Some strange terrainrules

[Sigwarus]

Guerilla wargaming have posted a video om youtube where they go into detail with the ghb2019. While watching this video I specially noted some strange changes in the terrain rules. 

When placing faction terrain you must set it up more than 6" from the tableedge, 6" from other terrain and 3" from objectives. If other restrictions to placing exists both apply. Is this even playtested?

The most obvious inconsitency would be skaven gnawholes. They MUST be placed within 6" of tableedge according to the armybook but now also HAVE to be placed outside 6" of tableedge. 

And what about terrain placed later in the game like nurgle and Sylvaneth threes?  If this rules apply for them they surely often cant be placed. Sylvaneth an already weakfaction (New book) will be almost useless while relying in terrain to function. 

[Blueraven84]

Infamous gw ruleswriting that's all. Day one FAQ/errata incoming I think.

Don't think gw is so stupid they want to restrict sales of terrain by matched play rules.

[suedester]

Yeah I've no idea what GW are thinking here. Seems like a completely pointless restriction even ignoring the fact it breaks gnawholes. The intention is totally lost on me other than annoying everyone that uses faction terrain.

[Sigwarus]

Even excludingthe gnawholes, it will be really hard to place faction terrain like loonshrine or the boats.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Sigwarus
Spelling

[Overread]

Honestly its more likely they want to encourage terrain sales; a lot of people still build very terrain light tables with hardly anything on them. Also terrain for wargames has always been a bit of a grey area in terms of how much should be on the table. That said the terrain rules are one segment that might or might not be taken up at large by the community; they might even be totally ignored. 

[Kramer]

Miniwargaming actually went further and immediately dismissed the rules. And after watching them play one game of meeting engagements with the terrain rules in play... 

i have to agree. Not only disallows it certain faction terrain. At the same time it also ends up as a very empty table.

if you ever have a chance to play with lots of terrain, corridors, LoS blockers etc it would be in meeting engagements where all the units are smaller. 

[Sigwarus]

This. If they want to sell more terrain they better not restrict it. And faction terrain will sell worse.

[ppetford]

MWG seemed to only be putting down 4 pieces of (smallish) terrain for their meeting engagements game and it was super sparse - there seemed to be loads of room for faction terrain.Most comments I’ve read worry that there would be too much terrain set up.  Maybe it won’t be so bad after all?

Edited June 16, 2019 by ppetford

[Ogregut]

I'm pretty sure battletome rules supersede main rules so gnawholes are fine and if your not a fan of new terrain placing, don't use them, find a happy medium with your opponent.

It's not like GW is going to break down your door and fine you for not using the rules. Never quite understood the whole legal/illegal gaming thing and if you're going to a tournament it's up to the organiser what rules they use and don't use

[mikethefish]

21 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

I'm pretty sure battletome rules supersede main rules so gnawholes are fine and if your not a fan of new terrain placing, don't use them, find a happy medium with your opponent.

This.  The Gnawholes' rules are printed on an actual warscroll.  In AoS, Warscroll rules always supercede rulebook rules - that's their whole point.  People worrying about Gnawholes being unplayable simply haven't thought things through completely.

[AverageBoss]

3 hours ago, suedester said:

Yeah I've no idea what GW are thinking here. Seems like a completely pointless restriction even ignoring the fact it breaks gnawholes. The intention is totally lost on me other than annoying everyone that uses faction terrain.

 

3 hours ago, Sigwarus said:

Even excludingthe gnawholes, it will be really hard to place faction terrain like loonshrine or the boats.

 

30 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

I'm pretty sure battletome rules supersede main rules so gnawholes are fine and if your not a fan of new terrain placing, don't use them, find a happy medium with your opponent.

It's not like GW is going to break down your door and fine you for not using the rules. Never quite understood the whole legal/illegal gaming thing and if you're going to a tournament it's up to the organiser what rules they use and don't use

 

6 minutes ago, mikethefish said:

This.  The Gnawholes' rules are printed on an actual warscroll.  In AoS, Warscroll rules always supercede rulebook rules - that's their whole point.  People worrying about Gnawholes being unplayable simply haven't thought things through completely.

The GHB was finished and went to print before Gloomspite was even finished. So the finished rules for Gloomspite onward were not a consideration.

Warscrolls only override rules when there is some sort of contradiction, they don't ignore rules. So unless there is direct contradiction, you have to follow all the rules.

[Chikout]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

Miniwargaming actually went further and immediately dismissed the rules. And after watching them play one game of meeting engagements with the terrain rules in play... 

i have to agree. Not only disallows it certain faction terrain. At the same time it also ends up as a very empty table.

if you ever have a chance to play with lots of terrain, corridors, LoS blockers etc it would be in meeting engagements where all the units are smaller. 

Meeting engagements are not pitched battles so the new scenery rules don’t apply.

[kenshin620]

34 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

It's not like GW is going to break down your door and fine you for not using the rules. Never quite understood the whole legal/illegal gaming thing

I think because it's a slippery slope where if you change one rule, mind as well change them all. And each community would have it's own tastes

Not saying it's wrong to make homebrew rules, I love homebrew rules. But I recognize that people like official consistency...even if said consistency is 'wrong'. Otherwise I'm sure we'd all pack our bags and have our own 9th Age Sigmar flavored. I'm actually curious to see if people would make their own aos system.

