Mirage8112
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Mirage8112
-
-
18 hours ago, Sleepa said:
Hey is it true that with the current FAQ, we can only summon woods in our own
deployment zoneterritory? Per the ruling that woods follow all faction terrain restrictions?16 hours ago, Arzalyn said:They also have a specification that we follow the rulling on the ability that summoned them for the woods. As it is something specified in the warscroll it should overrule the general faction terrain restriction.
Even better: they removed that passage in the updated FAQ. Now it’s anywhere on the table more than 3” from anything else.
At least for the next 72 hours until they ****** us around again.
-
3 hours ago, Landohammer said:
I look at Bow Hunters and see 38pts per shot hitting on 4+ and I just immediately balk. How can such an expensive unit have such a poor shooting statline. I would rather just have 2 celestar ballistas.
I dunno. For lists that primarily use hunters as CA nodes, or want a unit to hang back and support rather than being a front-line fighter the ability to throw a bunch of shots out over 30” rather than just standing there in the woods waiting to do something (like the poor branchwraith) is a nice bonus. Plus they are easy to heal, super mobile, tough to kill and can hide in a forest just broadcasting CA and softening up targets for front-line fighters.
Also balistas put out more damage, but are pretty much the definition of a glass cannon. They have a worse save, trash movement, less wounds, can’t be healed and no escape mechanism. Catch them: they’re dead.
I think you really have to look at ALL the stats as well as how the unit functions with army support. Bow hunters have their place at the table, but they certainly don’t work in every list. -
23 hours ago, Kiekeboe said:
Oakenbrow+Alarielle? Is there something I'm not seeing? Artefact/Trait are absolutely worthless, Command ability is very situational and the passive -2 on wounds table is only useful when you're running multiple treelord variants?
The command ability lends itself well to big blocks of dryads, which are already a pretty resilient unit. For 1 CP, and the right hunter placement, you can easily make your entire army immune to Battleshock.
Having 3-4 Treelord variants also means 3-4 stomps. Running the Treelord variants in pairs means a nearly 75% chance you’ll be striking first in combats not to mention they’ll likely be surrounded by dryads. Notice also you have a lot more shooting (all Treelord variants and Alarielle) nearly board-wide passive healing plenty of active healing big blocks of resilient troops who don’t worry about battleshock, that are easily to replenish with 1 cp and the Rally! CA.On 9/6/2021 at 10:31 AM, Kiekeboe said:And still, it's not nearly as impactful as Winterleaf's or Gnarlroot's passive abilities.
Winterleaf is fun because it takes a lot of models off the table, but its still a CC-oriented playstyle and there certainly matchups that do it as well or better. Gnarlroot is fun because who doesn’t like shooting a bunch of spells? But as @Landohammerpointed out if you run up against a magic-heavy army like lumineth or DoT, you just won’t be able to keep up if the only plan you have is magic.
On 9/6/2021 at 10:31 AM, Kiekeboe said:Still intrigued to hear what your plan would be here, I'm all for experimenting with the non-Winterleaf/Gnarlroot obvious choices.
Games aren’t just won on scenario objective alone anymore. I think Oakenbrow has a really good chance to maximize points from battle tactics and grand strategies since extra points are rewarded for using monsters to complete battle tactics. Also, an oakenbrow list stands a very good chance of accomplishing a few grand strategies and denying your opponent some easy to score ones. This edition isn’t just about how much how many model you take off the table, its also about how you take them off the table and how you gum up your opponents plans to do the same. Scoring battle tactics with monsters give double VP’s, and having monsters that continually heal means it will thought for your opponent to remove them.
Most of the Treelord variants will be extra survivable in oakenbrow. For example, if you give durthu the artifact, and make him the general, he’ll easily have a 2+ save with a 6+ ward, he can take 4 wounds before bracketing, and can heal on average 6 wounds in the hero phase ( If you take gladewyrm; which you should) without needing to worry about casting regrowth. If you need it, regrowth will give you 3-4 extra wounds on top of that. That means you can feasible lose 10 wounds off a durthu, have him heal 6 in the hero phase and still have him swing at full strength next turn.
Being able to do that to just about any monster on the field (with the exception of vanilla treelords who can *only* heal 4 wounds without regrowth) means its going be very difficult for you opponent to score Sever the Head or Vendetta from grand strategies. Also Slay the warlord, Bring it down!, and Monstrous takeover from battle tactics will be a tough get. And since the CA favors big blocks of dryads who are easily 4+ save ignoring rend -2, immune to battleshock and fighting in 2 ranks, Battle tactics like Broken ranks, Conquer, Aggressive expansion will be very difficult your opponent to score as well.On 9/6/2021 at 10:31 AM, Kiekeboe said:I still think Ironbark with a Runesmiter and 10 Auric Hearthguard has merit.
I do too actually. I think we have more able builds then we have before, but a lot of players are still playing variations on their 2.0 lists. I think Oakenbrow leans into the 3.0 mechanics better than the other glades, although it will require a difficult approach to play-style. Also give the previous nerf to WW, have the workhorse of your army (TL variants) able to freely move between woods without counting toward the teleport cap is a big plus.
