2e Core Rules

[Sception]

GW has posted the core rules for 2e.

Link: https://ageofsigmar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/06/AoS_Rules-ENG.pdf

Reading through them, does anything stand out to anyone?  The first thing jumping out to me is that you only get command points at the start of YOUR hero phase, not EVERY hero phase as mistakenly described in the command point preview.  This means, among other things, tbat it's much harder to keep a vulnerable unit constantly under inspiring presence, as it costs a command point every battleshock phase, not just once in each of your hero phases.

Otherwise, that's very few command points to work with.  It'll be difficult to put together the command ability combos that the faction focus articles have been hyping up.  Paring 50 to 150 points for extra command points at the start of the game is also probably a good idea, particularly if you want to make much use of endless legions.

[Sception]

It's not at all clear from the pile-in rules whether the "nearest enemy model" means the nearest model before or after the pile-in move.

For instance, if my model starts a pile-in move 1" from enemy model A and 2" from enemy model B, and ends the move 2" from enemy model A and 0" from enemy model B, it's not clear from the wording whether that was a legal pile-in move.

[Sception]

It's also unclear whether the person who finishes setting up units first automatically chooses who goes first in the first battle round, or if they only do so in the event of a tied roll for turn priority.

[Nevar]

27 minutes ago, Sception said:

It's also unclear whether the person who finishes setting up units first automatically chooses who goes first in the first battle round, or if they only do so in the event of a tied roll for turn priority.

While it is not clear in the wording, the guys over at MiniWargaming had the same question and spoke directly to GW to get clarification.  First drops automatically gets to choose who goes first.

[themortalgod]

The big stand out I noticed was the split unit rule. We will have to be much more careful about how we make big lines of skeletons. 

[Deadkitten]

1 hour ago, Nevar said:

While it is not clear in the wording, the guys over at MiniWargaming had the same question and spoke directly to GW to get clarification.  First drops automatically gets to choose who goes first.

I think there's some doubt as to how much weight that carries.  This is probably a TO/Opponent-by-Opponent issue until the FAQ drops.

[Criti]

2 hours ago, Sception said:

It's not at all clear from the pile-in rules whether the "nearest enemy model" means the nearest model before or after the pile-in move.

For instance, if my model starts a pile-in move 1" from enemy model A and 2" from enemy model B, and ends the move 2" from enemy model A and 0" from enemy model B, it's not clear from the wording whether that was a legal pile-in move.

It is quite clear.

At least as close to the nearest enemy model as it was at the start of the move.  If the closest enemy model is 1" away at the start, that same model must be no more than 1" away at the end.  You can do whatever you want on top of that...just don't get farther from that model than you were when you started.

[Criti]

2 hours ago, Sception said:

It's also unclear whether the person who finishes setting up units first automatically chooses who goes first in the first battle round, or if they only do so in the event of a tied roll for turn priority.

They roll, and the person who finished deploying first is the tie breaker.

 

The key is in the sentence breakdown.  The comment about first done deploying picking is added as a "but" to the sentence detailing how to handle tied rolls, not to the sentence about the decider.

[Sception]

12 minutes ago, Criti said:

It is quite clear.

At least as close to the nearest enemy model as it was at the start of the move.  If the closest enemy model is 1" away at the start, that same model must be no more than 1" away at the end.  You can do whatever you want on top of that...just don't get farther from that model than you were when you started.

There are three ways to interpret this that, avy of which may be valid per the text.

1) nearest model = specific nearest enemy model before pile-in.  How it worked before, how you interpret it, probable intended rule.

2) nearest enemy model = specific nearest enemy modrl after pile in.  My model starts 1" from enemy model A, 3" from enemy model B, ends pile in 3" from enemy model A, 2" from enemy model B.  Which is the nearest enemy model?  Model B.  Is my model no further from B than ay the start of the pile-in? Yes.  Pile in is valid.

This is almost certainly an incorrect, unintended reading, but it is internally consistent and nothing in the text makes clear that tjis is the wrong reading.

3. Nearest enemy model is a general concept, not a specific figure.  My model starts 1" away from enemy model A, 2" away from enemy model B, and ends its pile in 2" from A and 1" from B.  At the start of the move, my model was 1" away from the nearest enemy model (A), and at the end of the move it is 1" away from the nearest enemy model (B).  1" is no greater than 1", so this is a valid pile in.

