michu Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Guardian of Souls is not an ally in that situation - it's one of Nighthaunt units allowed in LoN army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, Richelieu said: 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. The Guardian is one of the nighthaunt units that can be taken in a LoN list as if it is part of the book. Darn ninja @michu ? @Mephisto & @swarmofseals - I hear both of you and cannot disagree with your statements. I do however feel like this has now opened a bigger set of questions because what does it mean for heroes that take the Dark Acolyte magic item. Does a Knight of Shrouds with it not gain access to the lore? What about a wight king? Don't care about the competitive value of taking such, more thinking does today's FAQ impact those situations in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Richelieu said: 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. The issue is that the Legions of Nagash FAQ specifically added certain Nighthaunt units into all of the LoN allegiances and outright states that they gain those faction keywords. So for example when you take a Chainrasp Horde or Guardian of Souls in a Grand Host of Nagash allegiance then those units are not considered to be allies. The explicit call-out in the Designers Notes that states that the Guardian of Souls cannot use the spells from the lores in Legions of Nagash is indeed weird and contradictory in this case. If their intention is to restrict those spells to very specific units then it is probably better if they address that through an alteration for the rules in that Battletome for exactly who can use the spells. Otherwise they may have to keep making specific errata like this at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephisto Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Skabnoze said: The issue is that the Legions of Nagash FAQ specifically added certain Nighthaunt units into all of the LoN allegiances and outright states that they gain those faction keywords. So for example when you take a Chainrasp Horde or Guardian of Souls in a Grand Host of Nagash allegiance then those units are not considered to be allies. The explicit call-out in the Designers Notes that states that the Guardian of Souls cannot use the spells from the lores in Legions of Nagash is indeed weird and contradictory in this case. If their intention is to restrict those spells to very specific units then it is probably better if they address that through an alteration for the rules in that Battletome for exactly who can use the spells. Otherwise they may have to keep making specific errata like this at a later date. I think they had an intern field this particular FAQ as it is a direct contradiction of their very specific rules written in the LON Battletome and then expanded upon in the Errata that directly adds units to said battletome. FAQs are law of the land so I'll play the way they "intend." I'm not even mad, I wasn't running or planning on running a GOS. I'm just sort of disappointed. An Errata to Lores of the Dead would've been the better overall solution I think. Sorry my fellow Liches that were running GOS. I don't think it's the deathknell for the unit, just that you really have to be running extra NH units to make it worth taking over a Vampire Lord w/ Wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Mephisto said: I think they had an intern field this particular FAQ as it is a direct contradiction of their very specific rules written in the LON Battletome and then expanded upon in the Errata that directly adds units to said battletome. FAQs are law of the land so I'll play the way they "intend." I'm not even mad, I wasn't running or planning on running a GOS. I'm just sort of disappointed. An Errata to Lores of the Dead would've been the better overall solution I think. Sorry my fellow Liches that were running GOS. I don't think it's the deathknell for the unit, just that you really have to be running extra NH units to make it worth taking over a Vampire Lord w/ Wings. I agree. What bothers me most about this ruling is not the end result but just how disconnected and contradictory it is. If they want to disallow Guardians of Souls from using the spell lores within Legions of Nagash then there are more effective ways to do this with errata. This ruling is just unnecessarily messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Taylor Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Skabnoze said: 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... I now just imagine your generals aids saying to them " He literally is running around now shouting: I iz da boss, now stab 'em good!!!" Yeah but maybe he means other folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jjfiv3 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 So am I right in thinking that both Khorne and Tzeentch heroes can pick artifacts from any table but Nurgle still has the restrictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ryan Taylor said: I now just imagine your generals aids saying to them " He literally is running around now shouting: I iz da boss, now stab 'em good!!!" Yeah but maybe he means other folks. That implies that an Orc pays any sort of attention to what the Grots are doing other than to kick them out of his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nin Win Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 I'm a bit annoyed they didn't do the one spell per turn as a matched play only FAQ entry and now the printed warcroll for my spell portals is already wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine7six Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 can't find it but did moonclan get nerfed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUFNSTUF Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Skabnoze said: 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. Was this in the core rule errata? Can't find that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, nine7six said: can't find it but did moonclan get nerfed? They got fixed. If you played without the exponential stacking then word is still out on whether the change was a nerf or simply a side-grade. A lot about the ability has changed and it is better in some cases but worse in others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, PUFNSTUF said: Was this in the core rule errata? Can't find that one. Page 7 of the Designer Commentary for the Core rules. It's in the middle of the page in the right-hand column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravinsild Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 hours ago, Gecktron said: I had a look trough most of the FAQs. Most important thing: many of the "broken" things were removed. Lord Kroaks spell gets harder to cast, no endless attacks for ripperdactyles, no moving after summoning units via engine of the gods, no more 64 damage grots or using the Anvils of the Heldenhammer ability on the same unit more than once per turn. Literally based on the core rules, anyone running ripperdactyles could spawn infinite attacks was just kidding themselves. There evidence to support the way the entire Warscroll section is worded it was always perfectly clear they couldn’t do this, but I’ve noticed people in this hobby really, REALLY, stretch language to get absolutely any tiny itty bitty little bit of an advantage, at like any cost. GW will make a typo, and it will be obvious, but some guy will always come along and claim, “Not a