-
2 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:
And if you tone it back, the faction will be completely trash. None of the other glades are remotely viable, and this glade only shines with the warsong. It is definitely viable without it, but it’s not a top tier army. This is where we all come together and say they need a new book, but then we’ll be right back where we started with an auto take glade and the rest being underwhelming.
Heartwood has seen some success in competitive events, and I’m still pretty convinced Dreadwood is a viable choice. Although I haven’t tested it, Oakenbrow + Alarielle seems to have a lot going for it as well.
-
7 hours ago, Landohammer said:
Thats good to know. But I can't imagine a single faction will warrant that kind of attention. The situation you quoted was a for a game-wide issue that affected many factions. It does however give me hope that the Ward Save fiasco will be addressed sooner rather than later
It’s happened to single factions 40k a couple of times (usually to correct errors in print rather than adjust a a mechanic), and I believe in AoS once or twice, (although the details escape me).
But on a side note, regarding the ward save change: is it just me or is the Warsong Revanant save-after-the-save one that happens after wounds are allocated? In other words according to the new faq does it stack with a ward save? A Warsong-Rev with the Amulet of Destiny, +2 to armor saves and flaming weapons sounds ridiculous: 3+ Armor ignoring rend -1, 5+ ward and a 4+ Save-after-the-save, sporting 5 3+/3+, damage 3, rend-1 attacks.
Normally I wouldn’t capitalize on something like that, but considering teh rough treatment we just had I’m inclined to take the above in Dreadwood and just pop up around the board and murder things. -
On 8/31/2021 at 12:46 PM, Landohammer said:
There is no way they intentionally removed our primary allegiance ability. Other than sub faction abilities, the teleport is pretty much all we get.
Then why haven’t they fixed it yet.
It’s been nearly a week. All they need to do to fix it is remove one sentence (the one that says to ignore the alleged allegiance ability in the battletome) or add two sentences to the relevant warscroll.
To me only one thing is certain, the ability as written does not work, because it refers to an ability that is no longer where it should be. This should be an easy fix, and I know for certain they are aware of the issue. Sylvaneth players were all over the FAQ announcement thread on FB and I know of at least 10 people who emailed them. Word is, the writers are aware of the issue, but we don’t have a fix as yet.
So what gives?
On 8/31/2021 at 12:46 PM, Landohammer said:If blocking LOS and the charge phase damage on 6+ is all they do, I wouldn't even bother bringing more than 1 to games.
Personally I do think the teleport as a mechanic is bad, since it forces players into having to purchase and transport multiple forests to games to fully capitalize.Well, that and giving dryads and branchwraiths -1 to hit, serving as teleport nodes for the Treelord variants, giving Durthu extra attacks, and the Warsong-Rev bonuses to casting. WW actually do a lot for us outside moving 1 unit around the board and are still pretty integral to our play style. This change (until it corrected) doesn’t make them useless, it just makes them less useful: albeit by alot.
Also other factions have access to a lot more annoying mechanics than teleporting. Hell Flesh Eater Courts still have Terrorgiests which are just brutal on the tabletop, and storm cast have plenty of access to teleporting. KO to can practically teleport around the board and bring multiple units with them, and they aren’t tied to a terrain feature. Other factions have units arriving from reserves, or can move units either with magic, or giving them flying and a huge movement buff (which in some ways is better than teleporting). Teleporting/movement abilities are a key part of the game for lots of armies/builds and I don’t really see why ours is overpowered enough to warrant a nerf of this magnitude.
Personally, I don’t see why having to buy forests is any different than having to buy Treelords or endless spells. In 3.0 we can easily play a very low model count army and still be competitive, so the cost of entry is a lot lower than something like DoK. As to “having to buy terrain”, pretty much every faction except a handful has faction terrain and I doubt GW’s goal is to have you buy less stuff to play a given faction. Selling kits is what GW does, and if you want to play Sylvaneth you’ll need a few tree kits to get the most out of the army regardless of that single unit teleport.On 8/31/2021 at 12:46 PM, Landohammer said:But removing it entirely in a FAQ so quickly after it was overhauled just can't be how they intended to do it. They would have waited for a new codex or at least a WD article.
It’s weird and we agree on that. We also agree that there is some kind of mistake on the warscroll, I’m just not certain we agree on what the mistake is. This should be an easy fix and its not fixed yet.
My only thought is that there is some discussion as to how they are going to implement this mechanic, because it seems to me they tried something and it wasn’t working how they intended (Sylvaneth winning tournaments? Can’t have that lol.) or perhaps they saw a potential for abuse that they hadn’t considered and just made a snap revision until they could figure something out.
Also, it bears considering SoB just got a WD update, and its been announced that StD are getting something similar in the coming weeks. I wonder if this clumsy re-jiggering of our teleport mechanic is in preparation for a WD update to our faction that’s just over the horizon? Certainly there’s a lot of talk about how stacking ward saves won’t last, and the wider AoS community’s opinion of the Sylvaneth change is overwhelmingly negative. I very much hope they change it but at this point even giving our original teleport as written in the BT is a nerf (Enter wholly within, exit wholly within vs enter within exit wholly within).
