Jump to content

Age of Sigmar FAQ update


Ben Johnson

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mamble94 said:

with the new FAQ's am I right in understanding that battalions which rely on the name of old war scrolls, such as the bullgor stampede and free guild battalions are now obsolete and can't be used? (never wanted to be wrong so badly...)

For Matched Play this is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hmmmm I'm sure an over sight but If i'm correct. if not in bold it is a specific unit not a keyword, and must be  specific unit with that name.

 

Well warrior brotherhood just took a hit as there is no unit name "prosecutors" and it's not bold. Cause there's only prosecutor/w hammers or prosecutor/w javils. There is no unit just called prosecutors. Plus can't say their the samething cause an argument can be made then that lord celestant/w draco,and stardrake are the same too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Well warrior brotherhood just took a hit as there is no unit name "prosecutors" and it's not bold. Cause there's only prosecutor/w hammers or prosecutor/w javils. There is no unit just called prosecutors. Plus can't say their the samething cause an argument can be made then that lord celestant/w draco,and stardrake are the same too.

This is a good example of why purposive intepretation is necessary. I'd love to see what would happen if you tried to argue that to Sam the Slayer (preferably sword trophy in hand).

It's interesting to see GW expressly referring to the intention behind rules as being an aid (not the only aid) to their interpretation, for example here from Ben Johnson on the Let's Chat Sylvaneth thread:

Quote

 

Hi All,

We have spoken about this rule today and feel the intent is clear in that all of the Citadel Woods need to be within 1" of any of the other Citadel Woods making up the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 

I hope this clears thing up for you all. 

Photos added for extra clarity, I hope this putts the question to bed now. (Emphasis added)

 

 

 

The Battalion rule change is quarely aimed at the Compendium battalions (e.g. Gitmob, Moonclan, Greenskinz, Tomb Legion, Charnel Pit Carrion), not the new ones where shorthand (like referring to both of two variants - technically two Warscrolls by an abbreviated name) might have been used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I think we all knew that compendium stuff would be going the way of the dodo as things were re-released for AoS and Prosecutors with Javelins not being Prosecutors  ? Really?  Let's not make up problems for the sake of it. 

That's all well and good... when things actually get re released. I won't complain about Warherd losing their only pitched battle battalion (and the one that makes them semi useful)... when they release a Warherd battletome.

I just don't understand why they don't phase the compendium rules out alongside the introduction of new rules - just flat out getting rid of them alienates a lot of people; like that poor chap above with Bullgors on his painting table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could ANYONE who has played AOS think the ring was OP. you could kill the model in hero phase and it comes back with one wound and you have the rest of the hero, movement, shooting, charge and combat phase to kill it still during your turn. Its a d3 heal and teleport. it is not the same as summoning a new unit or coming back to life at the start of your turn with full wounds. Its like the people writing the rules don't play the game. I understand the AOS is like 2 games smashed into 1 (pre and post GHB) but when they do this FAQ they need to take its effects on matched play most serious. Matched play is the reason most people even play and open play is going to work regardless. Hope they fix this. Also the nerf to older books because they dont have bold print unit names for formations is silly. when the faq prior said all you needed was the matching keyword to fit in a formation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one hope they update all the old warscrolls so we can use them. This would take like an intern 1 hour in the app. It would not be that hard to change some of them that do not work with this new ruling, such as State Troop Detachment, the moonclan ones, beastmen, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I think we all knew that compendium stuff would be going the way of the dodo as things were re-released for AoS and Prosecutors with Javelins not being Prosecutors  ? Really?  Let's not make up problems for the sake of it. 

If my opponent is happy with me having my 'Wight King with Baleful Tomb Blade' where the battalion says 'Wight King' I'm happy with his prosecutors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redbeardboss said:

Am I reading it right in the FAQ that if you used the Cloak of Mist and Shadows to move your free 12 inches in the hero phase out of combat you now count as retreating for the turn?

