The worst rule in Age of Sigmar 2.0

[Vextol]

So, I get what they were going for... I think.  However, this rule makes everything SO much worse for interpretation of confusing elements of the game and has been a source (and will probably be continually problematic) of contention for my small group. 

Now, I don't know how I would have worded it, but I definitely would have worded it differently.  Maybe something along the lines of "If a warscroll specifically counters a core rule, the warscroll takes precedence"  I'm not sure.

What does everyone else think about this statement?  Has it been the subject/solution for every new crazy rules argument you've had?  

[heywoah_twitch]

This rule is 100% fine.

The problem is when you then don't make sure your warscrolls are updated with this in mind.

[Vextol]

Well, then by that logic it IS a bad rule ?

I think I understand the heart behind it but even with updated Warscrolls, you've made every "interesting" ability so much more complicated because now instead of being able to write "This model can reroll one die per turn" you have to write "This model can reroll one die once per turn except the die to determine initiative, dice that have already been rerolled or any other die that has been previously determined cannot be rerolled by the core rules." 

It adds a lot of clutter to several Warscrolls. 

Basically, it makes rule writing so much more difficult because even slightly debatable situations are now always debatable because there is never a fallback to a concrete set of rules. 

[blueshirtman]

My mom took my new 2.0 core book and got look at it today, and had a good laugh. She has a Phd in linguistic, and told me that while the lore is writen in a classic bombastic high fantasy style, the rules feel as if writen by someone studied english literature for 2-3 years and tries to sound real cool, and fails at it.

[BaldoBeardo]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

Well, then by that logic it IS a bad rule ?

I think I understand the heart behind it but even with updated Warscrolls, you've made every "interesting" ability so much more complicated because now instead of being able to write "This model can reroll one die per turn" you have to write "This model can reroll one die once per turn except the die to determine initiative, dice that have already been rerolled or any other die that has been previously determined cannot be rerolled by the core rules." 

It adds a lot of clutter to several Warscrolls. 

Basically, it makes rule writing so much more difficult because even slightly debatable situations are now always debatable because there is never a fallback to a concrete set of rules. 

I see the point you're trying to make, but with the establishment of version control on warscrolls it's a bit of a non-starter. Even in your example... Models don't roll for initiative, so that's irrelevant. Similarly, reading the new explanation of rerolls in the core rules, there is *nothing* in the ability as stated that conflicts with the core rules. It actually works in tandem with them, RAW and RAI.

This is actually a very good rule to have, going forward.

 

[Vextol]

OK, well, it was a made up example so I'm sure you could find something wrong with that example. However, in essence you have kind of made my case for me  ?

I know it's not in the 'spirit' to lawyer, but because of that rule the potential for lawyering skyrocketed, even for people who don't typically do it and while the rule is good in spirit, I think that they should have put a little more time in the wording. 

Specifically, star seer is a real example that becomes confusing again due to that rule.   I use him frequently because I think he's a cool model with cool abilities.  But he (and kroak) literally say reroll any die. 

Fatesworn warband is confusingly worded now

Ripperdactyles are confusing now.

That's a lot of Seraphon, given, but I could come up with more in other armies I just don't have a ton of time to hunt.  I'm sure I could think of some tzeentch and nurgle stuff too if I thought more about it. 

Anyway, all models that interact with dice in interesting ways are problematic.

Edit: Sorry for the fast reply, I'm literally getting a root canal and bumped the submit button.  I have some downtime now while the drugs kick in ?,

[BaldoBeardo]

Star seer & fatesworn- the model doesn't re-roll, the player gains the re-roll so it's a different frame of reference. Also, iirc it's not the core rules that say you can't modify or change the roll off, so the trump rule doesn't apply.

I'm also not sure what's confusing about the ripperdactyls now?

But again - *in tandem* with version control on warscrolls, this rule is a good thing.