Seems to me they took our bread and we’re begging to get some crumbs back. Crumbs are better than nothing, but they’re still crumbs.
-
On 8/27/2021 at 11:06 PM, Mokoshkana said:
This is just shoddy craftsmanship. Where is the QA on this? The warscroll has now changed thrice in three months, these last two have just been written in a manner that screams “it’s Friday and all I have to do before I leave is write the new Wyldwood warscroll, so I’m just going spit out something quick and hope for the best.” I have zero faith that it will get fixed in a way that doesn’t invalidate something else or create a whole new cluster of questions about an interaction that the devs/QA folks just ignored.
The thing is, the more I look at it the more it looks like a deliberate attempt to just remove a mechanic they didn’t like without giving anything back in return.When you look at the other changes to the warscroll, every change was either a straight up nerf (removing the ability to place 3 separate trees, and hard ruling 3” placement) or an equivalent change to the mechanic. We live and die by our trees (literally and figuratively), and now we’re literally the only faction in the game (I’m aware of) who has abilities on our warscroll that we cannot use as written in matched play.
What’s also weird was how short lived the previous incarnation was. From what I understand we’ve had a respectable showing, but I wouldn’t say we’ve been dominating the competitive scene lately. Either one of those changes would have been a clear nerf to forests (3” placement /single forests per casts) but both?
So what gives? Even without the removal of our allegiance ability, the other two changes are pretty clear nerfs to a critical mechanic of our army, and there hasn’t really been any equivalent balancing. So why hit us with the nerf bat so harshly? It just doesn’t make any sense.
So I’m curious to see how long this faq of the faq takes, because it seems to me to be the goal of this faq was to clamp down on our ability to teleport. They’ve given us less nodes to teleport to and made putting new ones down harder.
And unfortunately removing our allegiance ability dovetails a little too neatly with that.
I guess we’ll see, both in terms of what they do and also how we do with the new mechanic in the tournament scene.
-
12 minutes ago, Ragest said:
The warscroll says that you place woods based on the abilities, so you are not forced to do it wholly within your territory. That’s just an overread.
Supposedly the rules writers have been made aware of the difficulty with the way the warscroll is written and are working on a solution. Hopefully we get some clarify on how this is actually supposed to work.
-
22 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:
Not seeing anything about that on the updated warscroll in the section that covers summoning during the game.
This seems unclear. The faq for the core rules says (roughly) all restrictions for placing the first wood apply to subsequent woods.
Im not convinced either way, because the wording for the entire update seems badly written. I probably won’t play it that way, I can only tolerate so many nerfs at a time and I’m not inclined to fish for more unless I’m totally sure.
-
2 hours ago, Kiekeboe said:
The ball was absolutely dropped with this FAQ. Jeez.
- No more allegiance Wyldwood teleport.
- Faction Terrain rules now stack on top of the rules from where they're summoned - so 3" away from terrain, objectives, and now models as well. And you're now required to put them in your own deployment zone.
- Back to a single wood consisting of 1,2, or 3 pieces instead of 3x1 (I'm okay with this, spamming the board wasn't fun).
- The new winterleaf command ability is just garbage. We don't have units that benefit from this (doesn't work on drycha because when multiple things happen on a 6, you choose one of them).
This is pretty much how I read all of this too. This new warscroll is FAR more restrictive than the old one, and the additional changes to placement are a pretty bitter pill to swallow.Even if the changes to our allegiance ability are returned this is a real kick in the acorns.
As far as a silver lining goes, it looks to me like dreadwood just had it’s stock tick up a few notches, since that CA teleport is now the only way to move a non TL variant around the board. And even if that oversight is fixed, it will be much harder to move units with less woods on the table and teleport nodes confined to our territory.
-
1
-
-
Mancunian carnage:
70 man tourney, 1 Sylvaneth player who finished 5th. 6 bows, alarielle and warsong with 3 tree rev units bwraith and some espells
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Popisdead said:
I'm not sure how this person placed but they did well in a recent tournament.
warsong rev in command, nurtured by magic, chalice of nectar, flaming weapon,ancient, spirit song stave, regrowth,drychabranchwych3x 5 trevs3x 3 Sword hunters6 scythesspitswarm hiveglade wyrmThe list went 4-1, took 5th place and Best Order General. The 1st place list was a TLA, Durthu and Yndrasta in a Living Cities list.
details here: Goonhammer
Sylvaneth seem to be doing very well at the moment. I’ve seen a lot of super positive feedback from players who are seeing lots of wins, and now we’re seeing very respectable placement at tournaments.
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Havelocke I greatly appreciate the effort you’ve taken thus far, and I’m sorry its taken me a few days to respond (baby stuff). I know it’s been a couple of days since the topic trailed off and most everyone else has moved on, but since you asked me a specific question, I feel compelled to give you answer. At this point, I feel like we are getting pretty close to nailing down the exact nature of our disagreement on the matter, and I very much enjoy these types of “high-level” rules discussions. So I’ll just address the points you made to me, and let the points you made to the other posters fall by the wayside.
