Jump to content

The New FAQ (23/07/2018)


Enoby

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, WindstormSCR said:

Battlescribe catalogs are maintained and created by volunteers, people who just have the time and want something that will provide a tool to reduce change of list errors as much as possible. The app itself is designed intentionally for hundreds of game systems, and the supporter thing for it goes only to application development, none of it goes to the catalog maintainers.

Ah. Thanks for the info.

So, pretty much identical model to Army Builder then. Claim that they are not making money, and get around copyright by having other people distribute the data while they can claim "gosh, gee, it's not our fault that other people are using our tool this way."

 

Sometimes I actually do feel sorry even for big business. They start a a dude in a van, build something through creativity and hard work, and then have to sit and watch while someone else comes along and says "Cool. Now I can ride on their backs and give them nothing for it, and there's not a darn thing they can do about it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All I want to say is GW did an amazing job with the FAQs. I’m sure they missed some stuff but it’s great to see them taking accountability with their rules.

As a  tournament gamer I just ask for a game that’s not “broken” and it seems to me the direction we are headed in is wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing that really confuses me about the Spell Portal is where they originaly designed clearly they thought at 60 points that's what was it worth to cast doe myself 6-7 spells a turn through it.

Now, they've reduced that effectiveness by 500-600% percent but it's the same cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Managed to read through the ones that directly effect me and very impressed.  I think the only thing that would improve them is to actually have the errata'd warscrolls updated.  It would make keeping on top of your units so much easier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AaronWIlson said:

I think the thing that really confuses me about the Spell Portal is where they originaly designed clearly they thought at 60 points that's what was it worth to cast doe myself 6-7 spells a turn through it.

Now, they've reduced that effectiveness by 500-600% percent but it's the same cost?

They might adjust the cost, but I think that reducing its potential isn't a bad thing. Another option might be to allow it two or three spells per turn. 

The issue with just letting it boost any number of spells is it really led to a big advantage for any mage-heavy faction. They could throw the portal forward and keep a block of mages near it so that they could then have a whole turn getting boosted range (with reduced risk in the following turn) to throw a lot of spells at the enemy. Plus with the last wizard they could even close the portal if they wanted and if the enemy was also mage heavy. 

The portal was basically a potential army-crippling spell when paired with mage-heavy lists. By reducing its potential it becomes more a cornerstone of a niche on the battlefield rather than the focus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vextol said:

Did they break piling in AGAIN?! 

Q: When one of my models piles in, if it is equally close to two different enemy models, do I have to finish the move as close or closer to each of those models? For example, if my model is in base contact with two enemy models, does it have to finish a pile-in move in base contact with both those models?

A: Yes to both questions – if this is impossible the model cannot move.

So we CAN slide around models.... But just once ?

 

you can shutdown entire models! great!

3" attack range becomes a new value to this game ;)

 

shutdown.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fluttershy said:

you can shutdown entire models!

?

Also, I think GW overdid it too much.  I think they way way way overreact when they fix things (BCR, Kharadrons, Seraphon now).  The portal nerf would have almost been enough on its own to fix Koroak.  You didn't have to basically completely wreck the model.  They cut his range back, made his spell harder to cast, decreased its potency, added variable success, decreased its damage slightly, wrecked his command ability, AND nerfed his best casting buffer in the army. 

If you don't include the impact from umbral portal that's 7 nerfs....7.  That's way overboard!  

Had you simply left the lens of refraction alone you really didn't have to do much at all to Kroak.  Umbral portal could have been made once per wizard and spell amulet could have just been given variable success.  Or reduce damage by 1 instead of d3.  You didn't have to make it essentially useless.

Now I'm fine with smashing engine of the gods, kroak, rippers, starseer and astrolith bearer.  It's great...love it.  But you can't take everything away without point changes.  THAT'S how you break a unit.  Have we learned nothing from BCR and Thunderers?!

Classic overreactions that just eliminates issues by erasing them.  Remove interesting and useful elements from the game just so you don't have to try to balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluttershy

I said it in the other thread but I say it here too.

I think, this case will be extremely rare.

The point is, you can't move within 3" by normal move and if you charge, your chargemove must end in 0,5" of the unit (or the Charge will fail).

Only if you can make your pile in moves in a way you would end of in this situation.

Only in a case like Yhetees, who could pile in on units within 6" this could work (but after you are only stuck in combat within 3" they could simply make a charge move in there turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

@Fluttershy

I said it in the other thread but I say it here too.

