FAQ September 2019

[Nerdkingdan]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/
OR
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ENG_Warcry_Errata_2019_09.pdf

What are everyone's thoughts?

I'm happy about cover and onslaught changes the most, some things I would have liked to have seen they didn't cover.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nerdkingdan

[Zamik]

I like that vertical distance is rounded up, so falling is way more of a thing with the core terrain. Enhances the drama of slugfests up on those rickety platforms!

[FractalRain]

Good changes/clarifications.  Lotsa Arrows and Onslaught make a lot more sense now and cover makes more sense.  The changes to Burn and Pillage are really good too, as it was hard for the attacker to have a chance in that victory scenario. 

[Nerdkingdan]

1 hour ago, FractalRain said:

Good changes/clarifications.  Lotsa Arrows and Onslaught make a lot more sense now and cover makes more sense.  The changes to Burn and Pillage are really good too, as it was hard for the attacker to have a chance in that victory scenario. 

I feel like Onslaught was always supposed to be that way, because for example the Reaver Double in deepkin, and how insane it was with storm cast.
 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nerdkingdan

[Sleboda]

When a single squig hopper can do 37 damage to a model after starting 8 inches away with regularity and a highly grey area of rules does not get the FAQ treatment, it makes for a somewhat disappointing FAQ.

 

Very glad to have it, but it missed some big ones.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Sleboda

[Lior'Lec]

     I also feel the FAQ was (more than) a little lacking. Have considered taking notes from all of the questions we have here on the forums and sending them in as a consolidated list to get answered and then posting the answers after they reply. The biggest challenge is just pure laziness on my part. Maybe tomorrow, maybe...

[Sleboda]

10 hours ago, Lior'Lec said:

     I also feel the FAQ was (more than) a little lacking. Have considered taking notes from all of the questions we have here on the forums and sending them in as a consolidated list to get answered and then posting the answers after they reply. The biggest challenge is just pure laziness on my part. Maybe tomorrow, maybe...

I started a thread for it.

I sent the whole thread to their faq email.

It was ignored.

[Pickle The Hutt]

As to the Sneaky Stab Gloomspite Quad, I firmly believe that the intent is to only add the bonus damage once and not to every attack as it would be such a hilariously broken ability otherwise that there's no way it could escape playtesting. Stormcast using onslaught from long range was broken enough to get fixed and Sneaky Stab adding to all hits/crits is massively more broken than that.

I will flat out refuse to play against anyone that wants to use the broken interpretation. In fact, I think it's so bad that I would refuse or auto-concede even if GW clarifies that the broken interpretation is intended (although I can't imagine this being the case).

[B.C.D.]

1 hour ago, Pickle The Hutt said:

As to the Sneaky Stab Gloomspite Quad, I firmly believe that the intent is to only add the bonus damage once and not to every attack as it would be such a hilariously broken ability otherwise that there's no way it could escape playtesting. Stormcast using onslaught from long range was broken enough to get fixed and Sneaky Stab adding to all hits/crits is massively more broken than that.

I doubt that it is an oversight or miswording as they implemented abilities that do exactly the same in the monsters and mercenaries book. Some allies won't even need a quad to activate it So i think the wording is exactly how they intended it to be

Edited September 15, 2019 by B.C.D.

[Sleboda]

The problem, @Pickle The Hutt, is that the 'add to each hit and crit' is actual more strict than what the literal rules say. 

Read the rules for applying damage. You apply damage one point (not one roll or one result) at a time. This means that the only actual RAW application is to give the bonus damage to each individual point of damage. Ouch.

 

Now, clearly this is crazy, but it is the rule. If we opt to ignore the actual rule and apply one of the two popular modified versions, we have to choose which. 

It's tough to tell a player that not only must they ignore the rules in the book (which GW themselves have told us to use as the primary way to resolve a rules dispute), but they must use the least favorable alteration to the rule. That's a tough sell. 

This is why not including it in the FAQ (despite the question being posted here and sent to their FAQ team) is so disappointing. It leaves it to the players to decide how to change the rule while one player is well within their rights to insist that no change is made.