[firebat]

22 minutes ago, mikethefish said:

This.  The Gnawholes' rules are printed on an actual warscroll.  In AoS, Warscroll rules always supercede rulebook rules - that's their whole point.  People worrying about Gnawholes being unplayable simply haven't thought things through completely.

People not reading the things they're complaining about? Now that would be silly.

7 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:

Warscrolls only override rules when there is some sort of contradiction, they don't ignore rules. So unless there is direct contradiction, you have to follow all the rules.

How is one thing saying they can't be within 6" and another saying they have to be within 6" not a contradiction. What's more if there isn't actually a contradiction how can there be an issue?

[Melcavuk]

I keep seeing the phrase "its printed on their warcroll" gettting thrown about, I have the app and GW store scrolls for gnawholes up and neither specify setup restrictions. By "On the Warscroll" do you mean in the battletome on the adjacent page like the Hedonites placing restriction for the Fane? If so the question would be "Does Battletome overwrite core rules" as I cannot locate it on any actual warscroll.

I could be wrong, if the warscroll that comes with the Gnawholes themselves specifies differently. Just struggling to fact check when neither I can locate specify the rule that keeps getting said to be on the scroll.

[firebat]

15 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:

I keep seeing the phrase "its printed on their warcroll" gettting thrown about, I have the app and GW store scrolls for gnawholes up and neither specify setup restrictions. By "On the Warscroll" do you mean in the battletome on the adjacent page like the Hedonites placing restriction for the Fane? If so the question would be "Does Battletome overwrite core rules" as I cannot locate it on any actual warscroll.

I could be wrong, if the warscroll that comes with the Gnawholes themselves specifies differently. Just struggling to fact check when neither I can locate specify the rule that keeps getting said to be on the scroll.

Well the placement rules are part of the allegiance abilities.

[King Taloren]

Well cool I’ll be happy to put my Ethereal Vortex within an 1” of any terrain feature and on top of objectives again.  Since that overrides the rules.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by King Taloren

[firebat]

Just now, King Taloren said:

Well cool I’ll be happy to put my Ethereal Vortex within an 1” of any terrain feature and on top of objectives again. 

Yeah I was waiting for this. There isn't a contradiction between 2 rules where one says you can't place it within 1" and the other says 6". It makes one redundant but you can absolutely fulfill the requirements of both rules.

[Kramer]

54 minutes ago, Chikout said:

Meeting engagements are not pitched battles so the new scenery rules don’t apply.

They seem pretty confident while reeding the book they are the same rules but amended amounts of primary and secondary terrain. So yes the pitched battle scenery rules don’t apply, but the meeting engagements scenery rules seem to be the exact same rules just different amounts for a smaller table. 💁‍♀️

[Acid_Nine]

Well ******, there goes half the utility of the boats. Ah well...

[TheNotebookGM]

5 hours ago, Sigwarus said:

This. If they want to sell more terrain they better not restrict it. And faction terrain will sell worse.

Yeah I was going to get a forge and won't now as it already doesn't really seem like a must-have and it gets places after everyone else, making deploying for it a huge pain. 

[Black_Nexus]

Q: If a warscroll or set of allegiance abilities has a rule that contradicts the core rules, can I use it? For example, Lord Kroak has a rule that allows him to attempt to cast Celestial Deliverance up to three times in the hero phase, but this contradicts the core rule that you can only attempt to cast a spell once per turn.

A: Warscrolls and allegiance abilities take precedence over the core rules that appear before the core rules for battleplans, warscrolls and allegiance abilities. This allows you to do things that would not normally be allowed. In the case of Lord Kroak, his rule means he can attempt to cast Celestial Deliverance up to three times in the same turn.

FYI, this doesn't let you ignore the GHB rules, they aren't even in the core book and are not core rules. They are specifically matched play rules changes.

 

 

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Usual cautionary post folks, we don't have the rules in our hands and just got second hand information from a YouTube video, so let's not panic too soon!

[Acid_Nine]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

+++ MOD HAT +++

Usual cautionary post folks, we don't have the rules in our hands and just got second hand information from a YouTube video, so let's not panic too soon!

True, and I haven't heard anything from guys who have their finger on the pulse of this about something like this so I dunno. Plus none of us actually played this, so we have no clue about how it will go.

[Forrix]

9 hours ago, Ogregut said:

I'm pretty sure battletome rules supersede main rules so gnawholes are fine and if your not a fan of new terrain placing, don't use them, find a happy medium with your opponent.

It's not like GW is going to break down your door and fine you for not using the rules. Never quite understood the whole legal/illegal gaming thing and if you're going to a tournament it's up to the organiser what rules they use and don't use

Battletome rules dont supersede matched play rules. The new Terrain rules specifically say they apply to faction terrain and if you can't place them you can't use it. 

That said, I'm not using that rule and I dont think anyone one in my gaming group or the local tournament organizers well. As people have pointed out it just breaks Sylvaneth and pointlessly hurts numerous factions. It's just a blow against a game when you have to home rule it in order to make it playable. Won't kill it for sure but this is extraordinarily bad rules writing for a major company. It harkens back to the old GW that made me quit back in 7th ed 40k/launch of AoS. 

Rules like this make me question if GW rules writers even play their own game let alone play test it. Like stacking command abilities at the start of 2nd edition.