The New FAQ (23/07/2018)

[Mephisto]

21 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

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."

I mean I play with adults so I'm not too worried about it but we both know that Thatgais across the globe are currently cutting the tips off tape measures to make 2.9" templates and then they'll get you to argue over a millimeter difference making you seem like the a-hole when so much of the game already goes off of shared intent (like saying a model is half-way up terrain and just putting a die there).

[Ravinsild]

4 hours 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. 

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.

He could do all that for 450!? 

Man.... Megaboss on Maw-Krusha should be like 300 points. All he does is attack a lot. No spells, no messing with opponents rolls, no long range threat, gets worse with wounds... 

[Urauloth]

1 hour ago, Ravinsild said:

He could do all that for 450!? 

Man.... Megaboss on Maw-Krusha should be like 300 points. All he does is attack a lot. No spells, no messing with opponents rolls, no long range threat, gets worse with wounds... 

Yeah, but as you can see from the rebalance, he wasn't really supposed to be doing all that for 450.  

[Ravinsild]

2 hours ago, Urauloth said:

Yeah, but as you can see from the rebalance, he wasn't really supposed to be doing all that for 450.  

If you can be that busted for 450 I was a refund on my points for MGMK he should be free. Every Ironjawz player can take 1 for free. He’s 440 points 10 points less than Kroak but like 700% less effective at wrecking your ******. 

[TheOtherJosh]

35 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

If you can be that busted for 450 I was a refund on my points for MGMK he should be free. Every Ironjawz player can take 1 for free. He’s 440 points 10 points less than Kroak but like 700% less effective at wrecking your ******. 

All of it was FAQ’d. Previously, he was basically an auto-include at 450 points. Now, he isn’t an auto-include and is more in-line with other units at 450.

[Ravinsild]

1 hour ago, TheOtherJosh said:

All of it was FAQ’d. Previously, he was basically an auto-include at 450 points. Now, he isn’t an auto-include and is more in-line with other units at 450.

Yeah I know. I’m mostly being dramatic for comedic effect but holy ****** Kroak looks like he deserved every nerf he got. 

My meta is a really weird dumb meta where people play Dwarves, Daughters of Khaine, Skaven, and lots of destruction. Bonesplittaz, Moonclan grots, BCR, lots of Ironjawz. 

I think 1 guy plays Seraphon but he just started. I’ve seen people own Stormcast and Death but I’ve never seen them played or played against them. 

So personally all this doom and gloom over Seraphon/Nagash etc hasn’t effected me but I’m aware of it. So I just sort of knew “Kroak is broken” but I didn’t really see exactly how or why until it was broken down here. 

[Brodylan]

A number of warscrolls on the App have now been updated to include their FAQ changes, such as the great unclean one command ability. Makes it much easier for me to keep track of the changes this way. 

[Carnelian]

Theyre updating the app finally! GREAT MOVE GW

[Chikout]

If they can keep the app accurate and up to date with the latest errata and faqs, it will go a long way towards dealing with the issues some people have with keeping track of all the rules. I really hope they make this a priority. 

[TheOtherJosh]

Now if they would just update the epub3 versions...

[Nin Win]

My friend just takes screen shots of his epub3 and then annotates the image in some app or another.  He then has a folder or album of images, marked up and cropped to make things as easy as possible during a game.  Another friend takes the same screen shots and edits them and prints off reference cards.

I would much prefer it if the epub3 would just get updated with each FAQ, but some of the changes might cause layout problems as the amount of text ends up being different.

[TheOtherJosh]

22 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

I would much prefer it if the epub3 would just get updated with each FAQ, but some of the changes might cause layout problems as the amount of text ends up being different.

When GW did the epub3 updates they actually changed page formatting in a number of places and added pages in others.

(which actually puts the page numbering for the errata on other pages.)

[sirbrokensword]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:47 AM, amysrevenge said:

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."

It's super easy. You simply use a template, any template, and they are the same distance.

[rokapoke]

19 minutes ago, sirbrokensword said:

It's super easy. You simply use a template, any template, and they are the same distance.

And yet it only works if those models are diametrically opposite one another. So you need a template that ensures that’s how you place them - because otherwise you can pile in closer to both models. 

End of the day, if you (as my opponent) are putting this much effort into preventing one of my models from participating in the game, I’m not enjoying myself and I’m not sure you are either. 

[amysrevenge]

27 minutes ago, sirbrokensword said:

It's super easy. You simply use a template, any template, and they are the same distance.

Nah it's still fiddly enough that, like any event requiring a precise measurement, you'll need explicit consent from your opponent for it to work.  It's a ticky-tacky enough trick that demanding nanometer level accuracy in measurement in response is no more ticky-tacky.  If you try to do it to me, and I decide I don't want you to do it to me, I can demand more precision in measuring than you can provide.

 

End of the day, that's where it sits.  It's easy enough to set up, but requires the explicit consent of the opponent ahead of time to work.  So go to town.  Get that consent and do it.

[sirbrokensword]

4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Nah it's still fiddly enough that, like any event requiring a precise measurement, you'll need explicit consent from your opponent for it to work.  It's a ticky-tacky enough trick that demanding nanometer level accuracy in measurement in response is no more ticky-tacky.  If you try to do it to me, and I decide I don't want you to do it to me, I can demand more precision in measuring than you can provide.

 

End of the day, that's where it sits.  It's easy enough to set up, but requires the explicit consent of the opponent ahead of time to work.  So go to town.  Get that consent and do it.

