AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Sleboda]

18 hours ago, Rallado said:

It's not clear at all. 

 

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.

 

Actually, for a moment, let's agree to the farcical idea that a Command Ability is not a type of Ability. Sure. Ok. Let's go with that.

You are saying that as CA is not A, then we must go with 1.6.2, the section of the rules about simultaneous effects. Right?

Ok. Let's check this one reference to simultaneous effects.

It's says, wait for it, "If the effects of two of more abilities, would be applied at the same time ..."

Hang on! What's that? The rule for resolving simultaneous effects applies when two abilities go at once? Say it ain't so! Why, gosh, that would mean that in order to evoke this rule at all, we would need to be dealing with two abilities, and by your own firmly held belief that Command Abilities are NOT Abilities, we have no grounds upon which to apply the rule.

Quite the conundrum, eh? The rule you want to apply cannot be applied by your own stated reasoning/invention.

My goodness, what are we to do?

Edited July 17, 2021 by Sleboda

[Sleboda]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:03 AM, Boar said:

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.

For as long as I've played Warhammer (36 years), people have misunderstood the basic concept of a contradiction (no offense).

To use an example from a different thing, let's talk about shoes. We will begin with an actual contradiction.

Mom: "I know you have many pairs of shoes. You must select only a pair of red shoes to wear today. Go put on your shoes."

Dad: "I know you have many pairs of shoes. You must select any color other than red shoes to wear today. Go put on your shoes."

It is literally impossible to resolve the two directives with one choice. You both must and must not select red shoes.

That's a contradiction.

Now for a situation that may appear to be a contradiction to one who is making assumptions or failing to consider the options.

Mom: "I know you have many pairs of shoes of various colors. You must select a pair of shoes from amongst the entire collection to wear today. Go put on your shoes."

Dad: "I know you have many pairs of shoes. You must select any color other than red shoes to wear today. Go put on your shoes."

You can resolve both directives without creating a contradiction. Your mom may have presented the full set of 'your shoes' as the possibilities for your choice, but your dad says you must not pick red. Your mom's invitation to select any color is limited by your dad's directive.

And that's key.

A limitation within a set of options does not create a contradiction. You can satisfy both conditions. It is indeed possible to do so.

Pick any pair of shoes as long as it's not red is the unification of the two conditions.

Pick a pair of red shoes as long as they are not red cannot be a unification of the two ideas, in any way, and thus there is a contradiction.

Or to put it in logical terms, a contradiction is a combination of two statements that is always false. If you pick a pair of green shoes (which are also not-red shoes) from your collection, you have proven that it is possible to satisfy both conditions and thus have proven there is no contradiction.

You don't get to break one rule with another, unless that other rule specifically gives you the option to contradict the first rule. In this case, Hell may allow you to shoot at an unusual time*, but it does but specifically permit you to contradict the rule of Redeploy (which stops you from shooting at all).

If Hell said "you can shoot even if you are not allowed to shoot by another rule" then we would have a contradiction with Redeploy. It does not. We do not.

 

In other words, while Hell gives you a further time when you can shoot, it does not counter other, more broad, limits on the ability to shoot at all.

 

*It's interesting to note the if we were not provided with the rule about contradictory rule, we would find ourselves arguing over being able to shoot in the opponent's Movement phase. Player A would try to shoot with Hell in Player B's Movement phase. Player B would say that the rules only allow shooting in Player A's shooting phase (as this is a permissive rules set). Both players would have a rule that contradicts the other and we would have a problem.

Fortunately, the rules tell us how to resolve this contradiction, so we can move on and play.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Sleboda

[Boar]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

*It's interesting to note the if we were not provided with the rule about contradictory rule, we would find ourselves arguing over being able to shoot in the opponent's Movement phase. Player A would try to shoot with Hell in Player B's Movement phase. Player B would say that the rules only allow shooting in Player A's shooting phase (as this is a permissive rules set). Both players would have a rule that contradicts the other and we would have a problem.

How would that work? I am not seeing that, care to elaborate? Some example?

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

You don't get to break one rule with another, unless that other rule specifically gives you the option to contradict the first rule.

I mean it is written that if effect of ability modifies core rules than all restriciton still apply, unless specifically stated otherwise. That is limited to abilities effects tough, so if f.ex. CA are not abilities. If you want to be "logical" about that nothing points in that direction besides part of name that is shared.

