Are there any rules of one in the GHB 2018?

[Jamopower]

 

5 minutes ago, Paul Buckler said:

No room at all, that wording does exactly what it says and the core rules cover it perfectly

Yeah I guess so, I would still say that there is little bit of contradiction between these rules, again not that I would pull it myself, but again some might pull:

"ABILITIES Most warscrolls include one or more abilities that can be used by the warscroll’s models during a game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar. Abilities take precedence over the core rules."

and

"Lastly, any extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls. For example, if a hit roll of 6 or more allows you to make 1 extra attack, this extra attack could not generate further attacks should you roll another 6+."

 

If ability says that you should "carry on attacking until you don't hit", do you believe the first rule that says that warscroll trumps core rules, or core rules that say that abilities can't generate attacks, as based on the first rule, the second rule should get overridden by the warscroll ability as it is part of the core rules? 

[RuneBrush]

I've a feeling we'll see a small batch of warscroll updates/errata rolled out over the next month or so, just clearing those up.  GW are trying to tighten up on a number of old warscrolls that now contradict bits of the core rules.

[Aginor]

I also think we need a FAQ for that (or a warscroll change if they want) because IMO judging by both the English and German wording it is absolutely clear that - if you are stupidly lucky - Ripperdactyls can cause infinite hits.

[Xasz]

28 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I've a feeling we'll see a small batch of warscroll updates/errata rolled out over the next month or so, just clearing those up.  GW are trying to tighten up on a number of old warscrolls that now contradict bits of the core rules.

Somehow I don't trust GW to make just slight wording corrections and clarifications.

[AaronWilson]

Unless GHB somehow states that the rule of one can never be ignored in matched play, I think it's clear what warscrolls override the core rules, which overrides the rule of one. If that's something GW intended is another thing, or just didn't properly think of the repercussions. 

[ledha]

5 hours ago, Aginor said:

But...they said warscrolls take precedence over core rules so Skin Wolves and Ripperdactyls get to munch on unless the warscrolls are changed.

(Page 11, point 3)

Can you show us where the warscroll say that any of their extra attack can generate further new attacks ?

[TheOtherJosh]

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

ABILITIES Most warscrolls include one or more abilities that can be used by the warscroll’s models during a game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar. Abilities take precedence over the core rules."

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.

[Aginor]

1 hour ago, ledha said:

Can you show us where the warscroll say that any of their extra attack can generate further new attacks ?

Sure.

The Rippers' warscroll says "each time". Note that this is a different wording compared to other abilities that trigger at a 6+ or so, those normally say "if". It says each time because it also refers to the generated attacks.

The second indicator is "carry on until a hit roll does not score a hit". That sentence would make no sense at all if it would refer to the one attack the Ripper normally has.

And then of course the fact that to my knowledge my interpretation has always been the one used at tournaments and even by GW. It even was mentioned in a FAQ or an article as an example for an ability that is subject to that rule of one.

 

EDIT: I admit that for the skin wolves it is less clear. I still think that the "each" means the same here. So yeah, I'd like to see a FAQ entry about that.

[Paul Buckler]

Honestly this just shows how far that tga has fallen, I'll leave you to it facebook mk2

 

[Aginor]

4 minutes ago, Paul Buckler said:

Honestly this just shows how far that tga has fallen, I'll leave you to it facebook mk2

 

Could you further elaborate on that? I am not sure what you mean as I am not familiar with Facebook.

[Jamopower]

I'm 100% with you, that the intent is that the ripperdactyls don't generate addtional attacks besides the first, however I'm also 100% sure that the orginial rule has been written to allow possibly infinite attacks, as it has the clarification to keep rolling until you miss, and it's the way that I and most likely many else have been playing them before the rule of one (they were quite of beasts back then).

Still I'm sure that with these new rules, there are lot of people that will read the rules and play it with attacks generating attacks that generate attacks even without ever realizing that they would possibly be exploiting the rules, because of the clarification in the warscroll ability to carry on making attacks. Thus it's a clear case that should be FAQ'd. 