I think, this case will be extremely rare.

The point is, you can't move within 3" by normal move and if you charge, your chargemove must end in 0,5" of the unit (or the Charge will fail).

Only if you can make your pile in moves in a way you would end of in this situation.

Only in a case like Yhetees, who could pile in on units within 6" this could work (but after you are only stuck in combat within 3" they could simply make a charge move in there turn.

Obviously this is very true, but still achievable with cunning charges of nearby unit (and worth a try if the unit you lock down is a major damage dealer or almost unkillable by the units you have). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Vextol said:

?

Sweet mercy.... 

Also, I think GW overdid it too much.  I think they way way way overreact when they fix things (BCR, Kharadrons, Seraphon now).  The portal nerf would have almost been enough on its own to fix Koroak.  You didn't have to basically completely wreck the model.  They cut his range back, made his spell harder to cast, decreased its potency, added variable success, decreased its damage slightly, wrecked his command ability, AND nerfed his best casting buffer in the army. 

If you don't include the impact from umbral portal that's 7 nerfs....7.  That's way overboard!  

Had you simply left the lens of refraction alone you really didn't have to do much at all to Kroak.  Umbral portal could have been made once per wizard and spell amulet could have just been given variable success.  Or reduce damage by 1 instead of d3.  You didn't have to make it essentially useless.

Now I'm fine with smashing engine of the gods, kroak, rippers, starseer and astrolith bearer.  It's great...love it.  But you can't take everything away without point changes.  THAT'S how you break a unit.  Have we learned nothing from BCR and Thunderers?!

Classic overreactions that just eliminates issues by erasing them.  Remove interesting and useful elements from the game just so you don't have to try to balance.

Probably worth pointing out that GW have basically corrected the rules to work based on how they intended them, which is where the points were calculated at.

Otherwise it would be a bit like somebody selling a 1kg of strawberries at £1, realising it was a mistake and reducing it to the correct 100g level and the public expecting the price to drop because they get less strawberries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Probably worth pointing out that GW have basically corrected the rules to work based on how they intended them, which is where the points were calculated at.

Otherwise it would be a bit like somebody selling a 1kg of strawberries at £1, realising it was a mistake and reducing it to the correct 100g level and the public expecting the price to drop because they get less strawberries.

Call.

I do not believe they missed 7 key points about Kroak and are now updating him to reflect that.

Thats like selling 1kg of strawberries for £1 and then realizing that it was supposed to be 100g, they weren't available today, you didn't actually know where to get them, you had to add in a delivery fee, and that the strawberries were actually car parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Call.

I do not believe they missed 7 key points about Kroak and are now updating him to reflect that.

Thats like selling 1kg of strawberries for £1 and then realizing that it was supposed to be 100g, they weren't available today, you didn't actually know where to get them, you had to add in a delivery fee, and that the strawberries were actually car parts.

We're risking going majorly off tangent (so many ways to take our random example xD).

To surmise, don't think that it makes sense to compare current Lord Kroak with old Lord Kroak.  The real question is does Lord Kroak perform well enough for his 450 point pitched battle cost under the errata?  Breaking him down into component parts, he's a 4-spell (non monster) caster, potentially immune to all damage and command ability that has a decent chance of you getting extra command points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Call.

I do not believe they missed 7 key points about Kroak and are now updating him to reflect that.

Thats like selling 1kg of strawberries for £1 and then realizing that it was supposed to be 100g, they weren't available today, you didn't actually know where to get them, you had to add in a delivery fee, and that the strawberries were actually car parts.

But the when you got home yesterday you found out that the strawberries that you bought and brought home were actually made of solid gold. 

And when you came in today to get some of that cheap solid gold, they had replaced them with regular strawberries.

- 3D6” range changed on Celestial Deliverance  to flat 10. 

- Change out 3 dice that can modify your opponents rolls (Not just yours) for Command Points. Previously ...  you could deny opponents casts, saves, and special rolls etc.. (Oh look, you rolled a 12 with your screaming bell for the Peal Of Doom? Nope you didn’t ... that save you needed to make? Nope. That wound roll... not feeling it.)

D3 or D6 wounds on ALL units within range of Celestial Deliverance (up to 18 Mortal wounds on an individual Chaos Daemon Unit ... with an average of 11) on a spell with a threat range of ~38” (plus balewind and any other distance enhancers) depending on placement of the unit (with a spell that wasn’t hard to cast) (And there were sequences in the 7Nations where he did 100 mortal wounds... due to model and unit placement.) Down to a max of 9 mortals and a much harder cast. (Max of 27 mortal wounds per Hero phase.) With a threat range of ~22”

For a 450 Point Unit pre-FAQ he was a “must take” now, he is much more situational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

We're risking going majorly off tangent (so many ways to take our random example xD).