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

If Hell said "you can shoot even if you are not allowed to shoot by another rule" then we would have a contradiction with Redeploy. It does not. We do not.

It honestly seems to me, to rest on rule mentioned above, about core rules modified by abilities, and restriction still applying (actually are CA both core rules AND abilities?)

Otherwise they are two sentences:

you can not shoot,

you can shoot.

So in essence let say that "you can shoot" = A, and so

Redeploy states: A is FALSE

Unleash Hell states: A is TRUE

This is contradictory IMO. If there is flaw in this logic do go on, I am genuinly curious.

Generally that's why I would hope for further clarification from GW. In the mean time I will play it as blocking Unleash Hell.

If there is flaw in this logic do go on, I am genuinly curious.

 

And before GW gives it's ruling in one way or another, I am curious what You think about those

-KO has an artifact that allows shooting in charge phase, does it work with Redeploy in your opinion?

-there are various teleports (abilities allowing for set up) in game, some can be used instead of retreat. Do they just modify core rules, and hence inherit restrictions or are they "replacing" mechanisms of core rules and hence don't inherit restricions (cannot shoot/charge). Maybe other interpretation?

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Boar said:

[snip]

Great, core rules say that "in you shooting phase, you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it", so the Redeploy limitation is never applicable. And, since we're here, retreating also says "you cannot shoot [...] later in the turn". But hey, the shooting phase says "you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it" so surely all units can shoot after retreating??

I would suggest that, if your interpretation leads to absurd results which no one in the whole community shares, you should re-evaluate your reasoning process.

Essentially, generic clauses allowing something are not absolute, and should be read as "you can do something unless another rule forbids it"

So, there is no contradiction (and no ruling should be expected from GW) because:

Redeploy states: A is FALSE

Unleash Hell states: IF no Redeploy then A is TRUE

Edited July 17, 2021 by Marcvs

[Boar]

50 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Great, core rules say that "in you shooting phase, you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it", so the Redeploy limitation is never applicable. And, since we're here, retreating also says "you cannot shoot [...] later in the turn". But hey, the shooting phase says "you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it" so surely all units can shoot after retreating??

I would suggest that, if your interpretation leads to absurd results which no one in the whole community shares, you should re-evaluate your reasoning process.

I wonder why I wrote that I will play Redploy as blocking Unleash Hell? . Unfortunately in past GW ruled in such way not in line with such line of reasoning, making rules that makes you scratch head, as they are almost unbnusable.

And your bit about "whole community" is simply false, I have different experience and one thread on oone forum does not make for community.

56 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Essentially, generic clauses allowing something are not absolute, and should be read as "you can do something unless another rule forbids it"

But this just looks like your inference not fully supported by rules. Take in mind that often rules and laws are interpreted that specific law/rule overrites general.

[Marcvs]

29 minutes ago, Boar said:

I wonder why I wrote that I will play Redploy as blocking Unleash Hell? .

If you play it like that, than it reinforces what I said about "the whole community". Do you have any actual example of people considering "contentious" the interaction between Redeploy/Unleash Hell apart from yourself in this very discussion?

29 minutes ago, Boar said:

But this just looks like your inference not fully supported by rules. Take in mind that often rules and laws are interpreted that specific law/rule overrites general.

Funnily enough, I am kind of aware that lex specialis derogat legi generali. If you want to put it into these terms I would argue that Redeploy is the lex specialis here as it specifically disallows something which would otherwise be generally allowed.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Marcvs

[Boar]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

Do you have any actual example of people considering "contentious" the interaction between Redeploy/Unleash Hell apart from yourself in this very discussion?

I didn't even notice it myself, some KO players brought this up on other site

EDIT: not necessarily as they want to play that, but they were sending FAQ qusetion to avoid problems with that

 

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

Funnily enough, I am kind of aware that lex specialis derogat legi generali. If you want to put it into these terms I would argue that Redeploy is the lex specialis here as it specifically disallows something which would otherwise be generally allowed.

But so is Unleash Hell, I just want a bit of clarification. And this was ust example for some contentious thing, let's just maybe stop

Edited July 17, 2021 by Boar

[Reinholt]

I will throw my hat in purely to say the behavior of bashing people for doing "gamey" things when the allegedly watertight rules set doesn't clearly answer them and contains internal contradictions is not cool.

