Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

T10

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Liberator

About T10

  • Rank
    Judicator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The battleshock rules should have special results on a roll of 1 or 6: On a roll of 1 no models flee. On a roll of 6, after any models have fled, an additional model flees. Ok, what's the point? Well, even if your casualties surpass the Bravery of the unit, you can get lucky and save your it even if you can't afford Inspiring Presence. Also, you need to consider spending the CP for Inspiring Presence even when the number of casualties is so low the battleshock test is a "can't fail", e.g a Bravery 7 unit taking 1 casualty. In my mind, this makes it less necessary to pay for Inspiring Presence on large horde units, and more necessary to take casualties seriously in MSU armies. -T10
  2. It seems to me that the fight first and fight last effects should have been addressed in the core rules. It can be argued that these are rare effects that should be described on the various abilities, but the same is kinda true of units that can Fly, a special trait (avoiding the term "Ability" here) that is claimed by some units, but is defined in the core rules. The result is that each instance of rules that affect when a unit fights, should be repeating the same text, but apparently there is some discrepancy. The fact that they frequently address the interaction with conflicting strike first/last rules with a catch-all phrase like "similar ability" dumps a lot of responsibility on the players to figure it out for themselves, paving the way for individual interpretations. As it stands, you should have a look at the FAQ and the Designers Commentary for more information. Personally I don't care much for the DC ruling of introducing a pre- and post-close combat sub phases. It seems artificial and counterintuitive: We are used to players taking turns in selecting a unit to fight, but suddenly here all the super-fast units in one army fights before all the super-fast units in the other army? Still, I guess that's what's adopted as the norm, so you should probably work out some concrete house rules if you want to play it differently.
  3. Warcry has alternating activation, so going first (or rather: getting to pick who goes first) is advantageous but overwhelmingly so. That game also provides benefits to the player that loses the initiative roll (fewer singles means more dub, trips or quads), AoS lacks an "empowerment" of the player losing the priority roll. There are elements that may tempt a player to elect to go second, but those are very situational - there is no core rule compensation to the player losing the priority roll, and no core rule benefit to electing to go second. Some situations where I would likely be happy to go second: E.g. There is the possibility of being the first player to move a predatory spell, but that seems very marginal in the early rounds. There are also situations where going first means a lot of wasted potential: units starting the battle round out of position and out of practical range, units engaged with distraction units, E.g. Claiming objectives at the end of your own turn means it is sometimes advantageous to first do a round of close combat against an entrenched enemy in their turn in in the hope of whittling down the defenders, gaining two turns of close combat before checking objective control instead of just one turn. Is the dearth of "go second" incentives a problem, though? I can't imagine players throwing down their rule book and go on strike to earn "go second rights", the game isn't perfect in this respect but it's not broken.
  4. Sure they do. But words and phrases like "move" and "wound roll" and "casting value" have meaning within the game because their meaning is declared in terms of rules.
  5. The rules define "hit rolls" and "wound" rolls (see KT's quote earlier), but it does not define "rolls" as a distinct group of rules to which we are directed today special attention to. It is incredulous that this subtle distinction should exist in the extremely concise rules text of AoS without this being explicitly stated in the core rules or elaborated upon in the designers commentary. Baselessly inferring that it does is pure fantasy. I can't say I have got the same extent of experience with GW war games as yourself, but I do recall that the last edition of WFB actually did define "tests" as an actual rule, including how they worked. So we know GW has the ability to build this into their rules, but for AoS they did not. Did they forget? Doesn't really matter. It's not in the rules: It's not in the game. -T10
  6. Yeah, it's a dumb thread. It's arguing fine points. But the correct application of battleshock rules can be difference of having all the remaining models in a unit flee, or keeping some around to score an objective that decides the game, and not all games are as friendly and relaxed as one might hope. In a competitive scene, surely you would want the players to follow the rules honestly and correctly? -T10
  7. @King Taloren Well yes, it is true that I hate the designers commentary ruling that insists on applying re-rolls before modifiers. I do not have a negative opinion about the core rule itself, just the ruling. It is poor craftsmanship, as evidenced by the fact that people avoid applying it when they think they can get away with it. I cannot say that this makes me a "win at all costs" player- I am not pushing an agenda to gain an in-game benefit for myself. Attributing that mentality to people who are pointing out the flaws of this ruling seems to me to be a cheap shot aimed at discrediting people who disagree by baselessly associating them with a negative trait. I hope you will refrain from such behavior. I will entertain your line of thinking for a while. You quoted the ruling in your post so I will not repeat it here. The question that is addressed is that of "re-rolling a successful (or unsuccessful) roll". In their answer the designers refer to the core rule for re-rolls and they base their ruling on that. From your line of argument I gather that you are of the opinion that the use of the word "roll" in the question (which, to be fair, sets the context to which the answer must apply) means it is relevant only for rules and abilities that also use the word "roll". For the sake of argument, let us say that holds true: This means that the issue of "tests" is as of yet unaddressed, not explicitly exempt. If you will entertain my line of thinking for a moment, if the question was: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or unsuccessful) test. When this is the case, is the success or failure based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied? What do you think the designers would answer? -T10
