New FAQ Discussion Thread (27.08)

[Zappgrot]

5 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

That he lost the ability that forces rerolls of 6s to hit against him will be a HUGE deal in competitive lists, he suddenly takes full damage from all the exploding and MW 6s to hit abilities, which was a saving grace for his survivability.

Well not full. Half since he still bounces mortals on a 4+

[Zappgrot]

5 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Why have they removed ward stacking, removed bodyguard from stacking wards, then reintroduced ward stacking again!

Cause they are stupid. Obviously 

[Zappgrot]

I also like how the Khardron sky vessel  issue was not addressed.  I mean having the battletome state that you can move the ship after the unit gets out. But not being able to do that because the new rules will make you miss the timeing window to move the ship is not going to be confusing at all. .............

[Enoby]

4 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Cause they are stupid. Obviously 

I don't think it's fair to call them stupid - there's a good chance it's a poorly worded rule in relation to an ability like the Armour of Templehof:

After all, Ward saves are "abilities that allow you to roll a dice to negate a wound before it is allocated to a model" and it specifically says "Abilities of this type are referred to as wards."

So my understanding is that abilities that negate wounds like Disgustingly Resilient are ward saves, and this FAQ was referring to things that plain negate wounds without a roll.   

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

I don't think it's fair to call them stupid - there's a good chance it's a poorly worded rule in relation to an ability like the Armour of Templehof:

After all, Ward saves are "abilities that allow you to roll a dice to negate a wound before it is allocated to a model" and it specifically says "Abilities of this type are referred to as wards."

So my understanding is that abilities that negate wounds like Disgustingly Resilient are ward saves, and this FAQ was referring to things that plain negate wounds without a roll.   

We all assumed that 'before' a wound is allocated and 'each time' a wound is allocated were the same thing because you couldn't stack ignores in 2.0 (after a GHB rule change). However, this FAQ specifically clarifies that they are different abilities with different timings and can be used simultaeneously. 

I looked through every publication this morning (see my post on page 3) and AOS 2.0 battletomes were shockingly consistent on the matter.  Every ability that says "before" is about passing wounds off to another unit, and the rest say "each time". It's hard to misconstrue intent when there isn't even a single outlier.

[KrispyXIV]

19 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I don't think it's fair to call them stupid - there's a good chance it's a poorly worded rule in relation to an ability like the Armour of Templehof:

After all, Ward saves are "abilities that allow you to roll a dice to negate a wound before it is allocated to a model" and it specifically says "Abilities of this type are referred to as wards."

So my understanding is that abilities that negate wounds like Disgustingly Resilient are ward saves, and this FAQ was referring to things that plain negate wounds without a roll.   

This interpretation produces rational results in line with what everyone's understanding of what a ward save was, and would clarify that stuff like the armor of templehof happens and later and can still be applied after a ward...

On that basis alone this theory looks solid. 

[Beliman]

@PJetski that's because it worked in 2.0.

The timing was clear:

1-"before you allocate..." abilities (usually bodyguard)

2- Then, "when/each time you allocate..." abilities (usually FNP).

3.0 introduced Ward Saves giving them the same timing as point 1, without removing abilities with the same effect (negate wounds) of point 2. After talking a lot about that in this early edition, it seems that this FAQs confirms the problem.

I suppose that new battletomes are going to remove all other abilities that are not Ward saves. With some luck (coff coff Sam Pearson), we could see a new FAQ soon.

[yukishiro1]

That probably was their intent, it's definitely not what they actually did, though. 

[KrispyXIV]

6 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

That probably was their intent, it's definitely not what they actually did, though. 

Unless you read 14.3 as defining ward saves as any ability where you roll a die to negate a wound - most of which are at least somewhat ambiguous as to when that happens.  

It's not super clear, but it's not exactly an irrational reading of things.  

It's just not necessarily the most apparent one. 

[Boar]

5 hours ago, Charleston said:

I don't get the Archaon nerf to be honest. Was Eye of Sherian so oppressing that it needed to be addressed? Isn't "reroll saves of 1" in StD Alligiance more of an issue?

Many would argue that Archaon required urgent change to somehow limit slightly dude (as whole not necessarily this ability). However similar ability in Ogre Mawtribes was also changed, so it may very well been more about removing re-rolls.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Boar

[Skreech Verminking]

1 minute ago, Boar said:

Many would argue that Archaon required urgent change to somehow limit slightly dude. However similar ability in Ogre Mawtribes was also changed, so it may very well been more about removing re-rolls.