Again, probably incorrect and unintended reading, but as with interpretation 2 it fits the text just as well as 1.

 

I don't disagree on what is the intended reading, but the matter does require actual official clarification.  Additionally, even after the interpretation of 'nearest model before pile-in' is made explicit, clarification is also needed for the case of multiple, equally distant enemy models.  Must the model piling in end no further from any, or from all such models?

[Evil Bob]

3 hours ago, themortalgod said:

The big stand out I noticed was the split unit rule. We will have to be much more careful about how we make big lines of skeletons. 

That has me concerned as well.  Along with the “everyone must fight.”  It’s never a good sign when game designers (on any medium) take action just because they believe people should have to play a narrowly defined way.  AoS 2.0 is shaping up to be less tactically flexible for no good reason.

[Sception]

Eh, the old way, which could result in a blob of midels far removed from one isolated model far away standing in some aura range was distractingly gamist.  The split unit rule isnt great, but imo its an improvement on that.

[Urauloth]

4 hours ago, themortalgod said:

The big stand out I noticed was the split unit rule. We will have to be much more careful about how we make big lines of skeletons. 

It's 2am here and I'm probably not firing on all cylinders, so forgive this being a dim bulb of a question, but what's the main danger to "conga line" units that might result in some of the models being fatally isolated from the others? I find it hard to imagine how this would happen, what with the controlling player allocating wounds and removing battleshock casualties etc. I'm missing something, right? What forces them out of 1" coherency?

[Richelieu]

10 minutes ago, Urauloth said:

It's 2am here and I'm probably not firing on all cylinders, so forgive this being a dim bulb of a question, but what's the main danger to "conga line" units that might result in some of the models being fatally isolated from the others? I find it hard to imagine how this would happen, what with the controlling player allocating wounds and removing battleshock casualties etc. I'm missing something, right? What forces them out of 1" coherency?

There are a very small number of abilities that target models rather than units.  Gaze of Morathi and Star Drake's jaws are the two I can think of off the top of my head.  So they can pick a model in the center of a conga line, kill it and half the models will have to be removed.

[Nevar]

3 hours ago, Criti said:

They roll, and the person who finished deploying first is the tie breaker.

 

The key is in the sentence breakdown.  The comment about first done deploying picking is added as a "but" to the sentence detailing how to handle tied rolls, not to the sentence about the decider.

That is not how GW ruled it to guys reviewing their rules like MiniWargaming.

Likewise, that is not the only way to read that, you are just going with your own assumptions.  The "BUT" in that long sentence is followed by the second highlight you posted.  "If it is the first battleround,"  <- This being the clause denoting an exception to something that came before it, i.e. the tie breaking rules.   "...the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has first turn."

It does not say they get to break the tie and choose, it says flat  that they choose who goes first.  This also comes after an entire clause highlighting that we are into an exception to the rule that was first being outlined.

GW has ruled as of now that whoever drops first chooses.  Obviously we want an official FAQ, but this is how it was handled in the original AoS and it doesn't explicitly say it is changed, so why would you make the opposite assumption?

[Deadkitten]

The miniwargaming guys ramble through that whole part and didn't even read the whole rule.  I don't regard the Community Twitter feed as an Official Ruling.  I'm Old Skool.

Those two sentences are being read as Propositional Logic statements.  That last one is constructed as an imbedded If/then statement which has a very specific meaning (in addition to being fairly complex sentence construction.)  You can never grab one part, either the If or the Then clause, and consider it independently of the other.  Finally, in order to reach the conclusion that first turns are handled the old way, you must ignore the first sentence.  That's inconsistent.  Why doesn't the first sentence carry any weight?  I'm totally willing to concede that the RAW and the RAI may be different, but if that is the case, then they surely did mess it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

[Criti]

4 hours ago, Deadkitten said:

The miniwargaming guys ramble through that whole part and didn't even read the whole rule.  I don't regard the Community Twitter feed as an Official Ruling.  I'm Old Skool.

Those two sentences are being read as Propositional Logic statements.  That last one is constructed as an imbedded If/then statement which has a very specific meaning (in addition to being fairly complex sentence construction.)  You can never grab one part, either the If or the Then clause, and consider it independently of the other.  Finally, in order to reach the conclusion that first turns are handled the old way, you must ignore the first sentence.  That's inconsistent.  Why doesn't the first sentence carry any weight?  I'm totally willing to concede that the RAW and the RAI may be different, but if that is the case, then they surely did mess it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

Quoted for truth, and so I don't have to go through the effort of saying the same thing.