Consent is only required without measurement. templates remove that option.

Unless you want to tell your opponents your not going to follow the rules?  Look, this is a rules problem, Gw should fix it.

[Ravinsild]

33 minutes ago, sirbrokensword said:

Consent is only required without measurement. templates remove that option.

Unless you want to tell your opponents your not going to follow the rules?  Look, this is a rules problem, Gw should fix it.

I mean it really isn’t a rules problem. 

Its a pedantic ******/ that guy problem. Like almost all rules exploits. 

In every game there’s a subset of players who will not be satisfied until they find every single loop hole they can take advantage of, and take any given rule set and absolutely smash its spine over their knee over and over until it’s shattered skeleton can’t even be salvaged by a giant golden throne. 

Then the game makers have to patch this stuff and said neckbeards get their neck gristle all rustled and they bring out their magnifying glasses and start combing over the rules to find the next thing they can exploit and the next thing they can break and use to their advantage. 

And so the cycle of life and death continues and we all continue to learn to just stay away from that guy. You know, the guys who make ****** like Pun-Pun. 

If you don’t know what Pun-Pun is google D&D 3rd edition pun-pun. There’s a cute little display of these type of dudes in full force, plus Codzilla. 

[Skabnoze]

4 hours ago, sirbrokensword said:

Consent is only required without measurement. templates remove that option.

Unless you want to tell your opponents your not going to follow the rules?  Look, this is a rules problem, Gw should fix it.

I agree that the pile-in rules are pretty poor. 

They could have done better.

The obvious intent is to force both sides to get as many dudes as possible trying to punch each other in the face.  The could have written the rules to force people to get as many models as possible into stabbing range but still allow you to slide models around in combat rather than get locked into place.  It is disappointing that they did not do that.  Hopefully in 3rd ed AoS they adjust the wording to do that.  I have played long enough that I figure I will still be playing in 3rd ed.

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

@sirbrokensword friendly nudge to ask you to be a little more positive with your comments.

[stato]

4 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

I mean it really isn’t a rules problem. 

Its a pedantic ******/ that guy problem. Like almost all rules exploits. 

In every game there’s a subset of players who will not be satisfied until they find every single loop hole they can take advantage of, and take any given rule set and absolutely smash its spine over their knee over and over until it’s shattered skeleton can’t even be salvaged by a giant golden throne. 

Then the game makers have to patch this stuff and said neckbeards get their neck gristle all rustled and they bring out their magnifying glasses and start combing over the rules to find the next thing they can exploit and the next thing they can break and use to their advantage. 

And so the cycle of life and death continues and we all continue to learn to just stay away from that guy. You know, the guys who make ****** like Pun-Pun. 

If you don’t know what Pun-Pun is google D&D 3rd edition pun-pun. There’s a cute little display of these type of dudes in full force, plus Codzilla. 

It is a rules problem, because AoS already lets you do all kind of stuff that you could be construed as a 'that guy' for doing. There are even community articles on how to tie up units, stop entire units attacking by being selective removing casualties, deny areas through stupid looking unit deployment, etc.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/21/tactical-toolbox-deployment/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/04/tactical-toolbox-zoning-and-area-denial/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/14/tactical-toolbox-charging/

 

 

[Overread]

It's not "that guy" to use valid legal tactics in game. 

I mean we can say that its "that guy" playing but then that's kind of saying that you're only allowed to play "so good" before you're a git and have to stop playing. It's not "winning at all costs" or "that guy" to use valid tactics that the rules allow within the game. Sure some might not be that logical or seem realistic, but if the rules allow it then players should be able to use it. Certainly the first time someone uses them on you it will feel odd; but once you learn them you can make use of them too.

Removing casualties so that you can deny a pile in is a very valid approach and one reason that the attacked player can remove casualties rather than the attacker.

 

 

Heck Warmachine had these in 2.0 rules such as charging - in that it was generally accepted to declare charges that you couldn't make to move further since charging gave you more movement than running and failing the charge only meant that you couldn't attack/do anything else for that turn after moving (which early on is all your close combat monster/unit wants to do anyway)

[Dead Scribe]

Those look like valid tactics to me.  I don't see why people are getting upset over using valid tactics.  The game should be more than piling forward and rolling dice in my opinion.

[jackmcmahon]

I have come to realize that when people use the term "that guy" on tga, they are my version of "that guy."  I would rather play people that are not sore losers, but I would never stop playing with someone because of their tactics or a bad reaction to a loss.  I think many on tga are quick to say "don't play w them" and it slows the growth of a community.  My experience in person with Aos players is always that they are extremely welcoming, willing to teach, include and grow the community.  The transformation that happens when they (myself included) log in saddens me.

[Mayple]

Yeah, I see no issue here. 

If the player doing the blocking can manage to do the proper measurements, with a template for example, then there's no 'that guy' element involved. Tactical maneuver in play.

However, if he messes up the measurements, or is unable to carry out the maneuver, but demands that he has and that you can't move, then it would certainly be more a 'that guy'.

 

Let's not get positioning and outmaneuvering mixed up with trying to break the system. It is the very core of the game

[jackmcmahon]

Not only is it a valid tactic, its in like 90% of movies.  2-3 ppl roaming through desert or countryside and every time what happens? Surrounded by 20 ppl on horseback.  They circle around them until the leader slowly approaches and says gtfo my land! (Aos version: retreat move) if they don't, fight ensues with leader.