The worst rule in Age of Sigmar 2.0

[Vextol]

2 minutes ago, Chikout said:

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

What if the hit roll of that attack is a 6? I just rolled a 6 and the warscroll clearly says that whenever I roll a hit roll of 6, I can attack again. 

[Chikout]

45 minutes ago, Vextol said:

What if the hit roll of that attack is a 6? I just rolled a 6 and the warscroll clearly says that whenever I roll a hit roll of 6, I can attack again. 

OK. My previous post was a little impulsive. My apologies. As it stands they attack again trumping the one extra attack rule. Is that so bad? It costs a command point now. Arrow boys went up in points.   People have been complaining about destruction not gaining anything in the new edition. I don't think this would catapult them to the top of the pile. Even with 90 arrowboys using kunnin ruck it works out at an average of about 12 more attacks per turn. 

That's a good bonus but not crazy and it is affected by look out,sir. 

[EMMachine]

2 hours 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. 

In case of Salvage Attack, we do not have the same problem like with Ripperdactyls. The rule only says, if you roll a 6 or more you get an extra attack and the corerules would prevent it. It's more a problem if the rule says "carry on until" because the rule says that you generate more attacks.

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

That's a good bonus but not crazy and it is affected by look out,sir.

 So, yes-it's crazy.  I am guessing you are unfamiliar with how the kunnin ruk plays out, but this would result in about a hundred bajilionty more attacks, not 12.  Coming from a past kunnin ruk player, this would break the game.

Actually...with the clarification from the Seraphon faq that using a command ability twice that grants extra attacks does in fact stack...sweet mercy.   Even with only adding extra attacks ONCE kunnin ruk got absolutely absurd. Ugh... Sorry.  That's another topic. 

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

. The rule only says, if you roll a 6 or more you get an extra attack and the corerules would prevent it. It's more a problem if the rule says "carry on until" because the rule says that you generate more attacks.

Firstly, I agree.  Completely agree. However, this is not what the core rules say.  The warscroll says "whenever you roll a hit roll of 6" not "whenever you roll a hit roll of 6 and that hit roll wasn't generated from a previous hit roll of 6".   Whenever means 'whenever' thus trumping the rule that you can't generate more attacks. 

And that was totally my point from the beginning.  The way it is worded, which I agree is a very standard board game practice, is that Warscrolls overrule main rules.  The issue I had from the beginning is that this game isn't enough like those games to pull off a general statement like that.  Warscrolls are not designed to handle that kind of rule without a little more clarification. 

This must be the case because everyone adds the same basic modifier that Warscrolls must explicitly state they can beak a core rule to be allowed to do it.  While I agree that this was probably the intent, the rule, as written, doesn't say that.  

That is why I believe it is the worst rule. 

[Kirjava13]

For me the worst rule is the one to decide who has first turn, because it would have been so easy to make sure it was clear and they fumbled it.

[RuneBrush]

I can see what you mean.  What I'd probably say is that this really only affects older warscrolls.  I'm not aware of there being any abilities in warscrolls written this year that would make the new wording not work.

1 minute ago, Kirjava13 said:

For me the worst rule is the one to decide who has first turn, because it would have been so easy to make sure it was clear and they fumbled it.

I've a feeling (and we'll never know this for sure) that there were crossed wires somewhere along the line.  What got put into the Core Rules may have been how it was originally conceived and then changed - but missed being updated in what got sent to print.  It's kind of a mute point now though as it's been FAQ'd to clarify it.

[Chikout]

@Vextol

Are there hit buffs for bonesplittas? My maths says 90 arrow boys with 3 attacks each plus another 30 x 3 attacks for the Kunnin ruck ability makes 360 attacks a turn. On average 60 sixes get to attack again. This follows the one extra attack rule. 

Of those 60, 10 get a second extra attack and then one or two get a third extra attack. This makes about 12 extra attacks a turn on average compared to the regular one extra attack rule. Is this wrong? 

By the way I agree that the who goes first rule is the worst, as it obfuscated something that needed particular clarity.

[Kirjava13]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

It's kind of a moot point now though as it's been FAQ'd to clarify it.

I know, and I know I should be chill about it, and there's other stuff that maybe should get my goat but doesn't... It's just so vexing that something so fundamental and so simple was mishandled and my shiny hardback book, which was released four days ago, already needs an FAQ to go with it.

[AaronWilson]

I love the new AoS, it's gone full whacky and madness with the stacking of the same command ability, warscrolls overriding core rules & free summoning. As I play Guildball at a competitive level a lot, I love embracing the nonsense that AoS brings. 

[MrZakalwe]

Worst rule for me is rerolls before modifiers -  makes some rerolls unreliable. 

 

Person 1) I reroll all failed saves.

Person 2) You can't reroll that save.

Person 1) But it failed?

Person 2) Yup.

Person 1) So I can reroll it? 

Person 2) Nope. 

Person 1) But it's a save.

Person 2) Yup

Person 1) and it's failed.

Person 2) Yup.

Person 1) and I reroll all failed saves.

Person 2) Yup

Person 1) but not that one?

Person 2) Yup. 

