fighters that can't be pushed are not pushed (something mentioned on the card itself)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder what happens when you play earthquake and you have models next to each other. when you choose to move the models in the direction so that a model cannot be moved because another model is on the target hex, and after this you move the other model that blocked the hex, does the first model stay where it is? (when simultaneously moved, both should be moved, but it's saying "in whatever order you choose", so would this be legit?)

Edited by tea_wild_owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NeverEasy said:

Okay, but then why mention "in whatever order you choose" and then directly after that reiterate that fighters that can't be pushed are not pushed (something mentioned on the card itself)?

Ah, you are talking about situation, when two fighters are close togheter and you first choose fighter that can't be pushed, cuz hex is occupated by that second fighter and then you push that second fighter. I didn't though about that situation. And you are right and thier wording make it possible to do it that way, to not move some fighters. Agree, really strange.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone who could elaborate as to why they claim this had been written/approved by GW?

Considering the disclaimer at the beginning of the document, I'm not getting a "GW official stamp of approval" vibe:

Quote

This document presents rulings to some frequently asked questions that have been raised since the latest Warhammer Underworlds: Shadespire errata and FAQ document was published. These rulings are not official answers to these questions, and are intended simply to clarify how the judges will be ruling the questions asked here in the Adepticon Grand Clash. Please visit www.warhammerunderworlds.com for the latest errata and FAQ document.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NeverEasy said:

I hope the final ruling on Earthquake will be that they move simultaneously. Separate movement is less intuitive and Earthquake is good enough with simultaneous movement. 

Not to mention, it rewrites the card by allowing you to push models in different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not to mention, it rewrites the card by allowing you to push models in different directions.

No.... It doesn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spinsane said:

Is there anyone who could elaborate as to why they claim this had been written/approved by GW?

Considering the disclaimer at the beginning of the document, I'm not getting a "GW official stamp of approval" vibe:

 

If you're going to Adepticon, you got an email with a link to the pdf saying:

"Games Workshop produced this handy Judges Rulings document for AdeptiCon that covers some recent questions they have received about Warhammer Underworlds that are not addressed in the latest FAQ."

Additionally, it's clearly in the same format and style as the official FAQs. So while the rules might not be 'official' yet, they are how GW wants these situations played, at least for the time being. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mmimzie said:

No.... It doesn't...

"Choose a direction, then push a fighter in that 
direction. Then do the same for all other fighters in 
turn..."

Sentence one tells you to pick a direction and push a guy that at way.

Sentence two says repeat.

They may have meant to say that the push is the only thing you repeat, but the sentence structure they have chosen does not match that intent.

Picking a direction and pushing one fighter, both together, is the repeat as this is written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not overwrite the card text, which states "You must push them all in the same direction."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By it's nature, it does, as Time Thingie did. That's how these work. 

You had a perfectly applicable way to play as worded on the cards. Now they tell you, in a more recent ruling, to play it differently. 

You have to go with the more recent words or there is no reason for them to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That aside, I'm even more concerned with the fact that at GW's own event they told players to agree, on a case by case basis, how to play Expendible.

Really?

That's a worrying development for a system that is billed as competition-focused.

It's sort of ok for something like AoS that's not built to be tight, but for them to tell players that they can decide what a card means each time it's played indicates that they have not adopted the right mindset for this kind of game, and that undermines confidence that they can write balanced rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...