Jump to content

Age of Sigmar FAQ update


Ben Johnson

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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

This is indeed the case.

First i'd postulate the zombie rule has not ever interacted with the reinforcement generals hand book rule. Simply put merging and adding models to a unit are just simply different.  Simply put the rule says "they merge and become a single unit for the rest of the game" This is different from "this models join the nearest zombie unit" or some other such wording. Adding and merging grammatically are simply just different. When companies merge VS a coming Acquiring another (or in other words adds another companies work force to it's own) there is a fundamental differences. You don't ask the server a restaurant to merge thier water with yours right?? you ask them to add the water to your cup because the fundamental difference is that your cup of water retains it's confines of only being your cup and it also expresses the limit to which water can be added to said cup. As such merging and adding are simply fundamentally different things.

in the adding example one unit is the core unit and the other unit is simply giving into the other. This buff wise and mechanic wise makes since then that only buffs from the unit being added to matter, and it also would mean that the unit being added to must maintain it's max sizes, and all other models from the former unit would be deleted from existence as this is simply not possible for the unit to accommodate them.

In the merging scenario neither unit is the boss and instead they come together to be come something that is neither of the units it was before. 

now when using this interpretation you have 2 equally valid lines of reasoning you can make on how this occurs.

1. is you are adding a new unit to your army, and as such you'd have to pay for them using reinforcement points. Also in this case all buffs or effects on the units before merging are null and void. Note though this does not save your unit from mystical terrain as the actors in the rule state that both units are activating the abilities 

2. Your two already existing units are becoming one unit. In this respec you'd say any effect that effects one unit would then effect both units as abilities don't hit on a per model bases but a per unit bases for the most part (unless otherwise stated).

The FAQ split the difference here i think?? 

The question states your creating a unit, but this unit doesn't cost reinforcement points and may not exceed the max listed on the normal unit size for it's pitched battle profile.  

This is the case because: as per the above explanation those 2 options are the only options possible using the wording of the spell (merging isn't even a synoym for adding), and because the question is not explained or expressed as most other questions that have the procedures poorly outlined. 

 

@wayniac , @chord , and @Kamose (not so much you) simply put when you play not matched play i wouldn't come up to you and tell you that you should play match play or that it's better than how you play. I might ask if you want to do a match play game with me or something. I simply jsut don't care for that. For me those play styles just aren't fun. if i'm winning or losing, getting crushed or doing the crushing i have so much fun playing matched play. For me what's important is that my opponent has the zeal to win and come out on top. If my opponent is playing half hearted i'm just not that interested in the game. For me i like the rules and i like playing by them it give me consistently from player to player and lets me bring my game where ever i go. I play at game stores all over california. It's disheartening to me when i go to a game store and i set up a cool strategy or us the pile in mechanics and my opponent gives me a blank stare or shakes his head when he disagrees with out the pile in mechanics work. It's frustrating to me when i paid 25-75 dollars (and an hour or 2 long drive); getting excited, and painting up a few more guys to play in a tournament only to see my zombies there are house ruled into useless. I feel no nerd rage or malise toward my opponent, and i most certainly don't wish my opponent not to have as much fun as i am having. I simply just want to play the same game with them as i do with the guy in the next city over or even the next country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Plus judging by the games of Open Play that were played around here pre GHB, it's hardly anywhere near balanced, which is why everyone here dropped it for Matched Play.

I mean, technically every game has Open Play. Let's play chess, but every piece moves like a Queen. Let's play 40K with no points, etc, etc.

Whenever I saw Open being played, the largest collection always won. Sorry, just doesn't interest me, and as we discussed before, one can still play narrative scenarios in matched play, you can agree to give a player a handicap if it fits the scenario, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

By that logic, the Abhorrent Ghoul King on Terrorgheist and the like should likewise count for an Abhorrent Ghoul King for all battalions, which they've ruled against.

Well no that one doesn't follow my logic, as the Abhorrant Ghoul King on Terrorgeist is one name as it's in one font, there is no secondary subname in a smaller font.