typo until they say so, therefore this means I can [fill in the cheese blank here]” and it’s like ok buddy, if you really need to win that badly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluttershy Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ravinsild said: Literally based on the core rules, anyone running ripperdactyles could spawn infinite attacks was just kidding themselves. nope.. warscroll rules are overriting core rules thank god rippers are FAQ'ed again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ravinsild said: Literally based on the core rules, anyone running ripperdactyles could spawn infinite attacks was just kidding themselves. Because of the fact that Warscroll abilities override core rules it got to ignore that bit on “not generating extra attacks...” That was the issue. “Most warscrolls include one or more abilities that can be used by the warscroll’s models during a game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar. Abilities take precedence over the core rules.” P.238 Core Rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravinsild Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Fluttershy said: nope.. warscroll rules are overriting core rules thank god rippers are FAQ'ed again 5 minutes ago, Fluttershy said: nope.. warscroll rules are overriting core rules thank god rippers are FAQ'ed again Based on the way it was written it introduces abilities, and explains what they are and goes, “These abilities overwrite the core rules” but then go on to say, “oh by the way, last of all, attacks that generate extra attacks can’t generate extra attacks with those extra attacks.” As in that’s the capstone, Warscroll Abilities do overwrite core rules, but also Warscroll Abilities cannot generate extra attacks from extra attacks. In other words: premise: Warscroll abilities overwrite core rules premise: however in addition, Warscroll Abilities that generate extra attacks cannot generate extra attacks from those extra attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindstormSCR Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 An interesting one from beastclaws/core about "ability" style attacks and interactions. I'm not sure who exactly was trying to argue that "+1 attack" gave them another frost-wreathed ice, but they deserve a good slap. Overall Destruction feels about the same or slightly stronger, mostly because of the general tone-down in magic and the fact most of the ork/beastclaw abilities are still stackable to good effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal4m4nd3r Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Still salty about losing plaguetouched warband. Even if I knew it was coming officially.. Dont mind me I will be residing on the rim of margarita glass for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravinsild Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 4 hours ago, bsharitt said: So just to make sure I've got this right, they've cleared up that when you take a specific allegiance to get benefits like battleline access you can't take generic allegiance abilities, but allegiances without allegiance abilities basically inherit their GA allegiance abilities. So we've been playing it right to give destruction allegiance to a Moonclan army with squig battle line, but no with Ironjawz using destruction allegiance. Accurate. Ironjawz have to use their own Allegiance ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravinsild Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 4 hours ago, NemoVonUtopia said: I wonder about the last line in the allegiance ability section: "Note that if allegiance abilities exist for a faction army, you must use them." To me that sounds like I can only use brayherd units in a brayherd army and I can no longer make a 2000 point generic chaos list that has around 1000 points of brayherd and 1000 points of warherd since I would have to use brayherd allegiance and could only have 400 points of other. I feel like I must be missing something since this seems crazy. If you are running your army AS Breyherds you MUST use the Breyherds Allegiance Abilities, you cannot use the Grand Alliance Chaos abilities. However if you are running a mixed Chaos Army and your Allegiance is Chaos then you can use Grand Alliance Chaos and use 1000 points of Breyherds and 1000 points of Warherds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ravinsild said: As in that’s the capstone, Warscroll Abilities do overwrite core rules, but also Warscroll Abilities cannot generate extra attacks from extra attacks. THe problem was in how the Warscroll was worded: “Voracious Appetite: Each time a model from this unit attacks with its Vicious Beak and scores a hit, immediately make another hit roll against the same target. Carry on until a hit roll does not score a hit, then make any wound rolls.” This was in combination with the following: “Swooping Dive:[...]If you do so, then in the following combat phase you can re-roll failed hit and wound rolls for this unit[...]” It didn’t generate “extra attacks from the extra attacks” it just got to “Carry on until a hit roll doesn’t score a hit.” .... and you got to re-roll misses. Which then potentially changed those into Hits .... which could be used to make another hit ... based on the wording for the Warscroll. So, sure ... normal wording ... great! This bypassed that. (Mathematically I believe it was like average 24-25 wounds after calculating in Blot Toad bonuses .... for a unit of 3 Models.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said: Still salty about losing plaguetouched warband. Even if I knew it was coming officially.. Dont mind me I will be residing on the rim of margarita glass for the foreseeable future. Don’t be so salty ... it kills off all the Nurgle slugs ... I’d recommend going for a strawberry margarita ... you’ll find life much sweeter with a spoonful of sugar around the rim .... and I’m sure they’d be much happier with a touch of sugar ... Perhaps something more like this: http://www.geniuskitchen.com/recipe/strawberry-margarita-299856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 The problem is that GW has always been more on the side of sloppy rules than most other game companies. GW has always been very amateurish in that regard. I have never seen another game system where the whole "Rules as Written (RAW)" and "Rules as Intended (RAI)" debate even existed - let alone to the degree that it does within all of GW games. In just about every game system "rules as written" is pretty much an oxymoron since obviously written rules work as they are written. But GW's weakest asset has always been concise rules language and over the years there have been way too many cases where the inferred intent has ended up being the case when GW finally settled a dispute. I appreciate that they are now much faster at addressing many of these issues than they have in the past. I also appreciate the thematic effects that they try to accomplish with their rules. But if there is one area where GW still has a lot of room to improve it is in making their rules more concise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephisto Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Wait a minute. **skims and then reskims FAQs** They didn't change Arkhan's Command Ability? So you can still add 6 to casting range multiple times? I swore they would change this one so I didn't even bother making my stacking CA list for Arkhan/Legion of Sacrament... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.