Jump to content

Age of Sigmar: Second Edition


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, nine7six said:

that they have, but I'd still take the word and representation in the video that came out hours ago on ageofsigmar.com to people here trying to interpret the meaning in different languages to validate lol

That's odd because I would always take the rules as they were written until they are clarified otherwise

The community team are not the rules writers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, nine7six said:

if you watch the video on the website she clearly says that in the first battleround the person who deploys first chooses who goes first so there is no double roll off for territory/deployment then turn.

There's currently some confusion because the downloadable Core Rules don't read the same as the video and Twitch interviews state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nine7six said:

that they have, but I'd still take the word and representation in the video that came out hours ago on ageofsigmar.com to people here trying to interpret the meaning in different languages to validate lol

But still the german document is pretty clear in the wording. So I as a german have to take it the way it was written. Also for german people who don't speak english and who only buy the starter set in the stores (and don't visit the community page very often) there is no way to find out about the video (also because it is english). They only get the document which is included in the starter set.

So it is pretty clear for me as a german how the game should be played. Because these are the official german rules now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

That's odd because I would always take the rules as they were written until they are clarified otherwise

The community team are not the rules writers

to be fair you're not a rules writer either so your reading is left to your own interpretation.

so you would take your interpretation from a text, as opposed to the new "How To Play" videos regarding how first turn and deployment works from a representative from a company who wrote the rules and was hired to read the script on how the rules are meant to be played?

that's an interesting take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infeston said:

But still the german document if pretty clear in the wording. So I as a german have to take it the way it was written.

don't blame you, if that's how it's interpreted in German  as a native speaker then go for it! I would do the same if english wasn't my native tongue but since there is an english video that clearly states how to play from GW I will go off what they put forward.

this isn't some twitch stream with a community guest....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nine7six said:

to be fair you're not a rules writer either so your reading is left to your own interpretation.

so you would take your interpretation from a text, as opposed to the new "How To Play" videos regarding how first turn and deployment works from a representative from a company who wrote the rules and was hired to read the script on how the rules are meant to be played?

that's an interesting take.

The text is the rules and the video is a group of people trying to interpret the rules.

Either one could be wrong, but it's almost definitely the latter. It seems foolish to assume the rules, as they are written, are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

The text is the rules and the video is a group of people trying to interpret the rules.

Either one could be wrong, but it's almost definitely the latter. It seems foolish to assume the rules, as they are written, are wrong.

the fact that you said "the video is a group of people trying to interpret the rules" means you haven't watched it. please go to ageofsigmar.com go to the how to play section and watch the first video.....

there is 1 girl who is explaining how to play the game and is running through the starter battleplan included in the free rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+++MOD HAT TIME+++

Think we've probably had enough conversation on this and think we need to wait for an OFFICIAL FAQ to come out to clarify the question on rolling for first turn.  There is enough contradictory items for both interpretations to be correct.

Thanks folks - still plenty of other exciting things in the new rules to talk about ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, nine7six said:

the fact that you said "the video is a group of people trying to interpret the rules" means you haven't watched it. please go to ageofsigmar.com go to the how to play section and watch the first video.....

there is 1 girl who is explaining how to play the game and is running through the starter battleplan included in the free rules.

There is another point that could be possible. The Battleplan often overrides the core Rules.

If the Battleplan says "the Player that has deployed first decides" or "the attacker decides" that rule counts over corerules with roll off

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

+++MOD HAT TIME+++

Think we've probably had enough conversation on this and think we need to wait for an OFFICIAL FAQ to come out to clarify the question on rolling for first turn.  There is enough contradictory items for both interpretations to be correct.

Thanks folks - still plenty of other exciting things in the new rules to talk about ;)

Is GW already aware of the problem? Who normally informs GW about such things? How do we get GW to know about this problem?

Or has GW already mentioned that they are aware of the problem somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nine7six said:

if you watch the video on the website she clearly says that in the first battleround the person who deploys first chooses who goes first so there is no double roll off for territory/deployment then turn.

