AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Sleboda]

19 minutes ago, Boar said:

like I wrote pure RAW your opponent seems to be in the right

That's what we thought as well. Anything else requires actually just plain making up new rules to make it fit what we "think it ought to be."

I just really don't like heading into a game with a new player (pick up, tournament, or whatever) and expecting them to ignore the fact that they have an accurate understanding of the rules so that I can get them to go along with my invented rule.

They are right, so I stick to the rule.

I wonder if this will be FAQ'd or just left as it stands, clearly "right" but feeling "wrong?"

Edit:

@yukishiro1Yeah, it was Round 2 and I was out of points, so we are in agreement with your post.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sleboda

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

We had an interesting rules debate last night, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion here.

I was playing against @TwiceIfILikeIt, and using her step-by-step process list to go over each moment of each phase of each turn of each game in a deliberate effort to nail down our understanding of the rules.

It was my turn and I had no Command Points (CP) left. I had a unit of Brutes that had lost some models, so I was thinking about using Rally. She pointed out that 1.6.1 says "Abilities that are used at the start of a phase are used before anything else happens in that phase..."

Since Rally is a Command Ability, it needs a CP to work. I had no CPs at that point (the start of the hero phase) and could not gain the start of hero phase CP until after start of phase abilities were used, there was no way to Rally.

It feels like I should have been able to claim "simultaneous effects" ( 1.6.2) to choose the order in which to work things out, but as she pointed out, that simultaneous thing applies to abilities, not just things in general. Besides, there was that bolded bit (emphasis mine, BTW), so there was guidance making it not actually simultaneous.

Since the gaining of a CP at the start of the hero phase is just a thing that happens, and not an actual ability, the 1.6.2 rule could not be invoked and the bolded section in the quote above created, in effect, another timing layer that prevented me getting a point first to use with Rally.

 

Thoughts?

"Ability" is not defined, but the main section of 1.6 says "Every warscroll includes abilities, each of which has an effect... Abilities can also be found in sets of allegiance abilities and in the rules for battalions."

Receing a command point if your general is alive is not an ability, it is a core rule. It's reasonable to say that core game rules are not "abilities" by that description, so 1.6.2 does not apply.

Edited July 15, 2021 by PJetski

[Sleboda]

2 minutes ago, PJetski said:

t's reasonable to say that core game rules are not "abilities" by that description, so 1.6.2 does not apply.

Correct, which is why we ultimately played it as the rules told us to - no Rally.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Correct, which is why we ultimately played it as the rules told us to - no Rally.

I think I did not make myself clear enough

1.6.2 is about effects from abilities. "Rules" are not abilities (as vaguely defined in 1.6) and do not have effects.

The core rules state that at the start of the hero phase each player receives a command point if their general is alive. This is not an ability.

You receive the command point at the start of the hero phase regardless of how many abilities need to be resolved. Section 1.6.2 only pertains to the timing of effects from abilities and does not govern anything else.

[Sleboda]

12 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I think I did not make myself clear enough

1.6.2 is about effects from abilities. "Rules" are not abilities (as vaguely defined in 1.6) and do not have effects.

The core rules state that at the start of the hero phase each player receives a command point if their general is alive. This is not an ability.

You receive the command point at the start of the hero phase regardless of how many abilities need to be resolved. Section 1.6.2 only pertains to the timing of effects from abilities and does not govern anything else.

I do think we are mis-connecting.

While I do understand that Hero Phase gaining of Command Points is not an ability, that both is and is not the point.

IF the quote from the Abilities section had said something like "Abilities that are used at the start of a phase are used before abilities that happen later in that phase..." then we would be clear, but it does not.  It literally says that Abilities that happen at the start are used "before anything else." Is gaining a Command Point a thing? Yes, yes it is. Therefor it qualifies as "anything else."

It doesn't matter that the rules appear on different pages, or even in different sections. The rule in the Abilities section says that there are things that happens there that take place prior to doing "anything else." It's not really ambiguous, just a bit frustrating.

To be clear, I believe they may have been trying to tell us that these start of phase abilities take place before abilities that take place later, but that is not, in a literal, printed on the page, sense, what it says. It says start of phase abilities go off before "anything else" - no qualifiers or types of 'things' listed. Anything.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sleboda

[PJetski]

Ah, you are correct. I thought 1.6.1 stated "before other effects" and not "before anything else".

That's a silly way to write a rule in such an otherwise tight ruleset. It should be something like "before abilities that do not state they occur at the start of the phase".

[Chaos Shepard]

I'm sorry but this kind of rules lawyering doesn't fly with me. People can say there is no way to judge Rule As Intended but everyone here who commented mentioned how it feels wrong. If you are going down this rabbit hole, you are just asking for pain and misery.

Abilities are not properly defined so I could argue that gaining a command point is an ability. They argue its an effect of the rules and not an ability. I say that it has an effect thus it is an ability. They argue that its not on a warscroll so it is not an ability.  Then I counter and say that Rally isn't an ability because its not on a warscroll and must be a rules effect then too. They argue that it is called a "Command Ability" so it must be an ability. I argue that no where does it state that a "Command Ability" is an "Ability" and again it not on warscroll. They say it doesn't have to be on a warscroll because the rules make it an ability. Then I bring back that gaining command points must be an ability as well, and then, like an ouroboros, the whole thing repeats itself.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Chaos Shepard

[Kadeton]

10 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Thoughts?

Seems technically correct, but unintuitive and most likely unintended. I think the "reasonable" expectation would be that you gain the command point at the start of the phase, and can then Rally. But the rules would need an errata (or one of GW's signature back-formation "clarifications" that are errata in disguise) to actually work that way.