 

Bonus points for the first wave of Compendiums that had a number of characters that rerolled failed saves (a couple of them didn't say that they may re-roll them, it said 'reroll failed save rolls for this unit') meaning they were often forced to reroll successful save rolls when mystic shield and cover got involved.

 

Should totally be modifiers first then rerolls. 

[AaronWilson]

Are re-rolls done before modifiers (like 40k works) now? As in if you can re-roll saving throws, but are getting hit by -1 rend and have a 4+ save you can't re-roll your 4s as they don't fail until modifiers apply?

[Drib]

4 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

Are re-rolls done before modifiers (like 40k works) now? As in if you can re-roll saving throws, but are getting hit by -1 rend and have a 4+ save you can't re-roll your 4s as they don't fail until modifiers apply?

That's correct! As in 1.0.

[EMMachine]

5 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

Are re-rolls done before modifiers (like 40k works) now? As in if you can re-roll saving throws, but are getting hit by -1 rend and have a 4+ save you can't re-roll your 4s as they don't fail until modifiers apply?

Yes, thats the way it worked since day 1 of AoS.

[AaronWilson]

Cheers guys, I'll be honest I only ever got round to playing one game with my Tzeentch in AoS 1.0. Coming from playing a fair bit of 8th to playing more AoS2 the rule was cery weird going from 7th - 8th of 40k but once you've got your head round it I find it works just fine. 

[Seraphage]

Having FAQs is actually a great thing.

It means that we don't wait years until mistakes are corrected and instead within 2 months things get better after our feedback. If you don' t play competitively games with your friends, FAQs are probably just trouble because unless you play tough you won't realise most of the mistakes that the game currently has - and you can even skip them if you may. If you do however, FAQs are the best thing that ever happened to our hobby.

It really feels great that so many things are getting corrected so fast !

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

@Vextol

Are there hit buffs for bonesplittas? My maths says 90 arrow boys with 3 attacks each plus another 30 x 3 attacks for the Kunnin ruck ability makes 360 attacks a turn. On average 60 sixes get to attack again. This follows the one extra attack rule. 

Of those 60, 10 get a second extra attack and then one or two get a third extra attack. This makes about 12 extra attacks a turn on average compared to the regular one extra attack rule. Is this wrong? 

 I sold my army (hated them) so I may be a bit rusty but the combo was something like:

Maniac weirdnob spell :reroll hit rolls of 1 or all failed based on cast

Shaman: spell: Brutal beast spirits, +1 to all hit rolls

Big Boss : obvious, grants the double shot

Boyz Archers : the bread and butter.

They shoot twice a turn due to ruk.  Assuming you take max unit (was 40 I think-just saw they moved them to 30 last year, huge nerf) you get 180 shots a turn,  90 hitting initially, 15 more hitting after the 1 reroll.  Of those 105, 70 fire again.  Of those, 35 hit and 6 more after reroll.  So 41.  Total hits being 146.  If you were allowed to keep going you end up with 

41-16, 16-6, 6-2, 2-1

So extra is 25 for buffed unit only.  

Yeah so I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world. Basically a 17% bump.  Cutting their numbers 25% and bumping them 30% in points since I last played them has really nerfed them hard ?. 

[heywoah_twitch]

3 hours ago, Seraphage said:

Having FAQs is actually a great thing.

Having Errata is step 1 in the 2 step process of fixing mistakes.

Step 2 is updating the digital products with the correct wording as soon as possible once the Erratas and FAQs go up, so that millions of players' digital reference materials are correct and can be played correctly - especially considering how unaware most people are of faqs.

[CyderPirate]

6 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

Are re-rolls done before modifiers (like 40k works) now? As in if you can re-roll saving throws, but are getting hit by -1 rend and have a 4+ save you can't re-roll your 4s as they don't fail until modifiers apply?

EDIT: Ignore me, got it wrong. 

Just to clarify - you can re-roll those 4s.

From the errata (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en2.pdf?

Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied? A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied, so the success or failure will always be based on the unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll ‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful after the modifier is applied!

[Vextol]

2 minutes ago, CyderPirate said:

Just to clarify - you can re-roll those 4s.

From the errata (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en2.pdf?

Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied? A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied, so the success or failure will always be based on the unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll ‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful after the modifier is applied!

No, this example is indicating that you may not want to reroll failed rolls that actually aren't fails.  They are saying "look ahead" and choose not to reroll.  The other way doesn't work. Even though you can look ahead and see that they will fail, they haven't failed yet and thus cannot be rerolled. 

[CyderPirate]

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

No, this example is indicating that you may not want to reroll failed rolls that actually aren't fails.  They are saying "look ahead" and choose not to reroll.  The other way doesn't work. Even though you can look ahead and see that they will fail, they haven't failed yet and thus cannot be rerolled. 

Ah, fair enough. I don't think that's the intention, but that's kinda irrelevant. 

 

[Seraphage]

2 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Having Errata is step 1 in the 2 step process of fixing mistakes.

Step 2 is updating the digital products with the correct wording as soon as possible once the Erratas and FAQs go up, so that millions of players' digital reference materials are correct and can be played correctly - especially considering how unaware most people are of faqs.

The game we love is not a good game to be ignorant of rules I might say, due to its complexity ?

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

Going to lock this thread as it's gone pretty much as far as it's going to and risks delving into territory we want to avoid