On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:I would summarize our opposing viewpoints on what constitutes a contradiction in the following way, which I hope mirrors your thinking on the matter...
Havelocke:
Two rules are contradictory if no game state can exist which causes them to agree on the legality of an action.Mirage:
Two rules are contradictory if any game state can exist which causes them to disagree on the legality of an action.I will assume that you know your mind well enough to accurately summarize your own position. But I’m finding some difficulty fitting my position into the format you’ve provided. I think it might make more sense if go through the rest of your post first, and see if I can articulate the differences between our positions.
On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:What happens if two rules disagree, but are not contradictory because an alternate state could exist which causes them to agree?
In this case, we have to look at whether the disagreeing rules are permissive or prohibitive. If the disagreeing rules are permissive, the action is legal. If the disagreeing rules are prohibitive, the action is illegal.(While Age of Sigmar has a permissive rules set, there are both permissive and prohibitive rules. Any action is illegal until it is made legal by a permissive rule, yet prohibitive rules also exist which make legal actions illegal again under certain circumstances.)
First, I think we should make a distinction between prohibitions and restrictions, particularly when we use the term “permissive ruleset”.
There is a distinct difference between a permissive ruleset with restrictions, and a prohibitive ruleset. This is because in a permissive ruleset, a restriction only exists in order to define the boundaries of a legal action. I.e. you can shoot, but only 20”, you can run, but only D6. You can claim cover, but not if you’re a monster ect. Ect. The only purpose restrictions have in a ruleset of this type is to clarify the scope of an action, not to prohibit an action in the game. This useful because saying “you can shoot” without saying “how far” means you could in theory, shoot across the tables into other games. Even “global” abilities like Kroak’s “Supreme Master of Order” ability still specifies that it applies only to “the battlefield”. All effects have restrictions in the same way that all squares have sides.
This is opposed to a “prohibitive ruleset”, such as the Law, where a litany of actions are declared “prohibited” under some type of penalty. This is why Age of Sigmar does not tell you that you “may not flip the table”, or “punch your opponent in the face”, because the ruleset doesn’t bother to define all the things which you “cannot do” in a match. Age of Sigmar has a finite list of actions from which you can choose. So while you might be able to say “prohibitions exist” they only exist within the scope of available actions, not in-and-of themselves.On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:The zoning rules on our wyldwoods are a case of disagreeing prohibitive rules. We have a permissive rule which makes it legal to place the wyldwood (any wyldwood ability), and two further prohibitive rules which make the legal action illegal under certain circumstances (wyldwood ability restrictions plus GHB restrictions)*. If the conditions of either prohibitive rule are met, then the rule takes effect and the action becomes illegal.
*(Here, note that I am separating a single game ability into two 'rules' for the purposes of discussion.)
I think the highlighted statement is one of the major problems I have with your position:While separating an ability into two separate rules allows you to neatly articulate the scenario as a conflict between two “rules”, the core rulebook does not make that distinction. From 1.6:
“Every warscroll includes abilities, each of which has an effect. When in ability is used its affect is applied. in addition, most effects have restrictions.”
The section from the core rules above, it is clear that it refers to the use of an ability as “an effect” and not a “rule”. This important because the margin note addresses a conflict between ability effects and the core rules, and not a conflict between “two rules”.
It also highlights both “abilities” and “effects” (indicating these are keyword-esque game terms), clearly making a distinction between rules and ability affects. It also is clear that the restrictions are actually a component of ability effects. Effects and restrictions are treated as a single thing: restrictions are part of an effect. In fact the language treats restrictions that accompany ability effects in the same manner as borders of an object. Would we consider the border an object as something distinctly separate from an object? Would you consider the skin of soap bubble (the border that separates “inside” from “outside” as distinctly separate from the bubble itself?The core book is clear that the term “rules” refers to the core rules. In fact this is the only place I can see where GW refers to something as a “rule” (as abilities are always refers to as effects). The section I have referenced before (regarding the hierarchy of rules and ability effects) only refers to ability effects that contradict the core rules:
“If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence.”
So the question is not “do these two rules conflict”, because a “rule” only refers to the core rules themselves. And it would be unlikely that our dispute stems from an internal inconsistency within the ruleset itself.
So, in light of the absolve we might amend your statements to say:
“In this case, we have to look at whether the disagreeing rules are [a permission or a restriction]. If the disagreeing rules are [a permission], the action is legal. If the disagreeing rules are [a restriction], the action is illegal.”
“The zoning rules on our wyldwoods are a case of disagreeing [restrictions]. We have permission which makes it legal to place the wyldwood (any wyldwood ability), and [two restrictions] which make the legal action illegal under certain circumstances (wyldwood ability restrictions plus GHB restrictions)... If the conditions of either [restriction] are met, then the rule takes effect and the action becomes illegal.
