Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Enoby

The New FAQ (23/07/2018)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nick in York said:

Sylvaneth Wyldwoods now have 'Overgrown Wilderness' rule from 'Citadel Wood' Scenery Warscroll.

Which is absolutely excellent as Kurnoth Hunters inside the Wyldwood more than 1” in from the edge of the woods now can’t shoot you through it, and if you’re in combat on the base... and a model is more than 1” away they can’t shoot in the shooting phase either. And they can’t cast spells that require visibility. (Unless one of the two units can fly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, annarborhawk said:

Well they made it explicitly clear that command abilities (unless otherwise stated on warscroll) can be used multiple times in same phase on same unit .  I think tournament abuse will cause this to change at some point. For example, now Volturnous - who can only use his command ability on Turn 3 anyway - can save command points up to give 3x units w/in 12" +3 attacks each.  He and 2 units of Morsarr Guard are going to delete just about anything on Turn 3. 

At least the Aspiring Death Bringer was toned down a bit to +1 Attack wholly within 10". So no more conga lining to him, which just looks dumb on the table.   

I have a question about this command ability..if you apply to a Morsarr Guard, you add +1 attack to the Eels melee weapons???..the core rules say you can not add attacks to  HERO's mounts with commands traits or artefacts, but...what happens with command abilities in a cavalry like Morsarr Guard??

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sergi said:

I have a question about this command ability..if you apply to a Morsarr Guard, you add +1 attack to the Eels melee weapons???..the core rules say you can not add attacks to  HERO's mounts with commands traits or artefacts, but...what happens with command abilities in a cavalry like Morsarr Guard??

?

The mounts' weapons get +1 attack for every time the command ability's used. Command abilities aren't command traits or artefacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on reddit noticed that GW allowed using Errant-Questor Pitched Battleprofile that's not in the ScE battletome or GHB18  and that could be used as an argument for using both of Spire of Dawn battalions.

 https://old.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/917c51/new_designer_commentary_and_spire_of_dawn/ 

What do you think about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sergi said:

I have a question about this command ability..if you apply to a Morsarr Guard, you add +1 attack to the Eels melee weapons???..the core rules say you can not add attacks to  HERO's mounts with commands traits or artefacts, but...what happens with command abilities in a cavalry like Morsarr Guard??

 

 

I don't see why you wouldn't add 1 attack to each of the Morsarr's Melee Weapon profiles for each instance of Volturnous' command ability you use.....   Seems broken to me.....

Edited by annarborhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Overread said:

One sad thing is that they confirm that allied wizards can't use the lore from the faction they are allied too

 

 

Which kind of lowers the strength of adding in allied wizards; meaning that you're taking them for their base stats and abilities and an extra counter-casting roll. 

 

 

They can still cast endless spells and should also get access to the Realm Spells.

Did anyone ever think that they could take spells from an Allegiance as an ally?  I never thought that allied grot wizards could use Bonesplitterz magic - that just seems really weird.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, michu said:

Someone on reddit noticed that GW allowed using Errant-Questor Pitched Battleprofile that's not in the ScE battletome or GHB18  and that could be used as an argument for using both of Spire of Dawn battalions.

 https://old.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/917c51/new_designer_commentary_and_spire_of_dawn/ 

What do you think about that?

Perfectly valid, as long as the criteria for them is met.  Until such time GW produces something which counteracts this.  Mind, running them in tournaments is a different matter as i can see TO's not allowing points not explicity updated for AoS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting change for the Endless Spells. They don't benefit from things like range buffs or arcane vassal anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the only thing I find disappointing about this ERRATA release is that they confirmed that ally heroes cannot have artifacts of any kind.  I understand not giving them access to allegiance artifacts, but I was hoping they would allow you to give realm artifacts to allied heroes.  It just made list building more interesting to me.  It's a minor gripe though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aginor said:

Interesting change for the Endless Spells. They don't benefit from things like range buffs or arcane vassal anymore.

I think we can blame Morathi for that one.

Despicable people like her are the reason why we cannot all have nice things...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are an ally not the main army. Would you really trust an ally with an heirloom or a powerful artifact? NOPE!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryan Taylor said:

You are an ally not the main army. Would you really trust an ally with an heirloom or a powerful artifact? NOPE!

Why not? 

My orc general finds all of the allied grot heroes to be completely trustworthy.  It is utterly inconceivable that they might ever stab him in the back.  Pure nonsense...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, i'm disapointed by GW overall job on AoS 2 so far. Yes the FAQ clear most of the problem. But most of those problem should have been catch with a minimum of testing. Also, most of those issue could have been avoided with good game design (like just do not allow  command ability stacking, instead of FAQ each warscroll).

Now you have 30+ FAQ to consult in addition of all addionnal rules to figure out what something do.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matched Play = Pitched Battle right?

