Liquidsteel Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 "your" refers to the turn in which you are the active player. So it's once per battle round, 5 times per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted May 21, 2021 Author Share Posted May 21, 2021 16 hours ago, Essilia said: One question regarding Endless Legions where I guess we need some answer: "At end of your battleshock phase ..." Does it mean it only works at the end of the battleshock phase from your turn on also in the battleshock phase of the opponent turn? 30 minutes ago, Liquidsteel said: "your" refers to the turn in which you are the active player. So it's once per battle round, 5 times per game. Where do people stand on this one? I don't think it requires being adressed in the FAQ. It seems to me that "your battleshock phase" is pretty clear as it stands. As always, I'll go with the majority, though. And (of course) you can always send in any questions you have that I don't put in the list if you feel they are relevant. Might be best to do it in a separate email, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidsteel Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 I think it's clear as day, but, they FAQd Sevireth to confirm allowing him to move in opponents Shooting phase (so annoying, played against him yesterday for the first time and wow). So ask the question, maybe they surprise us and allow us the roll each turn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACBelMutie Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 (edited) On 5/21/2021 at 4:13 AM, Saodexan said: Sadly it's not true. There is only 1 battleshock each turn, so you must wait for the one in your turn. Battleshock is exactly like combat phase, each player do a battleshock test and the players who have the turn do it first. Soulrender in IDK have the same issue, he can only bring back model in his battleshock phase. That's rights, there's only 1 battleshock phase per turn, so we can only try to resurrect at the end of our turn. Greetings Edited May 22, 2021 by ACBelMutie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliums Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 Mannfred's Sword of Unholy Power ability gives a bonus if any models are slain by wounds from it. There doesn't appear to be a provision for tracking which wound slays a model. Damage allocation is a number of wounds equal to the damage inflicted which is allocated as the target unit's owner sees fit. I don't really see anything about tracking what point of damage comes from which weapon as the defender allocates, and even if so, I don't see anything that prevents them from allocating points of damage to multiwound models so that a point of damage from gheistvor never kills a model. Hopefully I've explained that right. Maybe there's something I've missed. They changed a lot of these kinds of rules before. It sounds totally gamey, and mostly an edge case. But I really wish damage allocation was cleaner. Compare with 40K where the damage never gets lost into a pool to allocate from and is always tied directly to the weapon from start to finish. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorCorvette Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 Just curious, are people submitting a single e-mail containing all of the requested FAQ's or one e-mail per FAQ asked? I assume a single e-mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, BaylorCorvette said: Just curious, are people submitting a single e-mail containing all of the requested FAQ's or one e-mail per FAQ asked? I assume a single e-mail. That's what I was thinking, too. But I guess it's up to people to decide for themselves. Edited May 25, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souleater Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 @Neil Arthur HotepThanks for organising this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doko Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 I just copy and paste the first post and sent in one msg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimoriano Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 On 5/24/2021 at 4:49 PM, Heliums said: Mannfred's Sword of Unholy Power ability gives a bonus if any models are slain by wounds from it. There doesn't appear to be a provision for tracking which wound slays a model. Damage allocation is a number of wounds equal to the damage inflicted which is allocated as the target unit's owner sees fit. I don't really see anything about tracking what point of damage comes from which weapon as the defender allocates, and even if so, I don't see anything that prevents them from allocating points of damage to multiwound models so that a point of damage from gheistvor never kills a model. Hopefully I've explained that right. Maybe there's something I've missed. They changed a lot of these kinds of rules before. It sounds totally gamey, and mostly an edge case. But I really wish damage allocation was cleaner. Compare with 40K where the damage never gets lost into a pool to allocate from and is always tied directly to the weapon from start to finish. Yeah, that is the way, the opponent can avoid our ability activation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted May 26, 2021 Author Share Posted May 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Doko said: I just copy and paste the first post and sent in one msg I'm still waiting for my copy of the tome after which I want to give the main post another once-over. So I would recommend everyone wait a few more days before sending in all those questions. But thanks for taking the initiative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorCorvette Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said: I'm still waiting for my copy of the tome after which I want to give the main post another once-over. So I would recommend everyone wait a few more days before sending in all those questions. But thanks for taking the initiative Thanks for creating this thread and compiling the questions in one place. Since I've had the battletome since Saturday I have read through everything in the OP and submitted an e-mail (from my personal e-mail and then a few days later from my work e-mail, lol) to GW. Hopefully with enough people e-mailing about the same issues they will be inclined to answer / clear up several things. I am curious though about the Riders of Ruin. If 3.0 comes out and makes retreats something that do not happen as a "normal movement" then they may ignore addressing this. I wouldn't expect the FAQ / Errata to come out for SBGL any sooner than the week of June 7, although June 14 more likely. However 3.0 is likely to launch end of June. GW may just end up delaying the SBGL FAQ / Errata until 3.0. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketPropelledGrenade Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 Personally, I think there's enough possibility of forwarding-looking design choices being the source of confusion that I'm going to wait until after AoS3 to submit any questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorCorvette Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 14 minutes ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said: Personally, I think there's enough possibility of forwarding-looking design choices being the source of confusion that I'm going to wait until after AoS3 to submit any questions. That is fine and all, however after the initial FAQ/Errata for a battletome it is rare that there is another one unless they make a large update for it. It is possible if 3.0 has enough big changes that they may do an FAQ/Errata for all of the factions. However I would not necessarily expect one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorCorvette Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 So am I the only one that thinks the wording of the Vengorian Lord's Command Ability "Festering Feast" is worded a little strange? I assume RAI you select a single unit to benefit from the CA, right? However, to me it sounds like if two different SBGL units destroy two different enemy units you can heal each SBGL D6. It just says the same unit cannot benefit from this more than once per phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusktiger Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 On 5/17/2021 at 3:05 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said: Black Knights have lost their Crypt Shields ability, they have not received +1 to saves like other units that previously had this ability. Was this an oversight? after reading through my copy that finally arrived, i don't think this one was an oversight at all; before, black knights and grave guard had a save of 5+, and skeleton warriors had a 6+. Both the Knights and the Warriors lost the crypt shields' ability, but the warriors gained +1 save. I think it's actually 2 separate changes being confused for a single one because we're focused on the warriors; the first being removing the shields and making them unique to sword&board grave guard to make you decide if you prefer +1 saves or 2 Damage weapons on the Grave Guard. The other, being them increasing the base Save of Warriors to a 5+ so they're in line with all the other deathrattle units that are not Leader caste. It's conjecture on my part, i admit, but that seems to be the logic behind that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlad3theimpaler Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Dusktiger said: after reading through my copy that finally arrived, i don't think this one was an oversight at all; before, black knights and grave guard had a save of 5+, and skeleton warriors had a 6+. Both the Knights and the Warriors lost the crypt shields' ability, but the warriors gained +1 save. I think it's actually 2 separate changes being confused for a single one because we're focused on the warriors; the first being removing the shields and making them unique to sword&board grave guard to make you decide if you prefer +1 saves or 2 Damage weapons on the Grave Guard. The other, being them increasing the base Save of Warriors to a 5+ so they're in line with all the other deathrattle units that are not Leader caste. It's conjecture on my part, i admit, but that seems to be the logic behind that one. It's not just the skeleton warriors that got the increased save, though. Blood Knights also lost the crypt shield special rules and got the improved save baked in. The Black Knights are the anomalous unit, so it's reasonable to think that it was an error in their warscroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusktiger Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 6 hours ago, vlad3theimpaler said: It's not just the skeleton warriors that got the increased save, though. Blood Knights also lost the crypt shield special rules and got the improved save baked in. The Black Knights are the anomalous unit, so it's reasonable to think that it was an error in their warscroll. yes, but them being brought up to a 3+ save, like with deathrattle, meant a vampire unit with a different save stat is now the same stat as the other vampire units; all the vampires in the book are now a 3+ save, and all skeletons are a 5+. thats not an omission, so much as standardization of the statline across all units of a given type. The VLOZD also lost his ancient shield that made him go from a 4+ to