Sleboda

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

Yeah. It looks like most of us have the same sort of a basic sense of what we think feels "right" but also agree that what is written is actually clear. Given the Jervis article from a few months back, I think we really do need to play it as presented in the rules, so that's what I'll be doing until (if) there is a documented change in an official errata. (Since I'll be playing Bonereapers, it's not like I'll be impacted by it usually, but still.)

@OverreadI hear ya, and am generally sympathetic to the current situation for businesses, not just GW. It's just that people who had it shipped to GW stores got theirs day of release - proving that GW could pick, pack, and ship orders for individuals. They had the capability. That undercuts my sympathy. BTW! I learned yesterday that you can go into GW stores to place pre-orders to bypass the queue system. That's right, you can jump ahead in line - ahead of people ordering from independent shops and ahead of people at their home - by going to the actual GW stores. Dunno how I feel about that.

I do think we are mis-connecting. While I do understand that Hero Phase gaining of Command Points is not an ability, that both is and is not the point. IF the quote from the Abilities section had said something like "Abilities that are used at the start of a phase are used before abilities that happen later in that phase..." then we would be clear, but it does not. It literally says that Abilities that happen at the start are used "before anything else." Is gaining a Command Point a thing? Yes, yes it is. Therefor it qualifies as "anything else." It doesn't matter that the rules appear on different pages, or even in different sections. The rule in the Abilities section says that there are things that happens there that take place prior to doing "anything else." It's not really ambiguous, just a bit frustrating. To be clear, I believe they may have been trying to tell us that these start of phase abilities take place before abilities that take place later, but that is not, in a literal, printed on the page, sense, what it says. It says start of phase abilities go off before "anything else" - no qualifiers or types of 'things' listed. Anything.

Correct, which is why we ultimately played it as the rules told us to - no Rally.

That's what we thought as well. Anything else requires actually just plain making up new rules to make it fit what we "think it ought to be." I just really don't like heading into a game with a new player (pick up, tournament, or whatever) and expecting them to ignore the fact that they have an accurate understanding of the rules so that I can get them to go along with my invented rule. They are right, so I stick to the rule. I wonder if this will be FAQ'd or just left as it stands, clearly "right" but feeling "wrong?" Edit: @yukishiro1Yeah, it was Round 2 and I was out of points, so we are in agreement with your post.

Indeed it can! It can also make it hard to place the model itself where you want it, especially with a good full board of terrain.

Just goes to show how wonderful variety is. For me, the bland, emotionless helmets are far better than seeing faces or having any 'character' to them. I like them as a cold, heartless, relentless, faceless force of unwavering and emotionless annihilation.

Well, if the game only cared about kills, I might agree, but objectives and battleplans are king, so I don't. She had two Manglers plus the colossal, so she could have diverted me, delayed me, or even sent them after my battlelines to make sure her more plentiful battlelines could claim/destroy objectives. She had 2-3 times the number of Command Points I had, so she had an advantage there. I tell you what I find stunning about Mawkrushas now. 2+ save and 5+ ward on one. Ouch! I really think the Amulet of Everyonetakesit will be FAQ'd out, or maybe limited to models with fewer than 10 wounds. The boost it gets on models with higher wounds is not right. In the olden days, whippersnappers, models paid more points for the "same" piece of equipment based on how good the model was. For example, heavy armor on a grunt might cost 3 points, but on a lord level character it was 16 points. That was because even though the effect was the same (+2 to armor save), it was better on a model with more wounds and better stats that take advantage of the armor. The amulet is much better on a 16 wound model than on a five wound model. And mega-gargants? Fuhgeddaboutit.

We had an interesting rules debate last night, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion here. I was playing against @TwiceIfILikeIt, and using her step-by-step process list to go over each moment of each phase of each turn of each game in a deliberate effort to nail down our understanding of the rules. It was my turn and I had no Command Points (CP) left. I had a unit of Brutes that had lost some models, so I was thinking about using Rally. She pointed out that 1.6.1 says "Abilities that are used at the start of a phase are used before anything else happens in that phase..." Since Rally is a Command Ability, it needs a CP to work. I had no CPs at that point (the start of the hero phase) and could not gain the start of hero phase CP until after start of phase abilities were used, there was no way to Rally. It feels like I should have been able to claim "simultaneous effects" ( 1.6.2) to choose the order in which to work things out, but as she pointed out, that simultaneous thing applies to abilities, not just things in general. Besides, there was that bolded bit (emphasis mine, BTW), so there was guidance making it not actually simultaneous. Since the gaining of a CP at the start of the hero phase is just a thing that happens, and not an actual ability, the 1.6.2 rule could not be invoked and the bolded section in the quote above created, in effect, another timing layer that prevented me getting a point first to use with Rally. Thoughts?

