Are there any rules of one in the GHB 2018?

[Aginor]

I agree. FAQ is probably not enough.

[amysrevenge]

Updated warscroll(s) could do the trick without errata...

[Aginor]

12 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Updated warscroll(s) could do the trick without errata...

That's another possible solution.

[TheOtherJosh]

23 hours ago, Richelieu said:

For sure.  The issue as I see it is that there are compelling arguments to be made for it functioning either way.  It's the rare situation where I think an errata would be useful rather than just an FAQ.

Or ... we just burn the shiny DAEMONS with fire and expunge them from reality like the heretical creatures that they are.... wait ... this isn’t 40k ... my bad ...  

Errata and designers commentary it is then!

[Aginor]

On 6/20/2018 at 4:54 PM, TheOtherJosh said:

So ... there is an interesting caveat to this particular wording.  The rule applies to “Abilities” and not “Magic” (which has its own header.)

Is GW classifying MAGIC as an ability?

Spells like Kroak’s “Celestial Deliverance” aren’t indicated as Abilities at any point in the core rules ... or on the warscroll.

The Fatesworn Battalion on the other hand has a Unit Ability that allows them to ignore a core single only cast once rule.

 

I'd like to come back to this question as I was talking about this with a few other guys and had an idea and it might provide a possible answer to the question.

Please bear with me a moment. I'll number individual parts of my train of thought, so we can talk about them more easily.

 

1. Abilities are allowed to override core rules (Core rules, Page 11).

2. There is a core rule which says that a unmodified save roll of 1 is always a fail. (Core rules, Page 7).

3. There are abilities that allow rerolling save rolls of 1 (such as Sigmarite Shields, Liberators warscroll) or change the 1 to something else (such as the Orrery of Celestial Fates, Celestant-Prime warscroll)

4. #3 is a good example of how abilities can override core rules. If they wouldn't override the core rules they could never work on saves of 1.

5. The new Mystic Shield (Core rules, Page 8 ) allows  re-rolls of saves of 1, just like the Sigmarite Shields.

6. If spells are not abilities in the context of rule #1 then Mystic Shield is not a legal spell.

7. The outcome of #6 is really silly because why would GW include a spell that can never have any effect?

8. The opposite of #6 is: Spells are either abilities or at least work like abilities in the context of rule #1, so they can override core rules.

9. #8 means that Mystic Shield works.

 

I realize I might be over-analyzing the rules, but it sounds relatively plausible for me that indeed spells can override core rules the same way abilities can, or indeed that spells are abilities.

 

So, what do y'all think?

[Richelieu]

1 minute ago, Aginor said:

 

I'd like to come back to this question as I was talking about this with a few other guys and had an idea and it might provide a possible answer to the question.

Please bear with me a moment. I'll number individual parts of my train of thought, so we can talk about them more easily.

 

1. Abilities are allowed to override core rules (Core rules, Page 11).

2. There is a core rule which says that a unmodified save roll of 1 is always a fail. (Core rules, Page 7).

3. There are abilities that allow rerolling save rolls of 1 (such as Sigmarite Shields, Liberators warscroll) or change the 1 to something else (such as the Orrery of Celestial Fates, Celestant-Prime warscroll)

4. #3 is a good example of how abilities can override core rules. If they wouldn't override the core rules they could never work on saves of 1.

5. The new Mystic Shield (Core rules, Page 8 ) allows  re-rolls of saves of 1, just like the Sigmarite Shields.

6. If spells are not abilities in the context of rule #1 then Mystic Shield is not a legal spell.

7. The outcome of #6 is really silly because why would GW include a spell that can never have any effect?

8. The opposite of #6 is: Spells are either abilities or at least work like abilities in the context of rule #1, so they can override core rules.

9. #8 means that Mystic Shield works.

 

I realize I might be over-analyzing the rules, but it sounds relatively plausible for me that indeed spells can override core rules the same way abilities can, or indeed that spells are abilities.

 

So, what do y'all think?

Also, in there core rules, under the Abilities section is a subsection about spell lores, meaning that magic in this case is classified as a subset of abilities.

[Aginor]

1 minute ago, Richelieu said:

Also, in there core rules, under the Abilities section is a subsection about spell lores, meaning that magic in this case is classified as a subset of abilities.

Hey, not bad!

I actually haven't looked at the structure of the rules yet to draw conclusions from there. That's a valid point in my opinion.

[TheOtherJosh]

@Aginor It definitely looks to be reasonable. Still would like a designers commentary or errata/faq to clarify.

Unless we see some update in the GHB 2018 or a change to Kroak’s spell Celestial Deliverance ... that will be pretty brutal. (Though amusing if stolen by a Curseling.)

