Let's chat Disciples of Tzeentch

[Drillz]

I think their FAQ is pretty well balanced granted I still don't agree with the changeling one but ill take it

[Malakithe]

Yeah the first part of The Changeling is just flat out wrong. Might as well not take him if he has to be used as a normal drop and not what hishe actual  rules say.

[Malfallax]

I think the Changeling FAQ is fine and balanced. It allows for certain flexibility without allowing it to be broken.

Otherwise it is impossible for the Changeling to be found unless you want him to be found or the player is just stupid.

[Malakithe]

Yeah...that's the entire point lol 

[Arkiham]

yeah, isn't that the point of the changeling? like the assassins, he is revealed when he chooses to be. 

[Nico]

There was a lot of debate over both timing and geography of the Changeling's rule. We opted for the anti-Changeling position on the timing of deployment (which genuinely isn't clear) and the pro-Changeling position on the geography (which also genuinely isn't clear). We would have been happy with the mirror of this, but a double anti would make him useless and a double pro would likely be controversial.

[Nico]

Any DoT players looking for a game of AoS in London should come along this Wednesday to the South London Legion:

 

[Tokyo Nift]

For the Changeling, it clearly lists in the rules that "after set-up is complete" is a PRE battle ability. Changeling says at the START of the battle. Is that really ambiguous?

[Malakithe]

For that FAQ it should have been flipped at a minimum. The entire of point of him is put him where you want after the opponent is done. Otherwise they can just wall him off or slap a hero right next to him to reveal him as soon as the turn start. No point in bringing him.

[DarkBlack]

22 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Yeah the first part of The Changeling is just flat out wrong. Might as well not take him if he has to be used as a normal drop and not what his/he actual  rules say.

We had this argument already. The short of it is that the FAQ is the opposite of
what I think.

21 hours ago, Malfallax said:

Otherwise it is impossible for the Changeling to be found unless you want him to be found or the player is just stupid.

He can't do much till he reveals himself...

9 hours ago, Nico said:

There was a lot of debate over both timing and geography of the Changeling's rule. We opted for the anti-Changeling position on the timing of deployment (which genuinely isn't clear) and the pro-Changeling position on the geography (which also genuinely isn't clear). We would have been happy with the mirror of this, but a double anti would make him useless and a double pro would likely be controversial.

If you are buffing and nerfing you are changing rules. Why buff AND nerf a unit when you can just leave it?

I think it is fairly obvious how the Changeling was intended to work.

[Nico]

Quote

For the Changeling, it clearly lists in the rules that "after set-up is complete" is a PRE battle ability. Changeling says at the START of the battle. Is that really ambiguous?

No - it's ambiguous because they didn't use the wording that they should have used if they wanted it to be a Pre-Battle Ability (which is present in several other Warscrolls verbatim). Different words = different meaning is a often a safe presumption (not always the case). it should repeat the Pre-Battle wording "after set-up is complete", but conspicuously fails to do so.

Quote

For that FAQ it should have been flipped at a minimum. The entire of point of him is put him where you want after the opponent is done. Otherwise they can just wall him off or slap a hero right next to him to reveal him as soon as the turn start. No point in bringing him.

This is why it is important that we allowed him to deploy in their territory, i.e. their half of the board (if he is forced to deploy as a normal drop and in their deployment zone, then he can indeed be countered trivially by chaffing him up or having a hero nearby). He can sit on the 13" inch line and still be in range for his 9" debuff and still cast spells and be the front swap target for the Changehost.

We wanted to encourage debate and we're potentially open to being persuaded on this one, but we were worried that if we did the deploy in the territory and deploy "after set-up is complete", then we would be seen as being partisan. I'm not taking DoT to the event myself I should emphasise. 

[Malakithe]

20 minutes ago, Nico said:

We wanted to encourage debate and we're potentially open to being persuaded on this one, but we were worried that if we did the deploy in the territory and deploy "after set-up is complete", then we would be seen as being partisan. I'm not taking DoT to the event myself I should emphasise. 

That doesn't make any sense...why not just leave the warscroll the way it is? That's like saying 'we decided not to allow the use of the Stonehorn half all damage ability'. You gutted the very and only purpose for The Changeling. You set him up in your opponents deployment zone after all other units are set up.

[Nico]

Quote

That doesn't make any sense...why not just leave the warscroll the way it is? That's like saying 'we decided not to allow the use of the Stonehorn half all damage ability'. You gutted the very and only purpose for The Changeling. You set him up in your opponents deployment zone after all other units are set up.