I've always played it like that (if I was in combat)

 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

This is a good example of why purposive intepretation is necessary. I'd love to see what would happen if you tried to argue that to Sam the Slayer (preferably sword trophy in hand).

It's interesting to see GW expressly referring to the intention behind rules as being an aid (not the only aid) to their interpretation, for example here from Ben Johnson on the Let's Chat Sylvaneth thread:

 

 

The Battalion rule change is quarely aimed at the Compendium battalions (e.g. Gitmob, Moonclan, Greenskinz, Tomb Legion, Charnel Pit Carrion), not the new ones where shorthand (like referring to both of two variants - technically two Warscrolls by an abbreviated name) might have been used.

Agree - I just meant that the 'name' of many units is now followed by 'with X'. Wight kings, plague priests to name a couple more. Would seem stupid to discount them but again it's a badly thought or worded FAQ. 

 

It it should be clear with no room to wiggle to establish intent surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

No I'm sorry.

The faq questions answers a specific question.

It doesn't negate or change the rule that states that you can't merge over the starting unit in matched play. 

If they were changing the rules the would have re worded it in the Errata section.

The question may be pointless. But it is the question they answered.

Making logic jumps to make up for the fact that gw didn't answer the question you wanted them to is a dangerous way of thinking.

Read what it says.

Maybe it is a mistake on gas part but that's not the point.

There have been plenty of mistakes in the rules. But until they are corrected. Those are the rules.

Gw told us a useless fact they will figure it out sooner or later.

 

I respectfully disagree.

The use of the word 'normal' specificaly identifies that it isn't referring to 'starting' size.

The specific rule about a unit becoming larger then it's starting models is mute. 

When unit A merges with unit B the unit is no longer called A or B. It is a unit (AB) not A or B that gained models.

You have created a unit (FAQ wording).

The document states that this doesn't cost reinforcement points. While clarifying that you may not go above the 'normal' maximum unit size for zombies (60).

The wording they have used allows you to disregard the Gh rule about adding models to a unit, you aren't adding, you're creating a new unit that doesn't require reinforcement points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nico said:

This is a good example of why purposive intepretation is necessary. I'd love to see what would happen if you tried to argue that to Sam the Slayer (preferably sword trophy in hand).

It's interesting to see GW expressly referring to the intention behind rules as being an aid (not the only aid) to their interpretation, for example here from Ben Johnson on the Let's Chat Sylvaneth thread:

 

 

The Battalion rule change is quarely aimed at the Compendium battalions (e.g. Gitmob, Moonclan, Greenskinz, Tomb Legion, Charnel Pit Carrion), not the new ones where shorthand (like referring to both of two variants - technically two Warscrolls by an abbreviated name) might have been used.

So how would you people rule on the FEC battalion 'royal menagerie' 

Could mounted abhorrents still count? Or must they be unbidden beasts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Am I reading it right in the FAQ that if you used the Cloak of Mist and Shadows to move your free 12 inches in the hero phase out of combat you now count as retreating for the turn?

It's a set up rule not a move, so no, none of the movement related concepts and restrictions (like retreating - a part of the Movement Phase) apply. It's very similar to a Knight Vexillor (even down to the express 3" distance restriction which is included in this instance specifically - cf. Clan Skryre and Changehost of Tzeentch and Camo Skinks - no distance restriction at all).

See the unamended FAQ answer regarding "What is set-up exactly?" opposite the amended Move related FAQ answers in the Official FAQ. There is a bright line distinction between set-up rules and movement rules (it's even brighter now that they've expanded upon the move FAQ); and consequently no (existing) rule can be both a move and a set up. There's more detailed discussion of this elsewhere, e.g.

Or more directly on point here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So how would you people rule on the FEC battalion 'royal menagerie' 

I don;t have the FEC book in my hand (packed away somewhere), but I suspect that the requirements are in bold, hence are keywords, hence anything with those keywords can go in. So ridden versions would count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Nico said:

I don;t have the FEC book in my hand (packed away somewhere), but I suspect that the requirements are in bold, hence are keywords, hence anything with those keywords can go in. So ridden versions would count.