[Sleboda]

Yeah. It looks like most of us have the same sort of a basic sense of what we think feels "right" but also agree that what is written is actually clear.

Given the Jervis article from a few months back, I think we really do need to play it as presented in the rules, so that's what I'll be doing until (if) there is a documented change in an official errata.

(Since I'll be playing Bonereapers, it's not like I'll be impacted by it usually, but still.)

[zilberfrid]

If the rules stand in the way of fun or logic, rewrite them or toss them (and I say this as a DM that prefers Pathfinder 2 over 5e D&D).

As an aside, I'll never play at a tournament.

[Rallado]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Yeah. It looks like most of us have the same sort of a basic sense of what we think feels "right" but also agree that what is written is actually clear.

Given the Jervis article from a few months back, I think we really do need to play it as presented in the rules, so that's what I'll be doing until (if) there is a documented change in an official errata.

(Since I'll be playing Bonereapers, it's not like I'll be impacted by it usually, but still.)

It's not clear at all. 

 

17 hours ago, PJetski said:

"Ability" is not defined, but the main section of 1.6 says "Every warscroll includes abilities, each of which has an effect... Abilities can also be found in sets of allegiance abilities and in the rules for battalions."

Nowhere says that CA ara abilities, unless you found some place where it clearly states that CA are abilities, CA can't be treated as such. In that case gaining a CP and Rally are simultaneos effects, and you can choose wich to resolve first.

 

[PJetski]

Surely nobody is pedantic enough to argue that Command Abilities do not count as Abilities

Edited July 16, 2021 by PJetski

[stratigo]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Surely nobody is pedantic enough to argue that Command Abilities do not count as Abilities

Yes, people are this pedantic.

 

Best is to avoid playing these people

[Rallado]

18 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Surely nobody is pedantic enough to argue that Command Abilities do not count as Abilities

Well sombedy is pedantic enough to argue if you must use a CA before you get the CP, so 🤷

By the way, I would'nt play with somebody that is pedantic enough to argue either of this things

[Boar]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

Surely nobody is pedantic enough to argue that Command Abilities do not count as Abilities

Well if they are abilities, than you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy, as with contradictory effects last one applied overrides earlier for instance (can/cannot shoot).

In general terms I think changes in philosophy of making ruleset (so it's more "tight") can generate expectations of certain pedantry among players.

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, Boar said:

Well if they are abilities, than you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy, as with contradictory effects last one applied overrides earlier for instance (can/cannot shoot).

In general terms I think changes in philosophy of making ruleset (so it's more "tight") can generate expectations of certain pedantry among players.

Unleash Hell doesn't contradict Redeploy

[Boar]

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Unleash Hell doesn't contradict Redeploy

Redeploy disallows shooting, Unleash Hell specifically allows you to shoot, and is applied later. So it can be contentious.

[PJetski]

25 minutes ago, Boar said:

Redeploy disallows shooting, Unleash Hell specifically allows you to shoot, and is applied later. So it can be contentious.

No

 

Just no

 

[Boar]

9 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Just no

Well that is your opinion mate.

I am not making argument about that, it's not worth it. It's just example how things can be contentious due to some things not being clarified enough, and I saw reasonable people pushing this interpretation in particular as possible.

[Jymmy]

A couple of questions:

A non-spellcaster that receives the spell book artifact can use the army’s lore? 
i.e: a dreadlord using Aura of Glory from the Lore of Eagles.

Second question: the flaming weapon generic spell can be used on the mount’s weapons? I’m not sure if there is a consensus in that matter…

Edited July 16, 2021 by Jymmy

[KrispyXIV]

5 minutes ago, Jymmy said:

A couple of questions:

A non-spellcaster that receives the spell book artifact can use the army’s lore? 
i.e: a dreadlord using Aura of Glory from the Lore of Eagles.

Second question: the flaming weapon generic spell can be used on the mount’s weapons? I’m not sure if there is a consensus in that matter…

Arcane Tome grants the Wizard trait/keyword, so the bearer should fully qualify to receive spells from your free (or additional) Spell Lore enhancements.  

I believe mounts are explicitly excluded from artifacts and command traits only - Spells should work just fine. Not sure there's any contention here as the rules seem pretty clear to me.  

[FleetAdmiral]

Pile-in question..

Or pile out rather, I was playing a 3.0 game today where I had a monster unit locked in combat(base to base contact) with two of my units. Now my opponent wanted to pile-out(backwards) and around one unit to get away from my other which the monster was also in base contact with. Is this move possible with the new pile-in rule that it can not move away from the nearest unit and not model? 

[PrimeElectrid]

5 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral said:

Pile-in question..

Or pile out rather, I was playing a 3.0 game today where I had a monster unit locked in combat(base to base contact) with two of my units. Now my opponent wanted to pile-out(backwards) and around one unit to get away from my other which the monster was also in base contact with. Is this move possible with the new pile-in rule that it can not move away from the nearest unit and not model? 

Bafflingly, they have removed the FAQ about equidistant “closest”, I guess because it applies to models.

Anyway, 12.2 states you cannot finish the move further away than the closest unit. So, yes, you can move away from unit B, so long as you were closest to unit A and finish the move no further away than unit A than you started. 

[FleetAdmiral]

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Bafflingly, they have removed the FAQ about equidistant “closest”, I guess because it applies to models.

Anyway, 12.2 states you cannot finish the move further away than the closest unit. So, yes, you can move away from unit B, so long as you were closest to unit A and finish the move no further away than unit A than you started. 

But what if both unit A and B are in base contact? Are they not then equally close?

[PrimeElectrid]

10 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral said:

But what if both unit A and B are in base contact? Are they not then equally close?

I guess so. You would need to end the move in base to base contact with both units.