If so I can use the Errant Questor in Matched Play now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, broche said:

Now you have 30+ FAQ to consult in addition of all addionnal rules to figure out what something do.

the core rulebook, the sorcery book, battletomes, faqs, jesus 2 more and it's time for a librarian.. what a mess

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, broche said:

In all honesty, i'm disapointed by GW overall job on AoS 2 so far. Yes the FAQ clear most of the problem. But most of those problem should have been catch with a minimum of testing. Also, most of those issue could have been avoided with good game design (like just do not allow  command ability stacking, instead of FAQ each warscroll).

Now you have 30+ FAQ to consult in addition of all addionnal rules to figure out what something do.

On the flip side, you have to expect that they are going to rewrite a lot of the battletomes in this edition if only so that they can sell them to players of that army again.  They always do this in an edition as it is a pretty easy way to make some cash.

So, you have to figure that a lot of these warscroll errata will disappear and just be replaced by what is in a new book.  That should trim down a lot of the errata, but we should still expect that new books will at some point get an FAQ doc of their own - even if the contents are smaller in many cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ianob said:

I'm imagining the many people arguing that a) you could cast Endless Spells through a portal and b) you could cast Endless Spells with Curseling, Nagash etc that your enemy knows in matched play, preparing their "but but but" responses right now.

Right @Kurrilino?

No "but, but" required. His position was a reasonable one to take at the time he took it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mephisto said:

The people arguing Guardian of Souls gets a Lore of the Dead in LON are probably pretty sad right now.

"Q: If I include a Guardian of Souls in a Legions of Nagash army, can it receive a spell from any of the Lores of the Dead?
A: No."

From LON Designer's Commentary.

I don't understand this ruling.   If the unit is considered part of the list and gains all the associated keywords,  why shouldn't it have access to the lore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting change to the Banishment spell.  It reads to me that the owner of the banished unit gets to place it now.  It still has the same placement restrictions but getting to reposition it yourself rather than just being consigned to the worst position on the table seems like an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Equinox said:

I don't understand this ruling.   If the unit is considered part of the list and gains all the associated keywords,  why shouldn't it have access to the lore?

It's a rules-as-written vs. rules-as-intended problem. When the rules were initially written, they weren't anticipating adding new units to Legions of Nagash. The Lore of the Deathmages was intended to be used by, well, Deathmages. The Lore of the Vampires was intended to be used by Vampires. From a flavor/fluff perspective, there is no reason why a Nighthaunt wizard -- who is neither a Deathmage nor a Vampire -- would know spells from either of these lores (let alone both!). 

So while I absolutely agree that rules-as-written a Guardian of Souls could take a spell from either lore, I don't believe it was ever intended to work that way and this FAQ clears that up. 

And just fwiw, I'm a Death player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Interesting change to the Banishment spell.  It reads to me that the owner of the banished unit gets to place it now.  It still has the same placement restrictions but getting to reposition it yourself rather than just being consigned to the worst position on the table seems like an improvement.

Yeah. It's still a very annoying spell but it's no longer completely and utterly broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

It's a rules-as-written vs. rules-as-intended problem. When the rules were initially written, they weren't anticipating adding new units to Legions of Nagash. The Lore of the Deathmages was intended to be used by, well, Deathmages. The Lore of the Vampires was intended to be used by Vampires. From a flavor/fluff perspective, there is no reason why a Nighthaunt wizard -- who is neither a Deathmage nor a Vampire -- would know spells from either of these lores (let alone both!). 

So while I absolutely agree that rules-as-written a Guardian of Souls could take a spell from either lore, I don't believe it was ever intended to work that way and this FAQ clears that up. 

And just fwiw, I'm a Death player.

They should probably fix that issue with an errata to the rules for selecting spells in Legions of Nagash.  It would save them from similar potential head-aches down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

It's a rules-as-written vs. rules-as-intended problem. When the rules were initially written, they weren't anticipating adding new units to Legions of Nagash. The Lore of the Deathmages was intended to be used by, well, Deathmages. The Lore of the Vampires was intended to be used by Vampires. From a flavor/fluff perspective, there is no reason why a Nighthaunt wizard -- who is neither a Deathmage nor a Vampire -- would know spells from either of these lores (let alone both!). 

So while I absolutely agree that rules-as-written a Guardian of Souls could take a spell from either lore, I don't believe it was ever intended to work that way and this FAQ clears that up. 

And just fwiw, I'm a Death player.

I was typing pretty much just this for you, @Equinox, but Swarm beat me to the punch and said it perfectly. 

It was a fun interaction with the rules as written but a genuine point of contention. They had to come down one way. It seems odd that a legally selected Wizard in your Allegiance just doesn't get a Lore spell though but I'll play how the FAQ reads. It just makes it an easier debate for having a GOS versus Vamp Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

They should probably fix that issue with an errata to the rules for selecting spells in Legions of Nagash.  It would save them from similar potential head-aches down the road.

Maybe they removed the passage in GHB2018, but in 2017 there was verbiage that allies are not considered members of "X allegiance army." Therefore a guardian of souls is not a wizard in a legion of x army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...