Reread the posts above and what @DarkBlack argued about the Deployment Zone vs Territory point. He would have you forced into only the Deployment Zone but (I believe he came out as) deployed "after set-up is complete" or effectively at that time. His approach (the mirror image of what we've done) would also be a significant nerf as you sometimes don't want the Changeling to be in the deployment zone, particularly with the Changehost - as it means that your Lord of Change has to be deployed very near the front of your own deployment zone to be within 27" of the Changeling. Or it means that the Changeling is going to have to be close to Gryph Hounds, or too far away to do anything (i.e. too far from the opponent's key units for the swapped units to be able to zap them).

Happy to encourage the debate. I keep looking at the rule and pondering why it isn't clear.

I'm pleased that most of the FAQ points haven't been too controversial.

[Tokyo Nift]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

No - it's ambiguous because they didn't use the wording that they should have used if they wanted it to be a Pre-Battle Ability (which is present in several other Warscrolls verbatim). Different words = different meaning is a often a safe presumption (not always the case). it should repeat the Pre-Battle wording "after set-up is complete", but conspicuously fails to do so.

What? Different words ARE different meanings - it's not "after set-up is complete" (which is a PRE-battle ability), but rather at the START of the battle, which means it is AFTER "after set-up is complete". That means if your opponent has "after set-up is complete" abilities, the changeling is still after that. The start of the battle is not an ambiguous point, is it the beginning of the first battle round, as outlined in the GHB.

[Nico]

You're quite possibly right.

The Core Rules also helpfully have a title before the pre-Battle abilities, which is entitled "The Battle Begins" aka a synonym for the "start of the battle". It goes on to say wording that adds yet further to the confusion.

There is an ability that says "at the start of the first Battleround" (this is at the same time as choosing who goes first, so it's before turn one), which would have been clearer than what the Changeling's Scroll says. 

What do you think about the geography point - deployment zone or territory?

[Tokyo Nift]

Definitely agree that GW use multiple wordings in different places to address the same types of things, but I think "the battle begins" is more of the fluff title than the rules part, but ya dubious grounds.

As for geography, I imagine it's intended that it should be in the enemy deployment zone, rather than territory.  But that wording is definitely ambiguous so happy to go with a tournament ruling either way. As someone who owns a Changeling, would prefer it to be the way you guys ruled it though

[Nico]

We didn't want it to be useless and we didn't want it to be overpowered (while it's an old scroll, it's a Brave New World given the Battletome), so we compromised for this event. Maybe the mirror compromise is better (not a drop, but in deployment zone). We'll keep thinking about it.

[Mirage8112]

Since I'm in an airport on my phone, I can't respond to individual posts, but I just wanted to point out a few things.

Firstly, ruling that the changeling must be deployed in the normal rotation but can deploy outside the deployment "zone" in no way makes the unit useless. Since he's only revealed if a hero is within 3", even a 3.1" buffer is enough to prevent him being revealed. The interpretation he can be deployed outside the "deployment zone" is further bolstered by the phrase "as though he were part of your opponents army". We've already seen that when GW does something "as if" it's meant to be applied in a very narrow way specifically as worded. I.e. It allows you to deploy in your opponents deployment zone or outside of it.

As to the deployment order. I still can't get past the fact that the wording is wrong for a reserved drop. Even the lord aquilor who was released recently has the proper wording. The changeling just doesn't have the standard wording.

I think the ruling was the right call based on precedent and usability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DarkBlack]

Again. There is no defined standard wording defined for "reserved drops". Which is moot because the Changeling isn't that anyway.

7 hours ago, Nico said:

Reread the posts above and what @DarkBlack argued about the Deployment Zone vs Territory point. He would have you forced into only the Deployment Zone but (I believe he came out as) deployed "after set-up is complete" or effectively at that time. His approach (the mirror image of what we've done) would also be a significant nerf as you sometimes don't want the Changeling to be in the deployment zone, particularly with the Changehost - as it means that your Lord of Change has to be deployed very near the front of your own deployment zone to be within 27" of the Changeling. Or it means that the Changeling is going to have to be close to Gryph Hounds, or too far away to do anything (i.e. too far from the opponent's key units for the swapped units to be able to zap them).

Happy to encourage the debate. I keep looking at the rule and pondering why it isn't clear.

I'm pleased that most of the FAQ points haven't been too controversial.

Whether it nerfs or buffs is irrelevant. The rules are what they are; how good or bad something is is not an argument for how it works.

The Changeling warscroll has weaknesses and counters. Alright, so should everything. What's your point?

How the Changeling's warscroll interacts with anything is not an argument for how the rules work either.

[Mirage8112]

On 3/14/2017 at 11:26 AM, DarkBlack said:

Again. There is no defined standard wording defined for "reserved drops". Which is moot because the Changeling isn't that anyway.