a 3+, and its now just a 3+ by default. mannfred, neferata, vhordrai, duvalle, lauka, vengorian lords, vampire lords, VLOZD, and blood knights are all a 3+ now. and the vyrkos dynasty vampires are all a 4+ (so i guess lycan vampires prefer less armor). the only 'normal' vampires with a save thats worse than a 3+, is the crimson court, but that entry has its own slew of problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 Even if it /were/ a mistake, unless there's a discrepancy with other language versions of the book GW isn't going to fix it. They just don't errata for that kind of thing. Black Knights are what they are until the next battle tome at least. At best, they can hope for their points cost to be reduced until they become a competator with dire wolves for fast chaff. This isn't the first time they've been awful, either. They were similarly bad for nearly all of first edition, until Legions of Nagash gave them a second attack with their lances only at the very end, and even then they weren't exactly great. Black Knights have been bad for most of age of sigmar, and their badness mostly comes down to a bizarre decision apparently made in the vampire counts compendium that black knights are now retroactively mounted skeleton warriors, not the mounted grave guard they had been all the way back to the old Warhammer Armies: Undead days when they were literally the same unit, simply called 'Wights', with an option to mount them on skeletal steeds if so desired. They were pretty cool models, too, by the standards of the time. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 On 5/19/2021 at 3:05 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said: Some of the questions are clear rules-wise, but they are in the list because it is worth bringing them to GWs attention anyway, in case they made a mistake while writing them. FWIW, I used to be one of three people in the US HQ who collected the questions for all FAQs. We gathered them up and sent them to UK HQ quarterly. We would then answer rules questions from callers with consistency, based on the complied document of answers. This was back in the late 90's. Sometimes we would send in questions that had answers that were quite clear if you applied what was written, but just felt wrong, like mistakes. Boy howdy did that every go poorly! We were thoroughly chastised by the studio, condescended to in their replies, and told that if we dared ask if these clear rules were mistakes again, they would stop answering altogether. More than one designer expressed this. Not joking. Not exaggerating. The moral of the story is: Suggest that the Lords of Rules Design make mistakes at the peril of the ability for all of us to get clarity on genuinely confusing rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) On 5/26/2021 at 2:02 PM, BaylorCorvette said: It is possible if 3.0 has enough big changes that they may do an FAQ/Errata for all of the factions. However I would not necessarily expect one. I would. I'd expect it Day 1. If the rules changes are minimal enough that they don't impact the functionality and balance of thousands of extant rules, why make the changes (the new edition) at all? If the rules changes are big enough to warrant a rewrite if the game, then the Battletomes will either need to be updated through FAQs/erratas/whatever or rendered invalid and replaced very, very quickly. Edited May 28, 2021 by Sleboda 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlad3theimpaler Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 16 hours ago, Dusktiger said: yes, but them being brought up to a 3+ save, like with deathrattle, meant a vampire unit with a different save stat is now the same stat as the other vampire units; all the vampires in the book are now a 3+ save, and all skeletons are a 5+. thats not an omission, so much as standardization of the statline across all units of a given type. The VLOZD also lost his ancient shield that made him go from a 4+ to a 3+, and its now just a 3+ by default. mannfred, neferata, vhordrai, duvalle, lauka, vengorian lords, vampire lords, VLOZD, and blood knights are all a 3+ now. and the vyrkos dynasty vampires are all a 4+ (so i guess lycan vampires prefer less armor). the only 'normal' vampires with a save thats worse than a 3+, is the crimson court, but that entry has its own slew of problems. I feel like that strengthens my point instead of countering it. Black Knights remain the anomaly that lost their shield special rule and didn't get an improved save built in. I find it more probable that this is an error rather than a deliberate nerf to a unit that doesn't really need one. It is possible that it is an intended nerf, but I don't think that's the more likely conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoneHeart Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 Thanks for collecting these questions. As for the phrasing 'Is this intended?' is fine, since it conveys the 'wtf is this ******' and 'this makes no sense' reactions and opinion that ppl generally have for this book. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted May 28, 2021 Author Share Posted May 28, 2021 I received my copy of the book yesterday. The good news is, I didn't find anything else substantial enough to add. I have now rewritten the questions we had collected in the first post to match the FAQ style. Feel free to copy/paste them in an email now, I think we have covered all the important bits. Thanks to everyone who helped compile these questions! Let's hope we get a good FAQ out of this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) NVM. Edited May 28, 2021 by Sleboda I'm a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.