 

You can trash people for that behavior all you want, but you're just a random ****** on the internet. Some of these questions are highly salient not just for tournament players, but also random people just playing pickup games at a local shop; without a common understanding of the rules there is actually no community or game to be played. It's just atomized bodies of everyone doing their own weird local thing. If you want to be able to play with people who are not your immediate friends or whom you don't sign a 90+ page document cleaning up various rules interpretations with first in orderly fashion, it's nice to have rules that make sense, are intuitive, and everyone understands.

 

I will personally say as written, I think both the CP + CA issue at the start of the phase and things like Redeploy vs. Unleash Hell do need to be clarified by GW, because I expect what they meant vs. what they actually wrote are two different things, but because we don't live in the minds of the GW game designers, the only actual shared experience is the second one. If they meant something different, they should probably errata it.

[Sleboda]

35 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

I will personally say as written, I think both the CP + CA issue at the start of the phase and things like Redeploy vs. Unleash Hell do need to be clarified by GW, because I expect what they meant vs. what they actually wrote are two different things, but because we don't live in the minds of the GW game designers, the only actual shared experience is the second one. If they meant something different, they should probably errata it.

QFT. Play by the rules until the people who wrote the rules tell you that the rules have changed, no matter how much you might "feel" like you know what the writers "really" meant.

Plus, your view that we need a common set of understandings as a foundation is spot on.

 

[stratigo]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

QFT. Play by the rules until the people who wrote the rules tell you that the rules have changed, no matter how much you might "feel" like you know what the writers "really" meant.

Plus, your view that we need a common set of understandings as a foundation is spot on.

 

I have a huge problem with people who myopically declare “you must play to every rule exactly as written with no editing or thought allowed or you aren’t a real AoS player” while also trying to find loopholes and errors to either exploit or be jerks about. 
 

AoS players, and yes even TOS, should feel free to change rules to make the game more fun or balanced or whatever within their communities and even tournaments

 

 

and I have noticed you on the forefront of just insulting people who consider house ruling or changing things

Edited July 17, 2021 by stratigo

[Reinholt]

2 minutes ago, stratigo said:

I have a huge problem with people who myopically declare “you must play to every rule exactly as written with no editing or thought allowed or you aren’t a real AoS player” while also trying to find loopholes and errors to either exploit or be jerks about. 
 

AoS players, and yes even TOS, should feel free to change rules to make the game more fun or balanced or whatever within their communities and even tournaments

I want to be clear that my core point is exactly that this is a problem, as someone who has had to interpret language in documents as a part of my job for two decades:

1. In the case of genuine lack of clarity (Unleash Hell vs. Redeploy would be a good example here, as it hinges on several key points that are actually undefined in the rules), you will often have a case where two different parties come to separate conclusions, both of which are in good faith, both of which are mutually exclusive, and both of which are based on starting assumptions that there is no factual way to reconcile (unless, in this case, GW were to errata / FAQ it). This is the case where a TO needs to "make a ruling", but that is always going to leave a very bad taste in someone's mouth or, back to my point above, to play the game you now need non-GW documents that everyone has to review and agree upon in advance. I suggest this is very sub-optimal vs. GW just fixing their rules. The key point is there is no "bad guy" or person trying to game the rules here. It's just two people coming to different conclusions reading the same text and both are totally and fairly supportable.
2. In the case of what I would term manifest errors (I expect the CA / CP thing is one of these), the problem is that what the author intended vs. what the text says are actually two different things. People saying "I'm playing this game based on what is written down and it clearly says X!" are actually correct, even if the creator would be like "No, no, it's supposed to be Y" and other people are making that argument. This will feel like an extreme gotcha to the first part and will lead to a lot of complaints about cheating, in my experience, and is also probably the worst possible case to have house rules unless you are very clear about those things up front. Annoyingly, with GW, "up front" also typically means "before someone buys a unit and spends all the time building and painting an army" if you really want to avoid pissing people off.
3. Then there are the edge cases where people are pushing very unlikely or minority opinions for a gamey advantage. In that case, I agree the problem is the person doing it.

However, as you can see, the first two cases are a problem even for a community of entirely well-intentioned people, yes? As in, if everyone is trying to do the right thing and have fun, you can still have a lot of conflict there, and the only real solution is if the community has a single set of commonly accepted standards and those standards are widely known about and communicated to new people, in writing. Otherwise you end up in exactly the situation of most legal systems in most countries: you need years of education and a professional association and it's still total chaos where nobody can exactly predict what will happen in advance.