5 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

Also, in there core rules, under the Abilities section is a subsection about spell lores, meaning that magic in this case is classified as a subset of abilities.

It does talk about spell lores, but only in the context of an Allegiance Ability that gives an additional spell. So that would seem to be a red herring.

[Aginor]

25 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

@Aginor It definitely looks to be reasonable. Still would like a designers commentary or errata/faq to clarify.

Unless we see some update in the GHB 2018 or a change to Kroak’s spell Celestial Deliverance ... that will be pretty brutal. (Though amusing if stolen by a Curseling.)

I agree, a FAQ, errata, warscroll change, or anything else official is necessary IMO.

And yes, Celestial Deliverance is the elephant in the room, but the same problem exists for other spells as well.

Examples:

- Can I change a save roll of 1 into a 2 using Curse of Fates (Skink Starseer warscroll)? I think that's intended but RAW you could argue in the same way as with the Mystic Shield.

- Basically every spell that grants rerolls for hits, wounds, or saves has the same problem, they would never work on rolls of 1. I have a hard time imagining that is intended.

- Light of Battle (one of the new Hysh spells) says that one unit doesn't have to take battleshock tests. But the core rules say that every unit which has lost models has to take a battleshock test. So that spell can never work either as it would directly contradict a core rule.

- Glittering Robe (A Chamon spell) is a Mystic Shield clone, just limited to the caster. Impenetrable Hide (a Ghur spell) is the stronger version, it allows rerolling all saves for the caster. Same problem as well with the ones.

 

There are some more but I think we don't have to list all of them. There are so many that contradict core rules in order to work at all. And that's only natural because they are magic, which is meant to be something working as an exception to what is normal.

[amysrevenge]

I guess the whole thing comes down to the language used, between "unmodified" and "result" and such.  A re-roll is not a modifier, a + or - to the result is a modifier.

I mean, ultimately, you have four boxes.  Box A is the "unmodified" dice roll.  Box B is the modifier (or net sum of modifiers).   Box C is the result: (Box A + Box B).  Box D is the target.

Re-roll failed ___ (to hit, to wound, save) should be meant to decide whether Box C meets or exceeds Box D, re-roll if not (but in AoS1 you had this technicality where you were actually required to compare Box A directly to Box D, which people playing "correctly" learned to do but wide swaths of the community would look at you as if you were high if you even suggested it, and I haven't checked whether AoS2 is going to still have this counter-intuitive weird hole)

Re-roll 1s is meant to look at Box A.

An ability that pops on an unmodified 6 is meant to look at Box A.

An ability that pops on a 6 or higher is meant to look at Box C.

An ability that turns enemy 6s into 1s is meant to look at Box A.

Always fail on a 1 is meant to look at Box A, but after any re-rolls. 

Always succeed on a 6 is meant to look at Box A, but after any re-rolls.

 

The problem is that there's no super clear way to describe it like this - maybe with a nice graphic with actual boxes and pop-out text boxes?

[TheOtherJosh]

@amysrevenge Just So you know, re-rolls still happen before modifiers.

This particular piece is what makes rend as powerful as it is. Because even if you succeed on a save, rend can beat the armor value.

“Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means you get to roll some or all of the dice again. [...] You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls happen before modifiers to the roll (if any) are applied. Rules that refer to the result of an ‘unmodified’ dice roll are referring to the result after any re-rolls but before any modifiers are applied.”

[amysrevenge]

1 minute ago, TheOtherJosh said:

@amysrevenge Just So you know, re-rolls still happen before modifiers.

This particular piece is what makes rend as powerful as it is. Because even if you succeed on a save, rend can beat the armor value.

“Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means you get to roll some or all of the dice again. [...] You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls happen before modifiers to the roll (if any) are applied. Rules that refer to the result of an ‘unmodified’ dice roll are referring to the result after any re-rolls but before any modifiers are applied.”

Hahahahahahahahahahahha*bang*I'm dead

[amysrevenge]

Oh man, they reaaaaaly need to bend to the language the community uses. 

The rules are so firm that the target (with very few exceptions) never changes, and modifiers are all applied to the dice roll - but that is NOT the way that people talk about the game.  If you have a 4+ save and are in cover, you do not describe that with your spoken words as "I've got a 4+ with a +1 bonus to my roll".  Everyone describes that as "I've got a 3+".  The "re-roll before modifiers" scheme requires you to think in terms of the former, but nobody does, and even though it's a hangover from previous editions, it's ingrained enough that it's never going to change.