I physically picked up a copy of the full release rulebook yesterday.  I flipped through various sections and I specifically looked for this rule.  It is there in the text plain as day.  The person who finishes deploying first chooses who goes first - same as the current rules.

So for what it is worth from a random sneaky internet Grot - I can verify this rule.

 

EDIT:  nevermind, I just noticed the full core rules are available to download from the new site not.  Go read it there - which I assume is where the argument stemmed from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skabnoze said:

I physically picked up a copy of the full release rulebook yesterday.  I flipped through various sections and I specifically looked for this rule.  It is there in the text plain as day.  The person who finishes deploying first chooses who goes first - same as the current rules.

So for what it is worth from a random sneaky internet Grot - I can verify this rule.

Watching the miniwargaming review of 2nd ed, they also noticed the contridictory wording and said they actually reached out to GW who confirmed that the first to deploy chooses first turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Watching the miniwargaming review of 2nd ed, they also noticed the contridictory wording and said they actually reached out to GW who confirmed that the first to deploy chooses first turn.

I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Nonetheless they could have worded it better. (hell they could have just left the wording from 1st edition intact)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Watching the miniwargaming review of 2nd ed, they also noticed the contridictory wording and said they actually reached out to GW who confirmed that the first to deploy chooses first turn.

Oh, I skimmed it quickly yesterday.  Having read what was in the rules download from the new website I see the issue now.

They will indeed need to fix that in an FAQ.  Given that the sentence that mentions the person who deployed first is entirely dealing with tie-breakers.  That really leads one to believe that deploying first (as written) gives you the tie-breaker on the first turn roll-off.

There are only 2 sentences in this entire rule.  One says each turn you roll off.  The other details handling tie-breakers. 

So if the intention is to keep the first turn like it is now then they do need to errata that.  I am not going to argue the intention of the designers and will just wait to see what the FAQ they drop on release looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always good to remember that no one is stopping anyone to play it the other way around if you feel it's better that way. At least there seems to be quite many who prefer it as a roll-off, so finding likeminded opponents shouldn'tbe hard. :)

Of course the batallions being even more expensive they were, based on the leaked photos around, don't go along too well with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

The community team has made mistakes before

The White Dwarf team has played their own rules incorrectly fairly often for a couple decades now.

Rule of thumb is to read the rules and the FAQs and ignore mechanics specifics from battle reports.  The rule as it is currently written seems pretty clear and not open for syntactical/grammatical interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the way i read it. it seems to be the person who wins the roll goes first and finishing deployment first just means you get the tie break??? that is the bit that had me the most jazzed.

Also excited about the split unit bit. Not for any particular reason, but it will effect casualty removal. You can no longer have 2 models accross the table from each other counting as 1 unit. It will also effect how we pull casualties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

yeah the way i read it. it seems to be the person who wins the roll goes first and finishing deployment first just means you get the tie break??? that is the bit that had me the most jazzed.

Also excited about the split unit bit. Not for any particular reason, but it will effect casualty removal. You can no longer have 2 models accross the table from each other counting as 1 unit. It will also effect how we pull casualties. 

Yeah, that is exactly how it is worded right now.  If that is not the intention then expect that it will be altered in an FAQ. 

Personally, I prefer the roll-off, but honestly I don't think it is too big of a deal either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever the intent, go with the rules as written since you just published tens of thousands of copies. 

The grammar is clear. And the rule seems like a great change.

I can see battalion costs going up because of the extra command point. Thats worth 50 points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cerlin said:

What ever the intent, go with the rules as written since you just published tens of thousands of copies. 

The grammar is clear. And the rule seems like a great change.

I can see battalion costs going up because of the extra command point. Thats worth 50 points. 

That is probably the smartest plan for GW.  As you mentioned, they just published the full initial print run with that rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...