Yeah, there kind of is. Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it true. If you read through literally every other warscroll that does what you are suggesting the Changeling warscroll does, it's worded in a particular way, and the wording is consistent across every single warscroll (I checked) that allows for an "alternate deployment" (i.e. a deployment that doesn't conform to the process set out in the 4 page rules or battleplans). This is not coincidental, because there a particular sequence that deployment drops have to follow. (more on that later) 

 

On 3/14/2017 at 11:26 AM, DarkBlack said:

Whether it nerfs or buffs is irrelevant. The rules are what they are; how good or bad something is is not an argument for how it works...

How the Changeling's warscroll interacts with anything is not an argument for how the rules work either.

I actually find this quite funny, because essentially what you are making is a RAW* (rules as written) argument and cherry picking what rules you want to use. Even though you are banging on about "how a warscroll should be interpreted alone", without reference to how any other warscroll's work, you apparently don't understand game rule sequencing and what effect that has on the warscroll in question. So I'm going to lay it out for you;

The order of rules hierarchy in the rules are as follows:

Foundation: 4 page rules 

Which can be altered in 2 ways:

•Modifiers to the game parameters: Battleplans
•Modifiers to in game play: Warscrolls

Basically the only way the foundational rules can be altered is via warscroll or battleplan, and each of those alters only a narrow aspect of the 4 page rules. For example, the Kurnoth hunters have a warcsoll ability that allows them to reroll saves till the end of the player turn, but must be activated in either players charge phase. If the opponent has a warscroll ability that allows them to charge in the hero phase, the Kurnoth Hunters cannot activate their ability, because its in the wrong phase; the hero phase comes before the charge phase. That is an example of rule sequencing. 

Essentially, your argument hinges on the idea that this passage:

Proc's after deployment. Since the according to your logic, "deployment" happens before the start of the battle. The reason this is not clear, and why it creates a rules conflict, is because of sequencing.

The sequence set out by the 4 page (until the first game turn) is as follows: 

1. Roll off to divide territory 
2. The winner of the above roll sets down a single unit or battalion
3. The other player set's down a single unit or battalion
4. Players alternate until all their units are deployed
5. Both players choose a general 

The rules are very explicit that you continue to set up "all the units you want to fight in this battle." I.e. you must deploy all your units in your army list before you select you general. 



The problem here, is that in the sequence above the deployment "step" happens before the ability for arch deceiver would proc. I.e. You are required to deploy the Changeling because there is nothing in the warscroll that exempts him from the deployment step. And that "step" happens before the "start of the battle". 

So now we have a conflict. You are required to deploy the Changeling per the sequence of the rules, but the arch deceiver ability happens "at the start of the battle." So how does that work? Do you put him on the table and re-deploy him? Even the "fate lends a hand" phrase from the 4 page rules are no help, because this section is replaced by the whatever battleplan you are playing, and there is no mention of anything about "fate lending a hand" in any of the battleplans used for matched play:

 

I might also point out (again) that every other warscoll which allows a unit to deploy after both armies are entirely set up contain the phrase "instead of sitting this unit up normally you may set "it to one side" and declare that it is set up in hiding/the celestial realm/the hidden enclaves:



Now again, read the Changelings warscroll:



There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the changeling's warscroll that suggests he is exempt from the sequence of deployment. The only thing that is perfectly clear is that the warscroll exempts him from the normal restrictions on the location of his deployment; not the sequence. I agree, wholeheartedly, 100%, that the warscroll needs a clarification, because there definitely appears to be a conflict. I'd be happy to play it as you suggest if GW ruled that was how it was intended to be played (and in truth I hope they would rule with you and not me.). But basing the interpretation of the rules of the warscroll alone is an incomplete picture; it's only part of the applicable rules. When digging deep and really using a RAW approach you have to use ALL the applicable rules, which includes the 4 page rules and the relevant battleplans. The RAW, as a whole, do not support your interpretation.. 

When you want to argue that an unclear rule (which creates a serious rules conflict) allows you do something abnormal (either exempt a unit from the mandatory sequence of deployment [which is a big deal] or redeploy a unit that has already been deployed [an even bigger deal I'd say]) then you'd better have a iron-clad rules reference for doing so. But you don't. Furthermore, you can 'hem and haw' all you want, but the phrase used to except a unit from the deployment sequence, a phrase used by every single ability that does so in the game, a phrase that has been used for every single warscroll released before AND after the one in question since day 1 of AoS's launch is completely absent.

So this is my suggestion. Pick one of the following: come up with a clear RAW* reference, a parallel FAQ ruling that supports your position, house rule it for your games, or wait for GW to clarify it with an FAQ. But don't pretend that you have a clear RAW argument that supports your interpretation. 