From here, you continue:
On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:None of the above proves that my interpretation of what constitutes a contradiction is correct, only that it is entirely possible to resolve non-contradictory rules disagreements without one rule or the other being ignored.
And here’s the rub, because I don’t think your wrong. It’s very clear that you can play in a manner where neither rule is ignored, (a fact I’ve never denied) and place a wood legally according to both sets of restrictions, but you’ve not shown why the rules compel you to do so. This is important, because the crux of your argument isn’t that we can play in manner where both rules are satisfied, it’s that if we can, we must. To date, I’ve not seen any rules reference from you that supports the idea of this obligation.So again, while you can show that it is possible to execute an effect in a manner that does not contradict the core rules, we still don’t have any indication that we are obligated to execute an effect in that way. But we do have multiple examples where GW has given preference to effects (including their innate restrictions) over rules. We’ve already mentioned the insight blurb in the margin which clearly says effects take precedence over rules. Furthermore a little further down the same page, we have yet another example where gw specifically articulated it preference for effects over rules:
“If the effect of an ability modifies a core rule, then all restrictions that apply to the core rules still apply unless the effect specifically notes otherwise.”
GW has outlined two scenarios for us: In the event that a permission from an ability violates a restriction from a core rule, the effect takes precedence. If the effect modifes a core rule, then any restrictions to that core rule still apply unless specifically stated otherwise. It has also explicitly outlined one scenario where ability effects do not take precedence over the core rules in 1.6.5 (units cannot fight more than twice in a single phase) and none of our discussions revolve around this single exception.
So here, in reference to the Treelord Ancient’s “Silent Communion” ability, it is clear that the 1” restriction (which we already know is a component of the ability itself and not separate from it) takes precedence over the core rule that mandates faction terrain be 3” from existing terrain. It’s also clear from the second section that because the rule specifically modifies the distance at which a WW can be placed, the restrictions present in the core rules are ignored in favor of the ability effect. In both cases it is clear the 1” restriction take priority over the 3” restriction from the core rules, not only does the effect take precedence because effects take precedence over core rules, it also explicitly modifies a restriction that applies to a core rule.
In both cases, Rules as Written (RAW) is clear that the 1” restriction for terrain, models and objectives takes precedence over whatever restrictions are present in the core rules.
So perhaps we can return to the “brass tacks” explanation of our two positionsOn 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:Havelocke:
Two rules are contradictory if no game state can exist which causes them to agree on the legality of an action.Mirage:
Two rules are contradictory if any game state can exist which causes them to disagree on the legality of an action.Havelocke:
Two rules are contradictory if no game state can exist which causes them to agree on the legality of an action.Mirage:
A contradiction exists if the an application of ability effect would violate a core rule in any way.
I hope this is what your after when you asked if your description of my thinking was accurate. The difference may seem subtle, but the game is clear that the actual application of the effect is what determines its contradictory state, not hypothetical application of all the ways an effect could be applied. The game does not care if you choose not to retreat and charge with a model, it only cares if you attempt to (since the restriction on charging is a component of retreating).
If you wish to charge after retreating, you need to have an ability (via a warscroll or allegiance ability) that explicitly says you may do so. It’s the application of that ability that creates a contradiction between the effect and the core rules (in which cases the ability effect would take precedence.) not the fact that ability or rule just “exists”.
This post is already a little long, but I hope it clear. At this point it might only be the two of us (or maybe just me lol) who are still interested in this, but I’d be keen to hear your perspective if you’re still inclined. -
1 hour ago, Aezeal said:
And the spell is underspell lore even though it's not the deepwood lore and the spell lore is still classified as an allegiance ability right?
Yes. Also items like the Acorn fall under allegiance abilities.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Havelocke said:
I doubt anyone's ever accused you of being afraid to speak your mind, but I've always found you to be respectful when our opinions have differed.
I feel the same about you, and @Pennydudeas well. I’ve had a number of very intense discussions on this board since it’s launch in 1.0, and I’ve found as group we tend to agree about most of the big issues, and it’s important not to lose sight of that when dissecting the particulars.
Speaking of dissecting the particulars, I think you can I are on the same page in terms of the method by which we resolve rules disputes. Twelve both refereed frequently to the differences between RAW and RAI, while also citing precedent to occasionally infer how a rule might work under peculiar circumstances.
Which is why this is a very very clever argument.
12 hours ago, Havelocke said:Your argument seems to look at the deployment restriction as a single variable, which can't have two different static values at once. I think you're basically saying that the following two statements are contradictory:
- The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 1"
- The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 3"
And they are, because they cannot both be true. However, it's not how the rules are worded. The next two statements are NOT contradictory:
- The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
- The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain
These two rules don't contradict each other, because they're not mutually exclusive. If a tree is more than three inches from other terrain, it is also more than one inch away, and both rules are satisfied. If [they] can both be followed at the same time, then they don't contradict each other, and you don't get to ignore the GHB rules in favor of the warscroll rules.
Your argument is a good one, albeit slightly technical. I feel i can answer it, but my response might be a bit technical as well, so I apologize in advance for the incoming wall of text.
