New FAQs are up with adjusted points

[Drofnum]

7 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

I didn't know that the ships had to be 6" from objectives. I've definitely played in tournaments where they have been placed within 6" and been hit with mortals whilst sitting on objectives. Good to know that that shouldn't have happened.

It was in the FAQ that came out after GHB 18, so it is possible it was played correctly depending on when you played those events.

[pikachoux]

Fyreslayers have to  use the points in the General Handbook?

[HammerOfSigmar]

9 minutes ago, pikachoux said:

Fyreslayers have to  use the points in the General Handbook?

fyreslayer and slannesh is untouched by this FAQ, their time might come at the end of this year.

[Dongilles]

I was checking the AOS app, but is it correct that the FAQ's are not available?

I can only find the old Grand Allianaces FAQ's

[SwampHeart]

5 hours ago, Dongilles said:

I was checking the AOS app, but is it correct that the FAQ's are not available?

 

This is correct - for some reason they won't update/make available the FAQs on the app. You have to use the Warhammer Community site. 

[Belper]

On 7/8/2019 at 2:37 PM, prochuvi said:

Sure as the hag quuen prayer that is within 3" ? That is the first and major thing to changue to wholy within 8" to be balanced.

A unit of 30 daugthers doing a konga can have this buff even if one model of the unit is at 20" of the hag quuen

 

So it is false that every buff of dok is wholy within

That's not a prayer OR an aura. It's a buff ability that requires the hag to be within 3" at the start of the hero phase.

Also, I didn't say 'buff' I said 'auras' of which there are only 2. HaggNarr and the Cauldron buff. Cauldron buff is already wholly within. Well technically 3 with +1 bravery but that doesn't count.

'Wholly within 8'? You're not trying to balance DoK, you're trying to eliminate them from the game.  We can do DoK witchbrew to wholly within 8 if Heathguard Berzerkers go to 7+ ethereal saves, the Keeper of secrets go up to 1200pts and are mandatory, Skaven become immune to bravery bonuses/morale mitigation and get -2 to hit against anything that has a higher bravery than them, FEC can't use command abilities until turn 4, stormcast get -2 to hit rolls the turn any unit deepstrikes but also if no units are held in deepstrike reserve, Seraphon have to summon 2 units under their opponent's control for every unit they summon, idoneth deepkin suffer d6 mortal wounds and -1 to hit and wound whenever they're in cover or they fight before a unit they're in combat with and Sylvaneth suffer d3 mortal wounds every turn they're within 6" of a wyldwood.

 

Not gonna lie, by the end of that I was just having fun coming up with rules changes that would totally destroy their respective army.

[prochuvi]

Dont matter dude,if you think that dok are fine and those joke nerfs of this gh gonna balance it good for you.

Allo is hilarious your points.

Top tier dok list are 100% only spam of the most underpriced unit of the game who are the wyches and abuse of the two buffs\auras that arent wholy within when the game is changing toward all be wholy within that are hag nar temple and haq quuen.

So i said a example that would balance dok of broken overpower and autowin as it is now to balanced levels as every other army(only skaven and fec are close to the lvl of overpower of dok)

But sure your examples of tier2-3 armys are hilarious thankx for the jokes.

I dont get those people who think that they are good and win due to be good (when win due to luck or have a broken army) and dont admit nobody tell otherwise or they get enrage even if maths never lie

[whispersofblood]

18 hours ago, prochuvi said:

Dont matter dude,if you think that dok are fine and those joke nerfs of this gh gonna balance it good for you.

Allo is hilarious your points.

Top tier dok list are 100% only spam of the most underpriced unit of the game who are the wyches and abuse of the two buffs\auras that arent wholy within when the game is changing toward all be wholy within that are hag nar temple and haq quuen.

So i said a example that would balance dok of broken overpower and autowin as it is now to balanced levels as every other army(only skaven and fec are close to the lvl of overpower of dok)

But sure your examples of tier2-3 armys are hilarious thankx for the jokes.