Because at this point, you don't.


*(@Nico is not a huge fan of RAW arguments as the sole basis for interpreting how a rule should be implemented, preferring to temper his justification with RAI (rules as intended) or what he calls "purposive interpretation". Which I don't always agree with, but certainly respect).

[DarkBlack]

This will be the last time I respond to the topic on this thread. We've made our points, if you don't see it my way after this then no amount of argument will work on you.

The first thing you have to answer is:  when is "at the start of the battle"? I say before the first turn, because the setup rules say that you must complete setup before the battle can begin.

11 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

Yeah, there kind of is. Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it true. If you read through literally every other warscroll that does what you are suggesting the Changeling warscroll does, it's worded in a particular way, and the wording is consistent across every single warscroll (I checked) that allows for an "alternate deployment" (i.e. a deployment that doesn't conform to the process set out in the 4 page rules or battleplans). This is not coincidental, because there a particular sequence that deployment drops have to follow. (more on that later) .

Please quote the rule that specifies it, I don't accept  your "kind of". Just because something is repeated does not make it a thing then?

The Changeling does not do what those warscrolls do, it is similar, but not quite the same. All the warscrolls also specify when, which is always during a phase in the game. The Changeling does not "come in" in any phase. The ability triggers when the battle starts.

11 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

 

The problem here, is that in the sequence above the deployment "step" happens before the ability for arch deceiver would proc. I.e. You are required to deploy the Changeling because there is nothing in the warscroll that exempts him from the deployment step. And that "step" happens before the "start of the battle".

 

So you can choose not to deploy units, which answers your paragraph, because the warscroll does not need to say it if it is in the rules. Those units can then be set up "when fate lends a hand", not very clear rules writing (which it was not intended to be, considering how the game was released). I would interpret this as meaning "till a spell or ability allows you to set that unit up", which for the Changeling is at the start of the battle (which, again, I put between setup and the first hero phase).

[Tokyo Nift]

What DarkBlack said. There is certainly something that exempts the Changeling from having to be deployed, the fact that the rules say you don't have to set up any units you don't want to, "playing no role unless fate lends a hand." Which luckily it does, because at the start of the battle (after deployment, clearly) you may set up the Changeling in the enemy's territory etc.

Really don't think there's an issue here.

[Nico]

Bravo @Mirage8112 - great post.

One particularly good point you make is that the more improbable the interpretation of a given rule, the better the arguments required to report it. Given a standard form of word for special deployment rules, which is ubiquitous (across factions and used repeatedly over time) - it is improbable (not impossible) that this Changeling Warscroll would have completely different wording in order to replicate the same thing (or to replicate almost the same thing at a slightly different moment in time). While you can try to read a great deal into "At the start of the battle", it's far from clear enough to support the argument that it leads to out of sequences deployment. You could equally intepret it in a broad sense to mean the normal deployment sequence.  

Quote

What DarkBlack said. There is certainly something that exempts the Changeling from having to be deployed, the fact that the rules say you don't have to set up any units you don't want to, "playing no role unless fate lends a hand." Which luckily it does, because at the start of the battle (after deployment, clearly) you may set up the Changeling in the enemy's territory etc.

Leaning on the "fate lends a hand" wording is not helping that argument. As far as I can tell, this is "poetic" or "fluffy" wording*, which is alluding to the existence of summoning or the like - ways of bringing on models during the game.

 

*That's not intended as a criticism, the fact that the rules are written in a playful style and not like a statute is part of why the game is fun).

[DarkBlack]

 

I think both arguments have been made and everyone who can be swayed has been.

2 hours ago, Nico said:

That's not intended as a criticism, the fact that the rules are written in a playful style and not like a statute is part of why the game is fun).

As long as the actual rules are clear, but they are not. IMO it's the worst/most frustrating thing and main problem with all GW games.

[Mirage8112]

9 hours ago, DarkBlack said:

This will be the last time I respond to the topic on this thread.

Thank goodness. 
 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

Leaning on the "fate lends a hand" wording is not helping that argument. As far as I can tell, this is "poetic" or "fluffy" wording*, which is alluding to the existence of summoning or the like - ways of bringing on models during the game.

indeed. I could just see it now; using the "fate lends a hand" defense in a tournament:

Player 1 ::puts 6 bloddthirsters on the table::
Player 2 "Wait wait wait. Why are you doing that? Where in the rules does it say you can bring a bunch of units onto the table mid game?!"
Player 1 "It's right here. Fate just "lent me a hand...." 



As an aside, the "fate lends a hand" phrase is not present on any of the Battleplans used for matched play, which supersedes the set-up rules in the 4 page rules. So no help there.