Essentially you are saying there is an area of play where both statements can be true. Your argument implies that because we can play in way that satisfies one rule, while at the same time technically fulfilling the purely linguistic requirements of the other we are required to. While I understand that your position is technically correct (one can indeed do that). I think your argument that we are required to stay solely within that area of play is more than a little overstated, and not supported by the rules.
Firstly, these rules aren’t just linguistic requirements on a page, they exist under a wider “permissive ruleset” that is played out under real conditions. If you’re not familiar with the term, a permissive ruleset is a collection of rules that allow you to do something: move a model, make an attack, apply a modifier, ect. Every Rule in Age of Sigmar allows you to perform an action under certain conditions with clearly stipulated limitations. You can’t do something in the game unless the rules say you can. The core rules are general and apply to everyone, and warscroll rules/faction rules are particular to that unit or faction.
There will obviously be ways to play where one can satisfy the condition of multiple rules at the same time. But if that is the case, then we dont really need to discuss those interactions because there is no conflict. For these type of debates to even exist there has to be an interaction where one rule allows you to do a thing, and another says you may not. While there could be an infinite number of other choices that do not trigger a rules conflict (by equally satisfying both rules as you solution does), there can’t be a discussion about them, because there is no conflict to discuss: they are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion and as such we must be silent about them.
So, consider the wider ruleset under which the following statements exist:- The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
- The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain
These two rules allow you to choose where to place a piece of scenery within a certain area. If there is a spot on the board that is within 1.5 inches of the terrain that you want to place the terrain, the question becomes can you place the piece of scenery there or not. One rule says yes, the other says no. That is the source of conflict, and avoiding it by suggesting you “can” do something else is not actually a resolution: it’s a dodge. A very clever dodge but a dodge none the less.
As i said above, I think the “obligation” you suggest we have to play the middle ground rather than choosing between the primacy of your rules is the weak link in your argument:12 hours ago, Havelocke said:If [they] can both be followed at the same time, then they don't contradict each other, and you don't get to ignore the GHB rules in favor of the warscroll rules.
Do the rules really say we are obligated to dodge when we can? No they dont. When two rules conflict, you have one that says I can do X, and and another rule thats says I cannot. Alarielle’s warscroll says she can retreat and charge; the core rules say she cannot. Am I obligated to decide I’d rather not shoot just because the rule says I “can” retreat and shoot not “must” retreat and shoot? In other words, are we obligated *by the rules* to play in manner that satisfies the pure liguistic requirments of two rules simply because its possible to do so?
If the rules supported this arguement I would agree with you. But as Pennydude has pointed out, the core rules are clear that you are not required to play both rules simultaneously. Section `1.1.6 says:“If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence.”
Again, a permissive ruleset allows you to do a thing with certain stipulations. If two rules conflict the core rules say one takes precedence over the other- It must contradict a core rule
- Be the effect of an ability
To use a specific example, a TLA wants to use Silent Communion to place a WW within 1.5” of an existing terrain feature. The rule as written on his warscroll says you can, the other in the GHB says you can’t. The core rules are clear that Silent Communion meets the requirements if it contradicts the core rule set (it does) and is the effect of an ability (it is). Thus we are allowed to ignore the 3” restriction and place the WW as long as it doesn’t violate the 1” stipulation of ability that you are using.
12 hours ago, Havelocke said:All of this also ignores the presence of the "in addition to" clause. The wording of that phrase makes it very difficult, in my mind, to overrule the GHB rules. The only time I could see a battletome overruling the GHB restrictions is if the conditions of the ability actually cannot coexist with the restrictions, such as:
- This faction terrain feature must be set up within 1" of another terrain feature
- All faction terrain must be set up more than 3" from other terrain features
The above is obviously not a real rule, but it's an example of what two mutually exclusive conditions could look like.
The rules don’t need to be entirely exclusive in every application to create a situation where one rules says you can do something and the other rule says you can’t. It’s not a matter of being in conflict in every situation, only that is in conflict in at least one situation.
I also think your misreading the “the additional to” clause. The “additional” restriction is not a hierarchical one: it doesn’t change which rule takes precedence when an ability effect conflicts with a core rule. If an ability said you could “set up a terrain feature 1” from models and objectives”, then “in addition to” is added to the restrictions already present: “set up a terrain feature 1” from models and objectives [and 3” from terrain]”. You couldn’t ignore it, because it doesn’t conflict with the rules as they already exist and 1.1.6 wouldn’t apply.
But if there is already a restriction regarding it’s placement relative to existing terrain, i.e. “set up a terrain feature 1” from models objective and terrain” then that does create a conflict. In this case 1.1.6 would indeed apply and you would apply the effect as written. “In addition to” simply means “add to x”, not “add to with preference over x”.
I dont know how much more clear this could get, because there are literaly dozens of examples of this working in a similar way. Not only is it a long standing precedent that battletome override core rules (even back in WHFB) the Core rule book specifically states abilities override core rules. This isn’t a vague rule interaction where we have to try and tease out what something means, it’s in the core book in black and white, RAW. The GHB is a core book and its rules come secondary to ability effects as they appear on the various warscrolls and battletomes.
