PDA

View Full Version : So the new FAQ's are here



Khal
12-12-2011, 10:08
Hi all! GW has released new FAQ's, concerning OK, Skaven and Tomb Kings

here are the links:


http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2120192a_Ogre_Kingdoms_FAQ_Version_1_0_December_2 011.pdf

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2120193a_Skaven_FAQ_Version_1_5_December_2011.pdf

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2120194a_Tomb_Kings_FAQ_Version_1_2_December_2011 .pdf

What do you think? There's no huge nerf to skavens, but disrupted units can't use the SiN rule for their LD checks...

Rosstifer
12-12-2011, 10:14
Slaughter Masters can take Great Weapons now which is good, it was obviously missed from the book. And Ironfist's let them take Magic Armour. Which I'm not quite so keen on, but don't really mind.

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2011, 10:30
SiN finally works the way it should, Rune Maw doesn't prohibit buff spells and SMs get access to GWs :)

I have to say, GWs FAQs get better and better :)

I hope they'll tackle the uberspells and steadfast sometime in the next erratas :)

madden
12-12-2011, 10:35
See what they did to jezzails amour pierce now and not -4 save knights are safer now. And cracks call is now a template so look out sir can save my ogres.
My slaughter master is very happy now magic armour and great weapons. Don't think I'll be using a tyrant now, over all good calls.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2011, 10:37
No nasty surprises on the TK one this time thank goodness, although they managed to screw up the SC question, only answering it in relation to special rules (which was a non-question anyway) instead of the actual issue of whether or not Nekaph can take the Battle standard.

Its interesting how they are using the FAQs to counter percieved abuses, the idea of changing which wizard is your hierophant to fiddle your magic lores hadn't even occur to me.

SVKBaki
12-12-2011, 10:38
See what they did to jezzails amour pierce now and not -4 save knights are safer now. And cracks call is now a template so look out sir can save my ogres.
My slaughter master is very happy now magic armour and great weapons. Don't think I'll be using a tyrant now, over all good calls.

S6 with AP is still -4 to save if I am not mistaken.

Arijharn
12-12-2011, 10:41
S6 with AP is still -4 to save if I am not mistaken.

That's right, it's just brought the rules more into 8th edition language, although I'm pretty sure people just naturally translated.

Then again, this is warseer which has been home to some pretty inane conversations in the past imo so it's probably for the best.

shelfunit.
12-12-2011, 10:41
The skaven FAQ is both welcome and well written IMO. GW have really improved their errata turn-around time, and it is helping the game a lot.

Althwen
12-12-2011, 10:42
Q: If a unit of Skeleton Chariots has models raised into it on the
turn it has charged, are any models raised in that turn counted when
working out the Strength bonus to their Impact Hits? (p38)
A: Yes.


I would have liked them to specifically state whether this also flies for chariots in teh first rank and their impact hits.
I assume they won't benefit from it, but how much effort would it have cost to just add that clause in there as a reminder and clear distinction?

Anyway, I'm quite glad with the rulings on all.
Eventhough the Colossus not benefitting from Multiple shot (2) is a shame and makes sure that I won't even consider running him for fun.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2011, 10:47
Q: If a unit of Skeleton Chariots has models raised into it on the
turn it has charged, are any models raised in that turn counted when
working out the Strength bonus to their Impact Hits? (p38)
A: Yes.


I would have liked them to specifically state whether this also flies for chariots in teh first rank and their impact hits.
I assume they won't benefit from it, but how much effort would it have cost to just add that clause in there as a reminder and clear distinction?

Anyway, I'm quite glad with the rulings on all.
Eventhough the Colossus not benefitting from Multiple shot (2) is a shame and makes sure that I won't even consider running him for fun.

I think the rules already cover that, a model that is raised in the magic phase of a turn in which its unit charged doesn't count as charging (i.e doesn't get the impact hits) but the strength of the impact hits is based on the rank bonus at the start of the combat round so i don't see a problem.

And seriously, does anyone run a bow colossus anyway? Its far and away the worst option you can give him

musical
12-12-2011, 10:54
Wo-ho new magic item from TK FAQ:
Can models take a ward save from the Ironcurse Amulet :shifty:
against Wounds caused by the Light of Death spell?

RealMikeBob
12-12-2011, 10:56
There's no huge nerf to skavens, but disrupted units can't use the SiN rule for their LD checks...

Interesting. I've been playing it this way all along. Didn't realise I was doing it wrong :shifty:

Arijharn
12-12-2011, 10:56
Wo-ho new magic item from TK FAQ:
Can models take a ward save from the Ironcurse Amulet :shifty:
against Wounds caused by the Light of Death spell?

I actually think that's a pretty fair question, Casket's are war machines.

Falkman
12-12-2011, 10:58
Yes, but the item is named Ironcurse icon. Pretty bad of GW to get the name wrong.

Memnos
12-12-2011, 11:07
Strength in Numbers doesn't work if you're disrupted, now?

Well done, GW. That was a long time in the coming and has changed Skaven quite a lot on terrain heavy fields.

boli
12-12-2011, 11:24
Strength in Numbers doesn't work if you're disrupted, now?

Well done, GW. That was a long time in the coming and has changed Skaven quite a lot on terrain heavy fields.

tbh I thoguht that was obvious when I read the rules you don't get SiN when you are attacked on the flank as... well you have no ranks :P It doesn't change the Inspiring Pressence Leadership bubble however; although a flank charge on the General's unit will disrupt the entire army.

theunwantedbeing
12-12-2011, 11:27
although a flank charge on the General's unit will disrupt the entire army.