While Khorne Bloodbound: Exalted Deathbringer with impaling Spear does follow my logic where "with impaling spear" is a way smaller font.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weapon options - distinct Warscrolls

Can we agree that weapon option distinctions shouldn't be meaningful for Battalion purposes (at least battalions published to date). Hopefully we can agree/house rule that or say that it's purposive interpretation ("what a reasonable person to whom the utterance was addressed would have understood the author to be using the words to mean").

Fanatics

I've reread the Question and the Answer and thankfully it's probably still talking about a single unit of Fanatics - it's clarifying that you cannot deploy a single unit of 6 Fanatics (as one drop) and then send out individual Fanatics or optimal pairs of Fanatics - all 6 go out at once as a unit. We knew this already.

You can hopefully still put a unit of 6, a unit of 2, and a unit of 1 and choose whether or when to deploy each unit as you like. The separate units aren't tied together. You have to write these on your list as 6 Fanatics 180, 2 Fanatics 60 and 1 Fanatic 30, - not 9 Fanatics 270. The problem the answer is trying to fix is the bit in italics (which is a common mistake).

It could be worded more clearly, but it would be odd (unique) for two independent units to be tied to together in this way so that one of them using its rule triggers the other one mandatorily (without any express wording to that effect). Deploying one Assassin doesn't force you to deploy another Assassin hidden in the same unit (see the Order FAQ), which tracks directly onto Nasty Skulkers (who aren't subject to the Fanatics answer). This further reinforces my view that the Answer is only trying to cure the problem of people aggregating the Fanatics and splitting them out on the fly in response to the game, rather than itemising the units properly and writing down the locations of each itemised unit in advance of turn one).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nico said:

 

Fanatics

I've reread the Question and the Answer and thankfully it's probably still talking about a single unit of Fanatics - it's clarifying that you cannot deploy a single unit of 6 Fanatics (as one drop) and then send out individual Fanatics or optimal pairs of Fanatics - all 6 go out at once as a unit. We knew this already.

You can hopefully still put a unit of 6, a unit of 2, and a unit of 1 and choose whether or when to deploy each unit as you like. The separate units aren't tied together. You have to write these on your list as 6 Fanatics 180, 2 Fanatics 60 and 1 Fanatic 30, - not 9 Fanatics 270. The problem the answer is trying to fix is the bit in italics (which is a common mistake).

It could be worded more clearly, but it would be odd (unique) for two independent units to be tied to together in this way so that one of them using its rule triggers the other one mandatorily (without any express wording to that effect). Deploying one Assassin doesn't force you to deploy another Assassin hidden in the same unit (see the Order FAQ), which tracks directly onto Nasty Skulkers (who aren't subject to the Fanatics answer). This further reinforces my view that the Answer is only trying to cure the problem of people aggregating the Fanatics and splitting them out on the fly in response to the game, rather than itemising the units properly and writing down the locations of each itemised unit in advance of turn one).

 

The fanatic thing to me... actualy just makes no since. Literally none to me. The base rule Everything in the rule for the grot fanatics refers to just the specific grot fanatic unit?? Maybe??? hmm okay

The only line that is questionable is "At the start of any charge phase you can release the fanatics: Set up the frot fanatics within 1" of the unit that is hiding them." I mean i guess it kind of doesn't make a distinction between if its 1 unit or all of the units??? 
 

I dont know to me on first pass you should be able to release them as you please, but the way the FAQ and the Skill is worded after reading both a few times... I think it's saying they all must be release at once, which is very lame to me. 

When the FB comes back up we could ask them to maybe do a quick rewording of some these FAQ question to make the answers clearer, instead of having us wait another 6 months :p.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wording on the Fanatics regarding within probably means "units within" - it's identical to that on the Hammerstrike force which is clearly "units within" and "units apart".

That is why they have added another FAQ answer to rule it the other way (as if it said models within) - they have done this for balance reasons to make the Fanatic charge-blocking weaker.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Nico said:

The wording on the Fanatics regarding within probably means "units within" - it's identical to that on the Hammerstrike force which is clearly "units within" and "units apart".

That is why they have added another FAQ answer to rule it the other way (as if it said models within) - they have done this for balance reasons to make the Fanatic charge-blocking weaker.