  8. I think you miss the point. KT argues that the battleshock test is exempt from the designers commentary ruling because it is a "test" and not a "roll", then leaves it at that. In this context the challenge of definition missing is not the definition of the words "test" and "rolls" as one would find in a dictionary, but the definition of these as basic game mechanics, how they each function, and how the designers commentary ruling applies specifically to one and exempts the other. The rules do not group the various dice rolls into distinct sets, they define the function of each as needed, be they hit rolls, casting rolls or battleshock tests. The Designers commentary ruling does not introduce any such distinction either. When a person says that the text reads differently from the print, I assume he is imagining things. -T10
  9. ALL rolls with modifiers involved must have them applied in order to determine the result. When the designers commentary reads "before modifiers", that is literally what it means.
  10. @stroke: That seems to sum up the Designers Commentary: you can substitute "BS dice" for hit dice, wound dice, charge dice, casting dice, unbinding dice, prayer dice, invocation dice, and so on... Any dice roll when subject to a re-roll allowed for failed or successful rolls. Not sure what you mean with step 5, though. That should probably just read 5. Apply modifiers and continue.
  11. Oh, just one thing: The following commentary is intended to complement the Warhammer Age of Sigmar core rules. It is presented as a series of questions and answers; the questions are based on ones that have been asked by players, and the answers are provided by the rules writing team explain and how the rules are intended to be used. The commentaries help provide a default setting for your games, but players should always feel free to discuss the rules before a game, and change things as they see fit if they both want to do so (changes like this are usually referred to as ‘house rules’). -T10
  12. I take this to mean that you concede that the points I have raised are correct in the literal interpretation, but you reject them as being contrary to the intent of the rules. That suits me fine. I love being technically correct. -T10
  13. You seem to believe you are in the right here, so I want to set you straight. The issue here is that the Designers Commentary introduces a ruling that affects how Players are allowed to apply re-rolls that have the condition of success/fail, and that ruling is that 1) no post-modifier re-rolls, and 2) the success/fail condition is checked pre-modifiers to determine if the re-roll is allowed, and 3) the ruling is non-specific as to which re-rolls it applies to. Finally, 4) no dice rolls covered by the rules have a their own specific rules for re-rolls. The point 3) being the contested one, I submit that it must apply to all re-rolls. The reasoning behind this is that the ruling is pointless if it applies to no re-rolls, and since it does not specify any re-rolls we cannot simply decide to apply it to only some re-rolls, like having it count for hit re-rolls but not charge re-rolls. So more than zero, none excluded leaves us with all. You have gone out of your way to defend 1) and 2) as being applicable to Abilities that read "re-roll failed hit rolls". You object to 3) when this is applied to the battleshock tests. We see it being argued that battleshock test does not involve "modifiers", but the rules text directly deals with "modified battleshock rolls" and "modified Bravey". We can infer from the phrase "modified battleshock roll" that the process by which we determine that value involves a roll and modifiers, and the only thing mentioned by the rules at this point is the number of slain models added to the roll. Notice that this is even more explicit in dealing with modifiers than even the rules for hit rolls or wound rolls which do not even mention the word. We see it argued that battleshock tests should be treated differently because it is a "test" and not a "roll", a distinction that does not exist in the rules text. This argument is insidious and serves to derail the conversation. It is true that the dice roll result is used differently from a hit roll or wound roll to determine success or fail, and indeed the consequence of failure. But it conveniently skips the point that to get that initial dice roll result you roll and re-roll dice just as with any other roll the game. I could take offense at having it implied that I am arguing rules without listening to valid counter-arguments, but what I am hearing here is opinions not rules. -T10
  14. It is possible to get the faux result simply by not applying ANY modifiers, which is what the designer's commentary instructs. As with a modified hit, wound or save roll, the ACTUAL result can only be determined by applying the modifiers, at which point reasonable people would expect to be allowed use their re-roll fail or re-roll success abilities. I guess the inherent stupidity is just so much more obvious when the Designers Comments removes the value of a re-roll for the full range of the dice roll and not just one or two out of six. -T10
  15. Two thousand words is not "spelling it out plainly". And nothing indicates that there is such a thing as a "roll" or a "test" and that those two are subject to inherently different rules. It is also not relevant. The ruling from the commentary only deals with re-rolls and modifiers, and the context of the dice being rolled is not limited to any special subset of dice. It thus applies to EVERYTHING. -T10
×
×
  • Create New...