[Vextol]

29 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Star seer & fatesworn- the model doesn't re-roll, the player gains the re-roll so it's a different frame of reference. Also, iirc it's not the core rules that say you can't modify or change the roll off, so the trump rule doesn't apply

What other rules could that be referencing if not core?  Legitimate question not being a ******.  I know that there are a gazillion rules in a million locations now. 

And rippers warscroll says "keep rolling until you don't hit anymore" which is counter to the "you can only generate new hits once".  This is actually an important point.  Rippers are not super good.  Does their Warscroll need updated to adhere to the new rules OR is this a slight intended buff? 

Edit: I guess the "j" word gets censored ?

[heywoah_twitch]

Right. So currently rippers keep rolling and fate sworn can alter the priority roll. If this is fine with GW then okay, if they feel this is not fine then they change the warscroll. 

If they don't want you doing something, then they shouldn't write abilities that they don't want you to do!

This rule is kind of wonderful because it kind of forces them to fix problems that they got themselves into by writing irresponsible abilities.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Similarly, reading the new explanation of rerolls in the core rules, there is *nothing* in the ability as stated that conflicts with the core rules

This is a concept a lot of folks have struggled with in GW gaming for many, many years.

In order for you to have to override a rule, you need a conflict, otherwise, the rules work together.

Well pointed out by you.

 

[stratigo]

36 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Right. So currently rippers keep rolling and fate sworn can alter the priority roll. If this is fine with GW then okay, if they feel this is not fine then they change the warscroll. 

If they don't want you doing something, then they shouldn't write abilities that they don't want you to do!

This rule is kind of wonderful because it kind of forces them to fix problems that they got themselves into by writing irresponsible abilities.

Maybe.

 

It depends on how much they care about AoS. But also... you know... there's a point where your rulebook is pretty much worthless and you have to read 5 different FAQs to play your army that things start to get ridiculous.

[BaldoBeardo]

57 minutes ago, Vextol said:

What other rules could that be referencing if not core?  Legitimate question not being a ******.  I know that there are a gazillion rules in a million locations now. 

And rippers warscroll says "keep rolling until you don't hit anymore" which is counter to the "you can only generate new hits once".  This is actually an important point.  Rippers are not super good.  Does their Warscroll need updated to adhere to the new rules OR is this a slight intended buff? 

Edit: I guess the "j" word gets censored ?

Core rules are the core rules. The rules that all games of AoS start from. The rules in the Azyr app.

Everything else is bolted on depending on what you're doing.

Generating attacks (rules of one) and not messing with the initiative roll aren't part of the core rules, they're part of the matched play ruleset. So aren't affected by the ability trumps core rule.

[Barkanaut]

4 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

This rule is 100% fine.

The problem is when you then don't make sure your warscrolls are updated with this in mind.

Seems clear to me. If they didn’t then there would be cases where factions abilities wouldn’t work just because the core rules say so. I mean why make battletomes at all in that case if anything contradicts the core rules and can be shut down. It simply doesn’t make  any sense. If it was written that way you could make a case for battletomes being invalid because they contradict the core rules lol. Granted I have not read much if my AoS core yet so there is possibly an area discussing battletomes. 

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Gerating attacks (rules of one) and not messing with the initiative roll aren't part of the core rules, they're part of the matched play ruleset. So aren't affected by the ability trumps core rule.

I don't follow.  The rule I referenced is in the core rules.  The core rules say that warscroll rules overrule core rules.

Also, rules of one are not a thing anymore. 

Edit: My issue was with the writing.  We have decided that interactions contrary must directly state as much, aka starseer doesn't say it can reroll initiative, it can reroll "any" die. If you say it can reroll initiative, that's a rule that you as an individual are imparting.  Any could just as easily mean "any legal" , not "any including those excluded by the the core rules" .  I think interpretation should favor the rules. 

The rippers however are very clear to me.  They have a direct contradiction to the RAW unless GW makes a warscroll change.  