 

ETA:  And it's a horrible strain on the definition of the word "fail".  I've got a 4+ save and you've got rend -1.  If I roll a 4 for my save, it fails, but it doesn't fail.  If I roll a 3, then it fails AND it fails - hooray for me!

[TheOtherJosh]

28 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Everyone describes that as "I've got a 3+". 

If there is no rend, or rerolls... that’s basically correct. They’re just skipping ahead.

Technically it was successful, you blocked the hit....They just happened to cleave through your defense with their weapon.

Rend gives you a donut hole situation ... (that’s where you’re biting through the donut and hit the middle ‘air’ section.) You successfully bit into the donut. You just hit the section with no donut.

[Tasman]

8 hours ago, Richelieu said:

Also, in there core rules, under the Abilities section is a subsection about spell lores, meaning that magic in this case is classified as a subset of abilities.

Or, it's just MAGIC, y'know??

[mikethefish]

There is no "room for debate" on the topic of Rippers.  The rules as written generate potential infinite attacks.  It's obvious that's what the devs intended.  End of story.

[AaronWilson]

Have we had any update via GW as to if Warscrolls do override the rule of one or not yet? Aka does Fatesworn Warband enable the spam of AB.

[RuneBrush]

I'd suggest that any specific warscrolls/battalions that break the old rules of one explicitly need to be flagged up to GW (AoSFAQ@gwplc.com) so that they can work out how to handle them when writing the FAQ.

As a small note - GW have not sent out any official FAQ/Errata for the new edition of the game (which isn't out until Saturday) - unless there is something completely game breaking we're not going to have ANY answers until the official FAQ is released which will be approximately 2 weeks after the game arrives.

[Screwface]

On 6/23/2018 at 2:30 PM, mikethefish said:

There is no "room for debate" on the topic of Rippers.  The rules as written generate potential infinite attacks.  It's obvious that's what the devs intended.  End of story.

Lovely attitude there big guy.

[mikethefish]

1 hour ago, Screwface said:

Lovely attitude there big guy.

Not trying to attack anyone.  The rule is just very clear, with zero wiggle room.  Very possible we might get an erratta soon, but there is no ambiguity about how the rule works at the current time

[Mayple]

10 hours ago, mikethefish said:

Not trying to attack anyone.  The rule is just very clear, with zero wiggle room.  Very possible we might get an erratta soon, but there is no ambiguity about how the rule works at the current time

I mean.. If there was no ambiguity, there wouldn't be any confusion or differing opinion about it. The fact that there is does go some way of determining that there is, in fact, room for debate. 

You may debate me on that, but the paradox might crash the forum ?

[AdamJ]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:50 PM, amysrevenge said:

Oh man, they reaaaaaly need to bend to the language the community uses. 

The rules are so firm that the target (with very few exceptions) never changes, and modifiers are all applied to the dice roll - but that is NOT the way that people talk about the game.  If you have a 4+ save and are in cover, you do not describe that with your spoken words as "I've got a 4+ with a +1 bonus to my roll".  Everyone describes that as "I've got a 3+".  The "re-roll before modifiers" scheme requires you to think in terms of the former, but nobody does, and even though it's a hangover from previous editions, it's ingrained enough that it's never going to change.

 

ETA:  And it's a horrible strain on the definition of the word "fail".  I've got a 4+ save and you've got rend -1.  If I roll a 4 for my save, it fails, but it doesn't fail.  If I roll a 3, then it fails AND it fails - hooray for me!

Am I right in thinking that most re-rolls are optional, in that they usually say “you can re-roll”. If so this explains the “I’ve got a 3+” because if a 3 is rolled first time you’d never choose to re-roll (unless there is some benefit to be had from not successfully saving).

I can see the issue of saying “I’ve got a 3+” if the re-roll is compulsory. Do any abilities have compulsory re-rolls?

[Drib]

10 minutes ago, AdamJ said:

Am I right in thinking that most re-rolls are optional, in that they usually say “you can re-roll”. If so this explains the “I’ve got a 3+” because if a 3 is rolled first time you’d never choose to re-roll (unless there is some benefit to be had from not successfully saving).

I can see the issue of saying “I’ve got a 3+” if the re-roll is compulsory. Do any abilities have compulsory re-rolls?

It's clearer looking on a re-roll faild save on, let's say 4+ save vs. -1 Rend. In that case your are only alowed to re-roll 1,2 and 3, all 4s are failed without the possibility to re-reroll and all 5+ are saved.

[amysrevenge]

2 hours ago, AdamJ said:

Do any abilities have compulsory re-rolls?

How about forcing your opponent to reroll successes?

[AdamJ]

 

3 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

How about forcing your opponent to reroll successes?

Now that would be an awesome Tzeentch-like ability!