To that end, I think the best thing the community can do is put actual pressure on GW, in size, to answer these questions themselves, as that eliminates almost all of the problem (excluding the jerks from #3).

[Enoby]

From these discussions, I really wish that GW had a larger rules team with a weekly/monthly FAQ postbox. Not FAQs that would affect game balance, but rather "what do you mean by this" style FAQs. The rules are mostly clear, but in some cases not clear enough.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Enoby

[Sleboda]

36 minutes ago, stratigo said:

I have a huge problem with people who myopically declare “you must play to every rule exactly as written with no editing or thought allowed or you aren’t a real AoS player” while also trying to find loopholes and errors to either exploit or be jerks about. 
 

AoS players, and yes even TOS, should feel free to change rules to make the game more fun or balanced or whatever within their communities and even tournaments

 

 

and I have noticed you on the forefront of just insulting people who consider house ruling or changing things

I make a strong effort to not insult. (And on rare occasions where I've crossed a line, I try to own up to it and apologize.)

I don't exploit.

I don't say others are not real players.

 

All of that is invention by you.

 

What I do do is come to an AoS discussion forum to, well, discuss things about AoS. Seems like the whole idea.

I also sometimes support the opinions of others with whom I agree. You may not agree with those opinions, or my support of them, but that doesn't mean you get to make things up about me.

 

Coming here to debate/discuss potential rules dilemmas is a positive thing. It opens eyes, gets things straight in a sterile environment where we are not hotly contesting a result at the table, and generally promotes a unified understanding of this game we all like.

 

I'm not sure how, exactly, that's a bad thing.

 

BTW,  yes, of course people are free to change the rules with like-minded players. I'm not arguing against that. Would I, personally, want to play in games where I'm asked to change the rules from the ones I bought and own to the rules someone else thinks I should have bought instead? No. I would no more want to change the rules for gaining and spending command points than I would want to ask my opponent to allow my Bonereapers to use Redeploy. Sure, I think the current rules hose over Bonereapers, and I wish they were different. But they are not, and I will play by the rules rather than expect an opponent to change them for me. I simply apply a uniform standard, one that the designers of the game have told us they believe is the default one to adopt, and play with the rules I own, no matter if they help me out hurt me.

Pretty consistent and fair, dontchyathink?

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Sleboda

[Ray77]

 

If you have an artifact item or shield that gives 1 to save rolls for your hero. Can you give the same hero all-out Defense or Mystic Shield and the armor goes down another notch? Or does all this go under the same rule that says: A save roll cannot be modified by more than +1

 

[Sleboda]

You can give them all those, but the net total caps at +1. At least as far as I understand.

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, unless it actually changes the save characteristic (i.e. "this unit has a save characteristic of 2+," not "add 1 to save rolls,"), it caps out at +1 total. Though you can always use multiple +s to offset rend. 

[Zeblasky]

About the Redeploy versus Unleash hell thing:

If you talk about rules in a RAI format, it's 100% clear, that Redeploy stops Unleash hell, as there is literally no other type of shooting it can stop, besides shooting caused by abilities or command abilities. Units, well, do not shoot in enemy shooting phase, so it just does not make sence otherwise. But if you're talking about rules in a RAW format, @Boar is correct. Both Redeploy and Unleash Hell are abilities. You can't shoot in enemy turn anyway, Redeploy says this once again, so whatever, and then Unleash Hell says that you can. Unleash Hell applies later, so its effect take precedence due to 1.6.3. Honestly, not a big issue, unless you're facing a certain type of player, that either wants everything to be done as RAW as possible or to exploit every bit or rules. A more clear wording could be nice though.

On 7/17/2021 at 1:40 PM, Marcvs said:

Great, core rules say that "in you shooting phase, you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it", so the Redeploy limitation is never applicable. And, since we're here, retreating also says "you cannot shoot [...] later in the turn". But hey, the shooting phase says "you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it" so surely all units can shoot after retreating??