 

Your simply making alot of assumptions though. First the wording is in no way similar to the hammerstrike force, and the wording on the strike force is super clear on it's use.

However, the release the fanatic's wording has that wiggle room there in that it in no way says it is the specific desire unit that is release or if it is all fanatics that are released.

GW has shown it is quite easy for them to edit the warscroll, and as such they would and could easily nerf the unit by simply adding this wording to the warscroll and call it a day. You have to understand the games rules were additionally made in such a way where it simply didn't matter what you did as balances was in the air, and as such some rules are quite well up for debate. The FAQ answer is simply a choice between the two reasonable interpretation of the rules.
 

As far as buffing and nerfing no one cares it's not an overly strong or winning strat as it only does well against specific enemy armies. So a buff or nerf is not required. It's simply a ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hammerstrike Force refers in 3 different ways to the Retributors as a "unit", one of those ways is "the Retributors". Hence, the Fanatics Warscroll (which doesn't say "models") is more likely that not to be referring to the unit when it says "the Fanatics". 

Could it mean the other meaning (i.e. the "models"? Yes it could - but it's less than likely to mean that.

While they can edit the scroll on the app - they are presumably and understandably reluctant to do so due to the hard copy Battletomes. It makes a lot of sense to rewrite a few rules via a periodic FAQ.

I've never seen any suggestion before the FAQ that triggering one unit of Fanatics would also trigger an independent unit of Fanatics (simply because the second unit happened to be in the same host unit). This would be a unique mechanic in the game if it did. 

One thing is not up for debate though. If you don't know that the Fanatic is the best unit for its cost in the Destruction Grand Alliance, then you haven't played them enough. It's clearly a (moderate) nerf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i get how the fanatics work. I fact since the book has been co.ing oht ive been playing around with the idea of them as anti charge tax for moon clan squad, and big hordes of missle attack protectef my fabativs.

 

Howevet, when i say nerf. Thier use is high nichein that regular units will rventualy and possibly quite quickly pile in toward your moon clan blobs and engage you in conbat. It is stringest against low model count units sich as monsters, characters, and 5 or small model units where pile in moves will be less likely to bring you into contact with other enemy units. 

 

Also note sylvaneth wildwoods and the bale wind vortex both had thier rules in app changed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, redbeardboss said:

So is my app out of date (says its updated) and also the GW website has not updated their FAq page yet. Maybe this FAq is more of a test for their community site? If its not on the app I wouldnt say its "official" yet

it was on their site, and released by them. its official as it gets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Howevet, when i say nerf. Thier use is high nichein that regular units will rventualy and possibly quite quickly pile in toward your moon clan blobs and engage you in conbat. It is stringest against low model count units sich as monsters, characters, and 5 or small model units where pile in moves will be less likely to bring you into contact with other enemy units. 

I find that even a single Moonclan Grot unit can shield off a large chunk of the Battlefield. Inventive deployment can increase this even more.

You're right that Fanatics are better against heroes, since if the Grot player touches base on the charge, then the hero can never pile in and so can never get into combat as long as the Fanatics keep making their charges.

Fanatics are weaker against things like Necropolis Knights that are likely to be 3" away at the start of the charge phase and form up as a long line so that it's very hard to pin all the models and stop a few of them from piling in to the host unit or other unit.

Quote

Also note sylvaneth wildwoods and the bale wind vortex both had thier rules in app changed

When was the Wyldwood Warscroll changed? Do you mean since the FAQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh i felt the tress were limited to a max of one simply based on that's what it looked like as the profile said 1/1 and i applied it the same as any other pitched battle profile *shrug*

 

When it comes to the rules of the game. Simply put i dont care about the resulting balance. I simply want the rules as is, that way if  i go accross the bond to the UK and do a pick up game i can play the same game i play here in California. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Eh i felt the tress were limited to a max of one simply based on that's what it looked like as the profile said 1/1 and i applied it the same as any other pitched battle profile *shrug*

Except all crewed artillery. 

Presumably you weren't involved in the titanic argument on this subject in that long and dismal thread.

So pleased that one is resolved at least.

Happy New Year all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...