[michu]

19 minutes ago, Vextol said:

We have decided that interactions contrary must directly state as much, aka starseer doesn't say it can reroll initiative, it can reroll "any" die. If you say it can reroll initiative, that's a rule that you as an individual are imparting.

I don't understand. If he can re-roll "any" die then he definitely can re-roll initiative roll if not stated otherwise. Tzeentch destiny dice have limitations, but Starseer does not.

[daedalus81]

7 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

My mom took my new 2.0 core book and got look at it today, and had a good laugh. She has a Phd in linguistic, and told me that while the lore is writen in a classic bombastic high fantasy style, the rules feel as if writen by someone studied english literature for 2-3 years and tries to sound real cool, and fails at it.

Your mom, a PhD, had time to read a massive book in under one day and was able to fully form an opinion on it?

 

Riiiight.

[Vextol]

2 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

Your mom, a PhD, had time to read a massive book in under one day and was able to fully form an opinion on it?

While I typically wouldn't comment on this, PhDs, depending on their line of work, would have a good bit more time than usual considering it's July. If indeed she is a language focus, I'd imagine she would be able to pound out a 250 page game manual pretty fast. 

[amysrevenge]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

While I typically wouldn't comment on this, PhDs, depending on their line of work, would have a good bit more time than usual considering it's July. If indeed she is a language focus, I'd imagine she would be able to pound out a 250 page game manual pretty fast. 

And while I normally wouldn't comment either,  an expert would certainly not have to read all 250 pages to present an informal off-the-cuff impression of the writing style - surely 2-3 pages would suffice.

[Skabnoze]

It's not like every page in the book is dense text either.  A large portion of the fluff is short paragraph bubbles on a full page of art.  The core rules are only 18 pages and then there are other sections with things like Matched Play, etc.  You don't have to read all of those things.

[Kaleb Daark]

2 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Your mom, a PhD, had time to read a massive book in under one day and was able to fully form an opinion on it?

 

Riiiight.

I read the soul wars novel in under a day.  The main rulebook isn't exactly a heavyweight literary work.  like skabnoze said, it's a pretty light coffee table book in many respects.

Also the fact she has a PHD in literature would actually make her very well equipped to read the brb in under an hour and formulate an opinion compared to the weight of what she'd be used to reading.

[Sesom]

Lots of game systems use a similar rule. “These are the rules, unless something says otherwise”

[Luke1705]

Oh totally thought this thread was about warscroll battalions and allies based on the title. Carry on

[Chikout]

13 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

My mom took my new 2.0 core book and got look at it today, and had a good laugh. She has a Phd in linguistic, and told me that while the lore is writen in a classic bombastic high fantasy style, the rules feel as if writen by someone studied english literature for 2-3 years and tries to sound real cool, and fails at it.

As someone who has read a fair few linguistics text books, being good at linguistics does not make you good at writing or at judging artistic merit.

Also why would someone reading the rules,  and not the lore,  think it matters whether they sound cool or not? If your mum had said the rules lack clarity and economy of language in places, I would have agreed with her.

As for the original question. That rule is fine, necessary even. Units can do what it says on the warscroll end of story.

[Vextol]

35 minutes ago, Chikout said:

As for the original question. That rule is fine, necessary even. Units can do what it says on the warscroll end of story.

How final! 

I imagine we'll see a lot more kunnin ruks taking championships!  The WARSCROLL of the Savage Big Boss does literally say, "whenever you make a hit roll of 6 or more for a model in the unit, it can make an additional attack" ?

And Warscrolls trump the core rule of 'only one additional attack' right?  End of story. 

[Chikout]

11 minutes ago, Vextol said:

How final! 

I imagine we'll see a lot more kunnin ruks taking championships!  The WARSCROLL of the Savage Big Boss does literally say, "whenever you make a hit roll of 6 or more for a model in the unit, it can make an additional attack" ?

And Warscrolls trump the core rule of 'only one additional attack' right?  End of story. 

Here is the rule you are talking about. I'm pretty sure it says one extra attack.