[Infeston]

7 hours ago, Deadkitten said:

The miniwargaming guys ramble through that whole part and didn't even read the whole rule.  I don't regard the Community Twitter feed as an Official Ruling.  I'm Old Skool.

Those two sentences are being read as Propositional Logic statements.  That last one is constructed as an imbedded If/then statement which has a very specific meaning (in addition to being fairly complex sentence construction.)  You can never grab one part, either the If or the Then clause, and consider it independently of the other.  Finally, in order to reach the conclusion that first turns are handled the old way, you must ignore the first sentence.  That's inconsistent.  Why doesn't the first sentence carry any weight?  I'm totally willing to concede that the RAW and the RAI may be different, but if that is the case, then they surely did mess it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

I agree with this statement. 

[Sception]

I agree with the reading from the text, but skipping the first roll entirely with the first to finish deploying just choosing does seem to be the intent.  I expect errata/faq to come down on that side of things.

[Honk]

20 hours ago, Sception said:

nearest model = specific nearest enemy model before pile-in. 

Some thoughts collided, while thinking about a 40skellis blob going against brutes. 

What if there is no nearest model? What if I have touching bases with two models? Can I choose the „active“ closest model and slide alongside the unit?

like charging in towards model A, then positioning between A and B touching bases. Next round sliding along the base of B towards model C...

encircling smaller elite units should be relatively easy 

[Mirbeau]

On 6/15/2018 at 9:38 PM, themortalgod said:

The big stand out I noticed was the split unit rule. We will have to be much more careful about how we make big lines of skeletons. 

 

This is huge and I don't think it's had enough attention. I quite like it in principle as all the daisy chaining felt a little too 'gamey', but think it will be interesting to see how players interact with the rule in practise - I often play horde undead (90+ infantry), and all the additional measuring to maintain coherency in combat will really slow the game down, especially in competitive  timed situations where the opponent will (rightfully) be looking for you to lose miniature this way, or if you are playing against the clock in a store pick-up game and don't have an agreement to fudge it up a little.

[themortalgod]

4 minutes ago, Mirbeau said:

 

This is huge and I don't think it's had enough attention. I quite like it in principle as all the daisy chaining felt a little too 'gamey', but think it will be interesting to see how players interact with the rule in practise - I often play horde undead (90+ infantry), and all the additional measuring to maintain coherency in combat will really slow the game down, especially in competitive  timed situations where the opponent will (rightfully) be looking for you to lose miniature this way, or if you are playing against the clock in a store pick-up game and don't have an agreement to fudge it up a little.

Yeah, in casual I imagine we will be just like: "1 inch-ish so long as you don't have some giant gap, who cares" but it really puts me at a point where I can't justify bringing my massive 60 man zombie unit anymore. They already kinda sucked, the only thing they were good at is spreading out and being a tarpit and now even that they will be much poorer at. 

[Evil Bob]

On 6/15/2018 at 8:20 PM, Sception said:

Eh, the old way, which could result in a blob of midels far removed from one isolated model far away standing in some aura range was distractingly gamist.  The split unit rule isnt great, but imo its an improvement on that.

The solution was already there.  A number of Nighthaunt aura effects require “wholey within” for the unit or only effect models (not the entire unit) inside a range.  That is the kind of approach needs to be spread throughout the warscrolls.  Although that has its own pitfalls like the FAQ mega nerf to Deathmarch.

[Criti]

21 hours ago, Sception said:

I agree with the reading from the text, but skipping the first roll entirely with the first to finish deploying just choosing does seem to be the intent.  I expect errata/faq to come down on that side of things.

GW has also stated on the community website that the Maggotkin book was specifically written with 2.0 in mind.

The Maggotkin book states "roll a dice at the start of the first battle round of any battle that includes Nurgle armies, before rolling to see who has the first turn." Page 59.

That would indicate a distinct and printed statement of intent.

Since intent is so easy to argue both ways, until and unless an FAQ changes the wording, the only valid of interpretation would have to be the construct of language, which is this case is stating a directive (roll every battle round), following by an if/then pair of clarifiers (as they are part of a single sentence, they are properly expanded to "if there is a tie, first player of last turn chooses and if there is a tie, player who finished deploying first chooses.)