Yet the skaven kept their rerroling shenanigans, 

not that I mind that at all😂

[Landohammer]

Hey guys I play Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt, and Deepkin. I am just gonna go grab a drink real quick and then look at my FAQs. I'm excited!  

[HollowHills]

3 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Hey guys I play Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt, and Deepkin. I am just gonna go grab a drink real quick and then look at my FAQs. I'm excited!  

Is... is this a joke?

[Ragest]

8 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Hey guys I play Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt, and Deepkin. I am just gonna go grab a drink real quick and then look at my FAQs. I'm excited!  

I hope sylvaneth gets an update soon but the others might be because new book is coming, just like lumineth

[Landohammer]

8 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Is... is this a joke?

Yes but clearly a poor one lol.

This was a really frustrating day for a lot of mid-table players like myself. This is like their fourth shot at writing wyldwoods and they ended up breaking the entire faction lol. 

[frostyeel]

It would be nice and easy if they just erratad all the old abilities to be wards, rather than waiting for new battletomes. The erratas and warscroll updates are already so heavy for the update to 3.0 at this point.

[NinthMusketeer]

44 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Hey guys I play Sylvaneth

I'm sorry for your loss. At least you have endless spell revenant cheese!

[Landohammer]

15 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I'm sorry for your loss. At least you have endless spell revenant cheese!

Thanks. I....I actually don't think he is that good. ::ducks thrown tomatoes::

My meta is full of Tzeentch, LRL, Slaanesh and Archaon at the moment. So him and his endless spells get shut down or ignored 

The Warsong combo is usually 345-390pts. So when strong antimagic pops up, its a huge handicap. 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Zappgrot said:

Cause they are stupid. Obviously 

+++ MOD HAT +++

Please refrain from insulting people

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, KrispyXIV said:

Unless you read 14.3 as defining ward saves as any ability where you roll a die to negate a wound

You could do that before their FAQ answer, and it's what we all did. You can't do it afterward, because the FAQ answer explicitly contradicts that and says that any ability which negatives a wound when it is allocated, rather than before, is not a ward and can stack with a ward. There's no other way to possibly read what the FAQ says, other than to say "ignore what's actually written, they can't really mean that." The FAQ itself specifically differentiates between "before" vs "when," and says that the two can stack. 

This isn't an "us" problem, it's a "them" problem. GW wrote something that breaks the game. Hopefully they will speedily unwrite it. And hopefully nobody will take it at face value in the meantime. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Beliman]

6 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The FAQ itself specifically differentiates between "before" vs "when," and says that the two can stack

AoS 2.0 already worked like this

1 hour ago, KrispyXIV said:

Unless you read 14.3 as defining ward saves as any ability where you roll a die to negate a wound - most of which are at least somewhat ambiguous as to when that happens.  

The same description of Ward saves makes it clear that only abilities that negate wounds before are allocated. 

[Eternalis]

9 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Because when you kill a horror it doesn’t count as slain. Therefore, you can’t continue to allocate wounds to the unit.

The model is removed from the battlefield before the next wound or mortal wound is allocated to the unit. It is removed, then the next wound is allocated to the unit?

the model isn't slain but... 😑
I don't know what to think about that rule.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Eternalis

[xking]

I'm surprised they updated all these old warscrolls.  https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/u8HUNVKydnPpvowA.pdf

Nevermind, they are not intended for competitive play.

Edited August 27, 2021 by xking

[PrimeElectrid]

1 hour ago, Eternalis said:

The model is removed from the battlefield before the next wound or mortal wound is allocated to the unit. It is removed, then the next wound is allocated to the unit?

the model isn't slain but... 😑
I don't know what to think about that rule.

Bro I’m with you. This it an emotional time.

The core rules say you only continue to allocate wounds to a unit once a model is slain.

Horrors warscroll says a model is removed but does not count as slain.

🤷‍♂️🙃

[The Red King]

22 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Bro I’m with you. This it an emotional time.

The core rules say you only continue to allocate wounds to a unit once a model is slain.

Horrors warscroll says a model is removed but does not count as slain.

🤷‍♂️🙃

But the designers commentary says it doesnt count as being slain for the purposes of battleshock. Now those sentences dont contradict each other as it can both not count as being slain AND not count as being slain for battleshock purposes so idk if the commentary overrides the other sentence or not.