The TL:DR here is that this whole discussion boils down to a conflict between a core rule and ability effect. RAW you always apply the ability effect even if a core rule says you must do something else. GHB is a core rule book, it’s rules so cover all the armies in a general way, but it doesn’t supercede the abities as written on the individual warscrolls.-
1
-
1 hour ago, Pennydude said:
Thanks for jumping down my throat and I disagree with what you say other than also wanting to see an FAQ.
We all have our opinions on rules interpretations that aren’t covered by an existing FAQ. If you’re prepared to give your opinion and reasoning, you should be prepared to have somebody disagree with it. Generally that’s what these discussions are for, and I’ve said as much elsewhere.
1 hour ago, Pennydude said:GHB rules aren't core rules. Gotrek's exception is explicitly written in his points in the pitched battle profile. Alarielle's is on her warscroll which takes precedence over CORE rules (1.6 sidebar).
GHB is a core rulebook
The TLA has his WW summoning rule explicitly written on its warscroll. Allarielle explicitly has her WW summoning rule written on her warscroll. Both have had their warscrolls updated for 3.0, I can’t think of a single warscroll that has one set of rules for matched play and one set for open play. That’’s why Warscrolls take precedence over core books.
1 hour ago, Pennydude said:I'm done here. I'm done posting. Thanks for ruining this for me.
I’ll totally own that fact that I can be forceful in my replies. Still, I do value your insight and respect your right to have an opinion. I will absolutely defend to the death your right to express your viewpoint, but I’m not going to refrain from challenging it just because you have it.
I’d hate to see you go, not least because I find your insight super valuable: I find opposing viewpoints more valuable than concurring ones. If I’ve offended you with my tone I apologize, but I’m not going to apologize for rigorously disagreeing with you.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 7/14/2021 at 9:11 AM, Pennydude said:
The GHB battlepack mentions rules that apply for your that battlepack… All rules in that apply to the game. Does it suck? Yes, but dem's the rules.
No. The rules are Battletome/warscroll rules override core rules. It’s literally been that way forever (and I’m fairly sure it’s printed in the new rule set as well although I don’t have a citation handy atm).
Think about what you arguing. Are we going to argue that Alarielle can’t retreat from combat and shoot because the core rules for matched play say “you can’t retreat and shoot”? Are we not allowed to take Gotrek as an ally because the GHB rules say you can’t have more than 400pts of allies? Are we just going to ignore all the instances in the game where a warscroll says you can do something that conflicts with the core rules?
No. And I can cite dozens of examples of this from nearly every Battletome that’s been released so far.
If the core rules say one thing (3”) and warscroll/Battletome rules say another (1”) you use the warscroll rules. Yes it says “in addition to” but we already have a range restriction in the Allegiance/warscroll ability. War still/Battletome always, always, takes precedence when two rules conflict. When there’s a question of which rule/range to use, you use the Battletome RAW. Full stop.
I’d like to point out I’d like to have an faq on this too. Mostly so people can stop arguing that Battletome rules take precedence for every army except Sylvaneth apparently.
-
1
-
-
A friend of mine posted this in regards to the Generic Spell lore and Unique character discussion. It essentially mirrors some of @Havelocke’s thinking that spell lores are given to the army and not the Unique hero’s themselves. As in, the unique heroes are not taking the spell: the army takes the spell and very hero gets to choose from the available spells:
-
4
-
-
18 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:
When did it get cleared as legal? A fellow dummy here, looking for clarification! 😛
Differing opinions on this.18 hours ago, Pennydude said:Yeah, uniques can’t take universal spell lore spells.
I believe the rule is “uniques cannot take enhancements”. But it’s been faq’d that they can take spell enhancements. So that rule isn’t entirely true. The question is whether uniques can swap an allegiance spell for a generic one. I’d say evidence is 50:50 on that.
I’d really like to see another faq on this.
-
36 minutes ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:
To be fair, at this point I feel like expecting anything other than the worst possible result from official sources is seeing yourself up for inevitable disappointment. 😛
Well I suppose that's one way you could go lol.
Although I should point out that all the weird rules interactions we've been debating (T-revs teleport, Drycha access to flaming weapons, dryads teleporting after summoning ect) all have been clarified in our favor, and just about every reveal has either benefited us a great deal, or hurt every other faction far more.
I stand by what I've ben saying for pages now: our faction is in the best place we've been since 1.0 gave us the first of the new Battletomes.-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Havelocke said:
You left out half of that rule, though. I don't think this is cut and dried.
17.0.2 - Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army. A faction terrain feature has a faction terrain warscroll (see 23.0), which will tell you how it is set up and what additional rules apply to it.
The second sentence even has the rules bold text, referring to an important game term. The question here is what the exact definition of a 'faction terrain feature' is, since the GHB rules apply to the placement of all faction terrain features.