Note that for Skin wolves, or Daemonettes, etc. it's very clear that they won't generate any extra attacks, as the part in the core rules is quite clearly stopping that.

[amysrevenge]

I looove that Aetherkhemist stacking was fixed with a new warscroll within a few weeks and this still hasn't been.  #notbitter

[Aginor]

26 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I looove that Aetherkhemist stacking was fixed with a new warscroll within a few weeks and this still hasn't been.  #notbitter

You might be surprised but I agree.

For us Seraphon players it sucks that we haven't got a single warscroll update since AoS was released. I hope that changes soon. (more than the Engine of the Gods change we already know about)

[TheOtherJosh]

28 minutes ago, Aginor said:

You might be surprised but I agree.

For us Seraphon players it sucks that we haven't got a single warscroll update since AoS was released. I hope that changes soon. (more than the Engine of the Gods change we already know about)

Be thankful that you’re not a “Lord Of Khorne on Juggernaut”, or “Mighty Skullcrushers” Unit ...

Neither of those have the DAEMON keyword any more ... even though they used to have  it in the “Warriors of Chaos” battletome when they were previously known as “Skullcrushers Of Khorne” and “Khorne Lord on Juggernaut” (Though that does save them additional damage from Lord Kroak’s Celestial Deliverance spell.) And that’s been the case since release of the Khorne Bloodbound battletome.

[Aginor]

23 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Be thankful that you’re not a “Lord Of Khorne on Juggernaut”, or “Mighty Skullcrushers” Unit ...

Neither of those have the DAEMON keyword any more ... even though they used to have  it in the “Warriors of Chaos” battletome when they were previously known as “Skullcrushers Of Khorne” and “Khorne Lord on Juggernaut” (Though that does save them additional damage from Lord Kroak’s Celestial Deliverance spell.) And that’s been the case since release of the Khorne Bloodbound battletome.

I'd be so happy if my Seraphon could get rid of that keyword and your guys would get it instead.

[SuperHappyTime]

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

I'm 100% with you, that the intent is that the ripperdactyls don't generate addtional attacks besides the first, however I'm also 100% sure that the orginial rule has been written to allow possibly infinite attacks, as it has the clarification to keep rolling until you miss, and it's the way that I and most likely many else have been playing them before the rule of one (they were quite of beasts back then).

In most games (ex: Magic the Gathering) there’s a key rule in the core rules that says: “If the Warscroll says something that contradicts the Core Rules, the Warscroll wins.” But there isn’t one here.

And I think the intention was for Ripperdactyl’s hits (since it does say additional hits, not attacks) to go infinite.

[Drib]

It is all the same discussion as with the "old" pile in. You know what is meant but you can choose to read it in another way or from bad wording. 

It is clearly meant that extra attacks don't trigger extra attacks in ANY way. And to quote old warscrolls not meant for AoS 2.0 to emphasize a statement in the new edition is .. not so wise. Even after rework, it might as well have been forgotten in a specific warscroll. I would NEVER ignore the extra attack restrictions unless it is clearly stated in an FAQ that it's intended.

[TheOtherJosh]

50 minutes ago, Aginor said:

I'd be so happy if my Seraphon could get rid of that keyword and your guys would get it instead.

It does make it easier to charge in and smack Kroak around a bunch.... when riding Juggernauts.  

But Seraphon are Daemons too. Anything where you have Dinosaurs riding Dinosaurs has to be evil Daemons ... *wink*

[Aginor]

46 minutes ago, SuperHappyTime said:

In most games (ex: Magic the Gathering) there’s a key rule in the core rules that says: “If the Warscroll says something that contradicts the Core Rules, the Warscroll wins.” But there isn’t one here. 

 

There is!

It is on page 13 (the one that talks about warscrolls), bottom of the middle column (emphasis by me, in bold):

Most warscrolls include one

or more abilities that can be used

by the warscroll’s models during a

game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar.

Abilities take precedence over the

core rules.

[Aginor]

1 hour ago, Drib said:

It is all the same discussion as with the "old" pile in. You know what is meant but you can choose to read it in another way or from bad wording. 