I dont get those people who think that they are good and win due to be good (when win due to luck or have a broken army) and dont admit nobody tell otherwise or they get enrage even if maths never lie

Mate you are ranting and not coming across with whatever your message is at all. There were 0 DoK armies at the most recent GT, so take that for what it's worth.

[Dead Scribe]

I wouldn't expect DoK to be well represented much anymore at all.  They are ok now, but at least currently they aren't over optimal.

[Vextol]

So, just clarifying, sylvaneth get to start with 9 wyldwoods (plus their own...so 12) on the board according to the new scenery rules?

[Sedraxis]

8 minutes ago, Vextol said:

So, just clarifying, sylvaneth get to start with 9 wyldwoods (plus their own...so 12) on the board according to the new scenery rules?

There is no "Wyldwood" terrain feature so that would currently not be a viable choice.

Since the Sylvaneth wyldwoods are a new kit called "Awakened Wyldwood" I'm assuming they refer to the regular old Citadel Woods, and those don't do anything extra for Sylvaneth.

Personally, I think abusing the terrain setup to further boost your own army instead of trying to create an interesting battlefield should be heartily discouraged.

Imagine every LoN player bringing only Mausoleums, every Gaunt summoner bringing a free unit of 10 horrors and every Sylvaneth match starting on a table filled with Awakened Wyldwoods.

I think the terrain table was made with some unintentional oversights benefitting a few specific factions.

 

 

[Dreadmund]

The FAQ'd rules say that you can use faction specific terrain during terrain set up, but they must be assigned a random scenery effects from the 2 effects tables. So sure, you could swamp the board with trees, but only the ones you place as part of your allegiance abilities and unit warscrolls will have the Awakened Wyldwood Warscroll.

Likewise, Nurgle could place 5 Feculent gnarlmaws during setup but wouldn't get any benefit from doing so. Only the one they place after initial board setup as part of their allegiance ability, and any more that they summon during the game would have the Feculent Gnarlmaw warscroll.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Dreadmund

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, Sedraxis said:

There is no "Wyldwood" terrain feature so that would currently not be a viable choice.

Semantically that is correct however I am almost certain the intent was "inclusiveness" and not non-existence.  There are two kinds of wyldwoods.  If they wanted it to be a citadel wood, they wouldn't have changed it to "wyldwood" in the FAQ as it  was already citadel wood in the GHB.  I'd say we can wait for the FAQ but that time has passed.  I feel like there are examples other places I could reference.  Something like "If it's not bolded, it's not a keyword" so this instance would refer to anything that has wyldwood in its name.  I'll hunt around.

3 hours ago, Sedraxis said:

Imagine every LoN player bringing only Mausoleums, every Gaunt summoner bringing a free unit of 10 horrors and every Sylvaneth match starting on a table filled with Awakened Wyldwoods.

I have NO question this is what is going to happen unless GW puts the foot down asap.

3 hours ago, Dreadmund said:

The FAQ'd rules say that you can use faction specific terrain during terrain set up, but they must be assigned a random scenery effects from the 2 effects tables. So sure, you could swamp the board with trees, but only the ones you place as part of your allegiance abilities and unit warscrolls will have the Awakened Wyldwood Warscroll.

This is only partially true.  What they're saying is that any and all stuff you stick on the board will have some kind of terrain rule.  However, you can only use warscrolls for the terrain if they are listed in the primary/secondary list or if they are your specific army singular piece.  The commentary was kind of unnecessary in my opinion.  It's very clear elsewhere.  You could use a toaster if you wanted so why would anyone ask if you could use more faction terrain if you have it?  Yes.  You can.  But it's very obvious you only get the benefit from the one that comes with your army.

This issue of course is that "Wyldwood" is in the primary/secondary list.  Now, whether or not that means Sylvaneth Wyldwood/Awakend Wyldwood is up for debate but it definitely does not mean nothing because it specifically changed from "citadel wood" to "wyldwood" in the FAQ. 

Because it's in the primary list, that means you have to use its warscroll.  As Sedraxis pointed out, "Wyldwood" alone does not exist so why would GW insist that it was one of the "You must use it's warscroll" terrain features unless they intended to use either of the two available wylwood warscrolls.  The other (likely) option was that it is still supposed to say "Citadel Wood" and was changed on accident.