I believe, based on the presence of the rules bold text in the second sentence, that the definition of faction terrain is terrain which has a faction warscroll, whether it is summoned or included on your army roster. I think the first sentence is better worded as a definition, though, so I think that @Mirage8112's argument also holds weight.
I also think that because the GHB passage on faction terrain is included in the battlefield set-up section it's referring specifically to setting up the battlefield with terrain before the game starts. This wording is also reflected on the warscroll itself (it specifically mentions that the restrictions apply to initial placement). I don't think the restrictions on terrain placement are meant to be indefinite. We're only one of 2 factions who have this issue (the other being maggotkin) so it's probably unlikely the GHB would address our factions unique use of scenery; it makes sense that the warscrolls themselves would detail specifically how they are to be used in game.
I means that's literally how everything else works.1 hour ago, Havelocke said:he spell already existed, though, so it's not like they wrote it from scratch. Plus, there are all kinds of rules that only apply to matched play. You could make the same argument and say 'why would they give the person who deployed first +1 to priority' if they were just going to change it in the matched play rules?' The matched play rules are designed to create a slightly different gameplay experience.
I mean, it existed yes, but it was deliberately altered. And although there are all sorts of rules that only apply to matched-play from the core book, I can't think of a warscroll that has alternate range specifications depending on what mode of game you're playing. And again, it's clear in the errata that they could have changed any of this to reflect these restrictions: but they didn't. There is no reason for GW to leave the range restriction in our BT in place after a major errata, and then create an alternate range restrictions that makes actually using them impossible.40 minutes ago, Pennydude said:Ha, helps if I read the new woods carefully. If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll). That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others.
Nice catch! And upon second reading I agree with you.40 minutes ago, Pennydude said:I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.
Despite all the previous, think how impossible that makes actually playing with woods on the new smaller table. 8 pieces of scenery means there has to be gap bigger than 8" between them to even get 1 wood down. You can pretty much forget getting a 3 wood circle down anywhere other than your deployment zone with terrain, objectives and models on the board.
Finally, as I mentioned before Battletome and warscroll rules supersede core rules. Where there is a conflict, you're supposed to use the faction specific rules. I understand that the passage in the GHB says "in addition to any other rules" but the rules in the GHB are not "an addition": it does not add a new restriction (we already have distance from terrain and objectives restriction) it creates two versions of the same restriction. The core rulebook says (specifically) in that case we are supposed to use the restrictions in our Battletome.
I understand wanting to abide by the rules, but sometimes I think Sylvaneth players are dedicated to handicapping themselves. This is the T-revs "teleporting from combat" conundrum all over again: a general wording change that Sylvaneth players are dedicated to seeing as a deliberate restriction to how our faction is supposed to play despite every indication otherwise.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Pennydude said:
Yes, the previous section is about terrain features and that normal battlefield terrain is 3" from battlefield edge, 6" from other terrain, and 3" from objectives.
And I'm starting to think I'm wrong, again(sorry, really stressful day at work and my car stopped working). If they wanted to add those restrictions in, they would have done it like the previous BR warscroll since that was pretty deliberate.Don't be sorry mate. This is new for all of us, and we're all trying to figure out exactly how the changes affect us. There's a lot of crunch to sift through. I imagine its hard to do with life stuff in the way (as I know quite well from having a 5 month old that refuses to sleep like Nagash refuses to die).
They went through and changed a bunch of warscrolls and wording in the battletomes. I imagine if they intended all WW to be 3" from terrain/objectives they would have edited it to say so. Plus, Alarielle's warscroll is literally brand new and includes the 1" from models/objectives/terrain wording. Kinda seems suspect a brand-new warscroll would have and ability wording that only applies in open/narrative play.-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:
Again, I think "Faction Terrain" is specifically for terrain that is set up before the battle starts.
From the Core rulebook:
"Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army."
Our initial wyldwood is taken as part of our army and should be include on our list (like the Bone Tithe Nexus or Charnel Throne). Because it is "deployed" like unit at the start of the game. Forests that come after are like summoned units and not actually part of our army list. -
4 minutes ago, Pennydude said:
FACTION TERRAIN
Faction terrain features must be set up more than 3" from all other terrain features and more than 3" from all objectives. These restrictions are in addition to the set-up rules in the battletome in which they appear. If it is impossible for a faction terrain feature to be set up, it is not used.
Our "terrain feature" is 3 scenery pieces. So it follows that if we cannot set up one of those three pieces, that means the terrain feature as a whole cannot be set up which means all 3 or nothing. Ugh.Again, I think "Faction Terrain" is specifically for terrain that is set up before the battle starts.
What does the section before say? Is it talking about setting up the battlefield for a match?
Games Workshop aggressively implementing new IP policy.
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Mirage8112
As an artist who occasional has had to deal with IP law, it makes sense GW would have these taken down.
An easy way to think of this, is if a person who is unfamiliar with the product buys something thinking it’s an “official” product because of design, marketing, or name, then it infringes on IP law. That purchase only occurred because the buyer thought they were buying a product from an established company, but instead were buying a product that was trading off an already established brand.