It is clearly meant that extra attacks don't trigger extra attacks in ANY way. And to quote old warscrolls not meant for AoS 2.0 to emphasize a statement in the new edition is .. not so wise. Even after rework, it might as well have been forgotten in a specific warscroll. I would NEVER ignore the extra attack restrictions unless it is clearly stated in an FAQ that it's intended.

I disagree. It would be VERY easy for GW to change it, but they didn't. They are aware how people interpret it, in fact they interpret it that way themselves. They did not want to change it because there is nothing wrong with it. They just changed it for matched play, by putting the Rules of One over the warscrolls in importance, because obviously some people were scared of this abilty being too strong, especially when buffed to improve the chance.

Outside of matched play the ability worked like this all the time. And it isn't even that bad of a problem. Yes, they are strong, but not necessarily broken. It wouldn't be too hard to tweak them.

EDIT: inaccurate part removed.

I am not saying it has to be like this, and I am not saying it cannot be abused in some way by stacking buffs, maybe it can. But GW made the rules that way and if I can come up with a better paragraph in a few minutes, so can they.

So to settle this they should just edit the warscroll to have it say:

 

Voracious Appetite:

If a model

from this unit attacks with its Vicious Beak

and scores a hit, make two hit rolls against the target instead of one.

 

Then we would not have this discussion.

And that's why it is not wrong to assume that they want the ability to work like I say it does.

 

EDIT: Also: Someone who is good at mathhammer should do the math on this one. There is no reason to be concerned about it IMO, damage-wise. It's not as if those beasts make their main damage using their beak. It is a 4+/3+ attack with damage 1 and without rend, and the Ripper's base attacks characteristic is one (three with the toad).
Even if someone throws six Rippers at you, fully buffed as far as Seraphon can, that ability is not going to be broken.

EDIT2: Even with the toad it is not severe in most cases (but even if it was: why not nerf the toad instead, much easier, it is a single number to change on the warscroll, yet GW decided to not do it)

EDIT3: And in case y'all wondered: No, I don't use Rippers myself, I am Team Terradon. 

[Aginor]

EDIT:

I had posted something very wrong here, sorry. Thanks for the hint @rokapoke

[rokapoke]

@Aginor, if Ripper attacks only exploded on 6s I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Instead, they explode on 4s (any successful hit!), which changes the math significantly. 

[Aginor]

4 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

@Aginor, if Ripper attacks only exploded on 6s I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Instead, they explode on 4s (any successful hit!), which changes the math significantly. 

Huh. Dammit, I am an idiot it seems. I just..... I'll go to bed now. Sorry everyone, I'll do the math again tomorrow.

[TheOtherJosh]

1 hour ago, Aginor said:

EDIT: Also: Someone who is good at mathhammer should do the math on this one. There is no reason to be concerned about it IMO, damage-wise. It's not as if those beasts make their main damage using their beak. It is a 4+/3+ attack with damage 1 and without rend, and the Ripper's base attacks characteristic is one (three with the toad).

Here’s the ability.

"Voracious Appetite: Each time a model from this unit attacks with its Vicious Beak and scores a hit, immediately make another hit roll against the same target. Carry on until a hit roll does not score a hit, then make any wound rolls."

So ... 3 ripperdactyl riders min. 12 Max

For 3 attack’s for a minimum sized unit, and 12 for a maximum.

At 12 attacks you’re hitting 50% and then each attack after will hit 50% of the time.

so 6+3+1.5+.75+.375

So, we’ll round up for numbers over .5 and down for under. So a total of ~12.

So effectively with 12 attacks, you’ll hit ~12 times on average. And wounding 2/3 of the time. So 8 wounds at 1 damage no rend.

3 would be 1.5+.75+.375 so hitting for ~3 at 2 wounds.

Basically the attacks are on average 100% successful hits for whatever your number of units are. And wounding 2/3 of the time.

And that’s just the average. 

[Kamose]

2 hours ago, Aginor said:

EDIT3: And in case y'all wondered: No, I don't use Rippers myself, I am Team Terradon. 

Team Terradon ftw! 

Rippers are ugly and smell like toads! ?