[Dead Scribe]

I have NO question this is what is going to happen unless GW puts the foot down asap.

I don't think GW needs to put their foot down about this.  It makes terrain a tactical option to bring in your list.  Yes, like army lists which we optimize, so too would we optimize our terrain loadout.

But that is just adding choices into the game, and I don't see how thats a bad thing.

[Rachmani]

Each army bringing one piece of specific type of terrain doesn‘t seem like choice to me. Or what choice are you talking about?
 

[Vextol]

9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

But that is just adding choices into the game, and I don't see how thats a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an excellent thing to do.  These terrain rules and deployment are going to throw EVERYTHING out of whack.  That was a move I never anticipated from GW and I think it's going to have ridiculously awesome implications on what the future will look like.  I couldn't be happier with all the terrain stuff and I can honestly say I have no idea who is going to come out on top this year.  I'm really feeling Seraphon though.  They're nuts now!

My statement is still true though.  I think we are going to see a TON of mausoleums pretty much right away unless GW decides to stop it haha.

 

4 minutes ago, Rachmani said:

Each army bringing one piece of specific type of terrain doesn‘t seem like choice to me. Or what choice are you talking about?
 

You get to choose 3 special terrain types to place as well, not just your faction piece now.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Vextol

[Grimrock]

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think GW needs to put their foot down about this.  It makes terrain a tactical option to bring in your list.  Yes, like army lists which we optimize, so too would we optimize our terrain loadout.

But that is just adding choices into the game, and I don't see how thats a bad thing.

I think one problem is that optimizing terrain turns it into not terrain. In a competitive environment it could easily turn into people bringing styrofoam bricks that match the exact maximum size, or a shape that suits their army. For example a player using archaon could bring 3 sheets with the maximum vertical/horizontal dimensions intending to block LoS as the big guy moves up the field. Optimal to protect your 660 point investment and doesn't take up a lot of space, but they would look awful on the table. Personal preference I guess, but one thing I learned playing warmachine for a few years is nice looking terrain is a big deal.

I guess we'll see though, if these rules don't become the norm for tournaments then I doubt people will go through the hassle of building competitive 'terrain' suited for their army. Or buy 3 sets of masoleums/woods for that matter. 

Edit: does anyone remember the big snafu a while back where a GW game designer brought their own terrain to a tournament that was perfectly built for their nighthaunt army? It was beautiful terrain, but it felt gamey because it was a massive hindrance to any army that didn't have flight since it was super tall and wide. I'm thinking that kind of thing, but nowhere near as pretty. Actually now that I think about it, I wonder if that's where these rules came from haha.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Grimrock

[Captain Marius]

Weve all seen the faq where it says you can place faction terrain models as unique terrain picks but they dont use the warscroll and instead just generate a random rule instead right? Im pretty sure only Awakened Wyldwoods placed as part of allegiance abilities or unit abilities will use the rules for Awakened Wyldwoods, any other trees would just be Wyldwoods from ghb18. Am i missing something?

[Ravinsild]

On 7/8/2019 at 1:08 PM, SwampHeart said:

The wounds characteristic doesn't change, just wounds remaining.  

UNLESS YER DA BIGGEST AN ‘ARDEST BOSS AROUND CUZ YA GET BIGGA AN’ ‘ARDER DA MORE GITZ YA KRUMP GIVIN’ YA MORE WOUNDZ!! 

[Vextol]

6 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

Weve all seen the faq where it says you can place faction terrain models as unique terrain picks but they dont use the warscroll and instead just generate a random rule instead right? Im pretty sure only Awakened Wyldwoods placed as part of allegiance abilities or unit abilities will use the rules for Awakened Wyldwoods, any other trees would just be Wyldwoods from ghb18. Am i missing something?

See 5 posts ago.  The issue is specifically wyldwood-no other faction terrain is listed as a primary terrain choice which, via the rules, would use a warscroll.  If it said "Citadel Wood" it would be fine but it says "Wyldwood" which means "any Wyldwood option" or "nothing".