To surmise, don't think that it makes sense to compare current Lord Kroak with old Lord Kroak.  The real question is does Lord Kroak perform well enough for his 450 point pitched battle cost under the errata?  Breaking him down into component parts, he's a 4-spell (non monster) caster, potentially immune to all damage and command ability that has a decent chance of you getting extra command points.

That's fair!  I think he's extremely susceptible to ranged attacks.  The eternity wardens help a lot.  I guess I liked having a seraphon unit that could deal "easy damage".  They have very little rend, mediocre range and most of their stuff is pretty squishy.  

Time will tell on Kroak but I just wish that occasionally GW went a little less crazy on some of their nerfs.

Also, starseer was my favorite model so I'm a little sour all in all ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

The battalions are entirely playable in an EVERCHOSEN Army.

You just don’t get Blood Tithe, and would have to take the Grand Alliance Battle Traits.

They are  not playable with the 1 in 4 allies restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

But the when you got home yesterday you found out that the strawberries that you bought and brought home were actually made of solid gold.

If you look at the results from Midwest meltdown it looks like making his command ability "once per phase" and removing astrolith stacking was all you needed. Everything else is just overkill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tolstedt said:

They are  not playable with the 1 in 4 allies restriction.

Allies within a battalion do not count as allies for the purpose of the allies restriction, that was also in an FAQ, so those battalions are valid to use in an Everchosen army should you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stato said:

Allies within a battalion do not count as allies for the purpose of the allies restriction, that was also in an FAQ, so those battalions are valid to use in an Everchosen army should you wish.

Thanks, can you point me to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tolstedt said:

Thanks, can you point me to this?

Q: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units, for example)?

A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion. In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle).

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_Basesizes_en.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

I think the thing that really confuses me about the Spell Portal is where they originaly designed clearly they thought at 60 points that's what was it worth to cast doe myself 6-7 spells a turn through it.

Now, they've reduced that effectiveness by 500-600% percent but it's the same cost?

Portal was nice because it allowed Monster Wizards to participate in spell combat at turn 1 the way that Alpha Strike armies have ways to participate in melee turn 1 and shooting armies have ways to participate in shooting turn 1. It was an off-set to the old Balewind Vortex which monsters had no option of using. Now I don't think it's the end of Spell Portal. I do think the points can go down 10-20 as it's so clearly no longer an auto-include and it's clear this was a balancing FAQ and not a "we always meant it this other way" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the combination of limiting the portal to one spell AND not allowing endless spells to be cast through it makes it a bit lame and probably not worth the point cost anymore.

At least on paper. I'll use it in one of my next few games and see.
There are still a few spells that might be worth casting them through the portal. "Unleash Spites" comes to mind, also the (now nerfed but still OK) "Celestial  Deliverance" and some other spells, probably mainly spells of squishy mages that do short ranged or area damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EMMachine said:

@Fluttershy

I said it in the other thread but I say it here too.

I think, this case will be extremely rare.

The point is, you can't move within 3" by normal move and if you charge, your chargemove must end in 0,5" of the unit (or the Charge will fail).

Only if you can make your pile in moves in a way you would end of in this situation.

Only in a case like Yhetees, who could pile in on units within 6" this could work (but after you are only stuck in combat within 3" they could simply make a charge move in there turn.

Well, I think you could easily end up in the diagramed position. I think the trick would be to have two "sucker" models get in BTB  with the hero (importantly making a straight line so the hero cannot pile in away from either) from each of the flanking units, then you have the next two closest models from the flanking  units be 2.9" away as shown. When the hero kills the "suckers", whalla! he can't pile-in anymore.  It would be only useful against really scary melee heroes. 

The hero player could retreat, or charge something else into one of the two flanking units to break it up, but the tactic would be good to "freeze" the hero for a turn or two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're fooling yourself if you think you can get anything other than base-contact/0" to be *exactly* the same distance away.  It stretches credulity.  The only way for it to work is if you can convince your opponent to let you do it, ie. "Now, I know that these models are not *exactly* the same distance away, but my intent is to set them up as such - can we just set them as close to exactly the same as the physical limits of our table will allow, and call it the same?  This is just to ruin your experience, so be a pal and let me do it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...