I got in another game last night. 2K Ironjawz vs. Gitz. The scenario was the one where battleline trump non-battleline and you can destroy objectives. It was over fast. In my Ironjawz army, I had four heroes and four battleline, with the wizard teleporting units. By my turn two I was up 10 VP's and only two objectives remained. Plus, the Gitz had no battleline left and their colossal squig was dead. It appears it's by design, but we are firmly back in the days of Herohammer now. One of my mawkrushas didn't even end up having to fight. Also, a single redeploy likely won me the game, or at the very least made the quick win possible. I think that's going to be the sneaky power move winner for this edition. I am very sad that the "tactical genius" army, Bonereapers, is the only one that can't use this new and exciting part of the game. Ironjawz, though, are in good shape.

I got a game in a few days ago. It was Khorne demons vs. Skaven, 1000 points. Our armies weren't all that huge, but that was on purpose so we could focus on new mechanics. Know what? It pretty much felt like old AoS overall. Sure, there was a bit more interaction, and more choices (which can be good or bad depending on your view), but we didn't feel these bits actually did much. They just created a feel good vibe to an extent. Probably the biggest change was scoring. I like how it really drives the point home that the game isn't about wiping out the other army. My bloodthirster really liked the smaller board and the limits on command abilities. He was the man of the match. One thing I absolutely do not like is the ability to swarm models around in combat with pile in moves. The wording change from closest model to closest unit makes it far too easy to drop units that have charged but not yet fought out of combat. Intelligent casualty removal has always been a part of the game, but with this added, I suspect this will lead to many frustrating experiences. Looking forward to another game soon.

Just an added data point: I had added my name to the list to reserve a copy at a nearby store (in addition to getting one from GW direct). I was 9th on the list. I drove the 90 minutes to the shop on release day, went to the counter, pointed to a stack of Dominion boxes, and said "I think one of those is mine." The clerk turned to a person in charge with a quizzical look. The 'manager' rolled his eyes and said, quietly, "We got rid of the reserve list. We got plennnnnnty of copies." The clear implication was that they got far more boxes than they thought they would sell.

I've been mentioning a similar idea here for a long time. Have mouse-overs for terms. A glossary thread could work in conjunction.

Precisely. It's just good, simple, basic communication. Each new "publication" (article, story, post, etc.) should reference the full name of a thing, along with a mention of its abbreviated/shortened/bastardized form, before the alternate form is used on its own. To do otherwise risks confusing the reader, which is the exact opposite of what the writer is trying to do in making their point. Of note is that at its heart, slang (and other language specializations) often have an origin of deliberate exclusion. In other words, people make up "code" terms that only a certain in-group will understand, allowing them to intentionally ensure that new people or outsiders cannot join the group. So, when we use these terms in a discussion forum that means to be inclusive, welcome newcomers, and otherwise promote shared understanding, using these shortcuts works directly against our goals.

Update: Mine arrived today, so a full week after it was released.

I see the word "chorfs" and immediately my eyes glaze over and the rest of the post never makes it into my brain. Are we really that l337/lazy? What's next? Sneth? Oberz? Filars? Lumords? Glords? Kroyz? Surely we are better than this as a community, right?

QFT. So many people are so hung up on "you must kill lots to win." Nope. Play the actual game, folks, not what you think the game should be.

Those would be events I'd skip. I mean, come on. Give it a fair shake. This is the same thing that has kept me from attending a number of events in the past. A well-meaning TO dislikes, for example, shooting, believing that combat is "real" Warhammer. So he adds scenarios that cut ranges in half. He has no clue that he's messing things up (unintended consequences and all that), but he is. So I pass. Gimme the game I bought, not the one you think I should own instead. I gotta tip my cap to the brilliance of the new Battlepack concept. It really allows GW to iterate the game yearly without making actual new editions. For one year cycles, everyone can be on the same page, playing in homogenized experiences across the globe, giving GW valuable insight into what is and is not working/liked. Then, to start a new year/season, all they have to do is put out the next Generals Handbook with new ideas. If this refines the game mid-edition and delays having to redo the whole game, including Battletomes*, then I'm 100% on board. *Let's face it. The PR that "all current Battletomes" are good to go in the new refund edition is, to put it delicately, a massive stretch. Entire sections are being deleted. Tons of stuff gets replaced. Some things (*cough* Bonereapers *cough cough*) are essentially being given the "too bad, so sad" treatment. These Battletomes are not what can reasonably be called "compatible" in any workable sense of the word, anymore that a car can be called compatible with flooded roads. Yeah, you can still technically put the car on the road, but unless you do some serious modification, it's not gonna work out well for the car.

Yeah, but what a trailer though! It perfectly conveys what that game is about.

I mentioned my thoughts on that above. I've been relaxed in my expectations from them throughout Covid on regular weekly stuff. This is different. This was a two week window for their biggest release of the year. Crucially, they also proved that they could pick and ship orders within that window and get them to their own stores for release day. The facts point to them simply not putting in the work for orders to homes.