No the whole point of this formation (fluffwise) is to make use of the Royal Menagerie (a collection of wild or unusual animals) and ghoul Kings where not ment to be part of that. IMO I should add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nico said:

I don;t have the FEC book in my hand (packed away somewhere), but I suspect that the requirements are in bold, hence are keywords, hence anything with those keywords can go in. So ridden versions would count.

The book doesn't list them in bold, so I take it to mean the unit and not the keyword. :(

I was hoping with the fanatic nerf I could test out FEC monster mash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

No the whole point of this formation (fluffwise) is to make use of the Royal Menagerie (a collection of wild or unusual animals) and ghoul Kings where ment to be part of that. IMO I should add.

That's taking purposive interpretation a little too far especially since you're trying to restrict what other players are legitimately doing (following the rules and FAQ). 

I discussed this somewhere and gave the example of pumping the Charnel Pit Battalion; and using the old Warscroll for the Ghoul King with the new Warscroll for the Terrorgheist (to benefit from the broken command ability) as being on the wrong side of the hazy line of what's pushing things too far (the old Warscroll usage is doubtful and often banned in events).  The Charnel Pit is dead now, but I suspect the old GK Warscroll ploy might still work technically, but would be very lame. Things like putting a Lord Celestant on Stardrake in a battalion that simply says Lord Celestant as a keyword is just on the right side of the line I would say - but it's subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Denneysman said:

Hmmmm I'm sure an over sight but If i'm correct. if not in bold it is a specific unit not a keyword, and must be  specific unit with that name.

 

Well warrior brotherhood just took a hit as there is no unit name "prosecutors" and it's not bold. Cause there's only prosecutor/w hammers or prosecutor/w javils. There is no unit just called prosecutors. Plus can't say their the samething cause an argument can be made then that lord celestant/w draco,and stardrake are the same too.

Well if you look at both warscrolls for the 2 Prosecutors, then you'll see that the Warscrolls are named: Prosecutors

And then added with a subname for their intended weaponry (in smaller font). So I think this will still apply. And in this way might still apply to other Warscrolls where the name has the same structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nico said:

The book doesn't list them in bold, so I take it to mean the unit and not the keyword. 

I suspect they didn't consider all the impacts this had on all previous warscrolls bataillon.

This of course is invalidating all formation that include prosecutors.

When will they rewrite the Thunderhusk and thorrbad warscrolls...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nico said:

Maybe. I hadn't appreciated at the time that the Death FAQ is for both Matched Play and Narrative Play. That means we're back to square one of needing it to be FAQ'ed, with the only new certainty that you cannot merge over 60 models.

You can say no merging is clear, but many players aren't going to agree with you. It's maybe 60-40 in your direction (far from clear).

Not to kick off the zombie debate again. (but actually about to kick it off).

Wording of FAQ:  

"Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement points to use the ability?

A: No to both."

It explicitly refers to pitched battle (which I think refers to pitched battle profiles and therefore matched play). Narrative play doesnt have max unit sizes cause that wouldn't be restricting to the -you know - narrative...

In which case: What is the "normal maximum unit size"?

  1. is it referring to Unit Size: Max - in pitched battle profile section (probably)
  2. Does it refer to starting size? (I'm not sure where that is stated)

I vote the former. 


FYI - do i care? Not at all ...

 

hqdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Donal said:

Not to kick off the zombie debate again. (but actually about to kick it off).

Wording of FAQ:  

"Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement points to use the ability?

A: No to both."

It explicitly refers to pitched battle (which I think refers to pitched battle profiles and therefore matched play). Narrative play doesnt have max unit sizes cause that wouldn't be restricting to the -you know - narrative...

In which case: What is the "normal maximum unit size"?

  1. is it referring to Unit Size: Max - in pitched battle profile section (probably)
  2. Does it refer to starting size? (I'm not sure where that is stated)

I vote the former. 

It's 1 - the max unit size in the pitched battle profiles.  You're creating a new unit thus it's starting size is however many models you've just merged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...