No contradiction here, because neither shooting in the shooting phase, neither retreating are Abilities in a strict sence, while Redeploy and Unleash Hell are.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Zeblasky

[Reinholt]

5 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

About the Redeploy versus Unleash hell thing:

If you talk about rules in a RAI format, it's 100% clear, that Redeploy stops Unleash hell, as there is literally no other type of shooting it can stop, besides shooting caused by abilities or command abilities. Units, well, do not shoot in enemy shooting phase, so it just does not make sence otherwise. But if you're talking about rules in a RAW format, @Boar is correct. Both Redeploy and Unleash Hell are abilities. You can't shoot in enemy turn anyway, Redeploy says this once again, so whatever, and then Unleash Hell says that you can. Unleash Hell applies later, so its effect take precedence due to 1.6.3. Honestly, not a big issue, unless you're facing a certain type of player, that either wants everything to be done as RAW as possible or to exploit every bit or rules. A more clear wording could be nice though.

No contradiction here, because neither shooting in the shooting phase, neither retreating are Abilities in a strict sence, while Redeploy and Unleash Hell are.

I can guarantee it is definitely not 100% clear given some of the hilarious GW FAQ's of the past... maybe 95%, but that's about where you max out with GW.

 

And this is part of the problem: the people arguing that "we don't know the minds of the designers we just know what is written down" are correct that you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy right now, assuming they are both abilities (hilariously also seems obvious and yet not defined...).

 

Watertight indeed. What GW really needs is a proper technical writer reviewing the rules.

[Zeblasky]

5 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

I can guarantee it is definitely not 100% clear given some of the hilarious GW FAQ's of the past... maybe 95%, but that's about where you max out with GW.

 

And this is part of the problem: the people arguing that "we don't know the minds of the designers we just know what is written down" are correct that you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy right now, assuming they are both abilities (hilariously also seems obvious and yet not defined...).

Oh, tell me about it. If you want, look up discussions about Unleash Hell from warscrolls and batalion in Questions subforum. It went from only a single Unleash Hell per phase no matter from what source to unlimited warscroll overwatches (every time a unit get charged because of warscroll rules predominance) pretty quick. By the way, as I see it though in the most RAW way possible, units with such abilities receive Unleash Hell COMMAND, so they cannot receive any more COMMANDS, but any other unit can still use Unleash Hell COMMAND ABILITY, as it was not used. Yea, we're getting to 40k level of rules, but at least it makes sence.

 

5 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

Watertight indeed. What GW really needs is a proper technical writer reviewing the rules.

Just give it to GW lawyers (they do have a lot of those) and tell them that for every contradiction or unintended effect found in the rules they get a small bonus. After that they would need a FAQ only when they would want just to change something x) I was studying to became a lawyer for a few years myself, and I gotta say, pulling apart GW rules is quite a fun treat.

[yukishiro1]

While we're talking about holes in the rules, am I missing somewhere where "champion" is defined? It just says champions can use command abilities on their units, but the section on command models just says that champions, standard bearers and musicians exist, not what they are. The latter two aren't likely to cause any problems because they have no rule effects beyond what they actually do, but the lack of a definition for champions seems problematic. Some are obvious - Aspiring Champion for Chaos Warriors doesn't leave much doubt - but some are not. Is a Namarti Icon Bearer a champion, or a standard bearer? It has typical effects from both - it gets the +1 attack a champion usually gets, and also allows rerolls of battleshock like banners do. And you can also take 1 per 10, whereas conventional champions are usually one per unit max. So I'm leaning towards no...but it doesn't seem to be defined anywhere in the rules. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Boar]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

While we're talking about holes in the rules, am I missing somewhere where "champion" is defined?

Yeah, you can actually find defined Champions in Soulblight battletome, but it's exception as book was made with 3.0 in mind:

CHAMPION: 1 model in this unit can be a Kastellan. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of a Kastellan’s Templar Lance or Blade.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Boar

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, Soulblight has it and I assume any book from here on will have it too, but none of the other books do. Presumably that doesn't mean that, for example, Aspiring Champions from STD aren't actually Champions, though...

Seems like something they should have FAQed if they weren't going to include a general definition, but I guess they couldn't be bothered. 

[Boar]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

Seems like something they should have FAQed if they weren't going to include a general definition, but I guess they couldn't be bothered. 

Unfortunatelly, besides your example, f.ex. S2D warcry warbands has sometimes few special models. Who is champion there, nobody knows🤔.

[Howdyhedberg]

So... I have the blasted hallowheart board set. 

It's 4 pieces and it's almost the size of a standard AoS 2 table if I understand it correctly. Would 2 of those pieces be the new standard size for AoS 3? 

[Xil]

Can someone enlighten me on the Redeploy vs Unleash dilemma? What is it about? What do people mean with stopping shooting with redeploy?