That's not how strength in numbers works.
It will only disrupt the general's unit....nothing else.

BaSe
12-12-2011, 11:29
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the
Greedy Fist, does it loose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

So would that include injurys from magic?

Algovil
12-12-2011, 11:31
That change is great! Do not know how people have played before, but that changes a lot, now flanking skaven really mess them up.

Yes with lots of terrain, not a football field, things are looking good!

Overall I recommend playing with lots of terrain, not magical, just ordinary forests, hills, some buildings and obstacles. some LOS blocking, some movement blocking, some both. Forests for breaking steadfast etc. Using a lot of terrain has been the biggest improvement in our small group.

Chaos Undecided
12-12-2011, 11:31
Some of the things they need to clarify really make you dispare though, do Nehekharan Undead count as undead.... yeah.

boli
12-12-2011, 11:33
That's not how strength in numbers works.
It will only disrupt the general's unit....nothing else.


Grey Seer LD7
in a unit with at leats 4 ranks +3 Ld from SiN = LD10

Charge the flank of said unit and you have 0 ranks when working out leadership (e.g. loose SiN) so the Leadership bubble of the Grey Seer is now 7 instead of 10.

Although I termed it "disrupting the entire army" that was more a descriptive term and not the actual rule... but the LD bubble will be reduced from 10 to 7.

theunwantedbeing
12-12-2011, 11:35
Although I termed it "disrupting the entire army" that was more a descriptive term and not the actual rule... but the LD bubble will be reduced from 10 to 7.

Again....that's not how strength in numbers works.
In that example the inspiring presence is always leadership 7, it is never boosted by strength in numbers.

Avian
12-12-2011, 11:38
Units only ever get to add their own rank bonus to their LD, not the rank bonus of the general's unit if he is elsewhere.

boli
12-12-2011, 11:39
Again....that's not how strength in numbers works.
In that example the inspiring presence is always leadership 7, it is never boosted by strength in numbers.

Tbh I think a disrupted General/BSb unit shouldn't give a reroll or Inspiring pressence anyways.

Thalenchar
12-12-2011, 11:43
Well, Iīm happy with these fixes. From the looks of it theyīre doing a great job of solving issues.
Also, just a page and a half errata document for the latest Armybook. How far weīve come since the Skaven book, eh? Well done, GW :)

Spiney Norman
12-12-2011, 11:48
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the
Greedy Fist, does it loose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

So would that include injurys from magic?

Yes, because most direct damage spells are considered to be ranged attacks.


Some of the things they need to clarify really make you dispare though, do Nehekharan Undead count as undead.... yeah.

As long as people keep twisting every piece of rules text that GW write to squeeze out whatever broken benefit they can they'll have to keep doing this.

Meatballer
12-12-2011, 13:47
Didn't cover my question. Maybe Ya'll can.

Dradonhide banner has the breath weapon that makes the target get asl for a turn. but if you use it in CC the other guy probably already threw attacks (because CC breath weapons are resolved at init. and ogres are Slowskis), so does it do nothing? or does the target get asl NEXT time? I guess RAW it does nothing, but I think that's lame.

Scammel
12-12-2011, 13:54
Dradonhide banner has the breath weapon that makes the target get asl for a turn. but if you use it in CC the other guy probably already threw attacks (because CC breath weapons are resolved at init. and ogres are Slowskis), so does it do nothing? or does the target get asl NEXT time? I guess RAW it does nothing, but I think that's lame.

Read the Dragonhide a tad more carefully - the ASL stays until the end of the affected unit's next turn.

Meatballer
12-12-2011, 14:02
Read the Dragonhide a tad more carefully - the ASL stays until the end of the affected unit's next turn.

Thx Bro.

Where's the fist bump icon...? :shifty:

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 14:53
Interesting. I've been playing it this way all along. Didn't realise I was doing it wrong :shifty:

I always thought it was like this all along as well :p isn't this bit about ranks also mentioned in the actual special rule in the skaven armybook? I recall it being there..





As long as people keep twisting every piece of rules text that GW write to squeeze out whatever broken benefit they can they'll have to keep doing this.

Speaking of which:


Q: Can models take a ward save from the Ironcurse Amulet
against Wounds caused by the Light of Death spell? (p40)
A: No.

Pheh, I'll use the Ironcurse Icon then :p

Metacarpi
12-12-2011, 14:59
I always thought it was like this all along as well :p isn't this bit about ranks also mentioned in the actual special rule in the skaven armybook? I recall it being there..

Me too....

Maybe I should re-read my rulebook in case I've done this with any other rules! :p

Mid'ean
12-12-2011, 15:15
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the
Greedy Fist, does it loose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

So would that include injurys from magic?

But according to the greedy fist you don't even have to wound the person. Just hit them. 2D6 hits from Laniph/Bjuna will neuter a wizard ....If playing Ogres I would feel really dirty using this in a regular game or even a tourney.

madden
12-12-2011, 15:27
True but good fun against teclis or caster vamp etc. The fist is standard on my slaughtermaster anyway so it's got even better.

Lord Inquisitor
12-12-2011, 15:27
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the
Greedy Fist, does it loose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

So would that include injurys from magic?

Yeeeah, it seems so. Not sure. Is there any precident that says that spell damage counts as "ranged attacks"? Magic missiles probably yes. Other spells - well, I guess they're attacks and they're ranged, but this feels pretty cheesy!

Avian
12-12-2011, 15:31
There is nothing that says that 'ranged attacks' are anything other than attacks with a range.

bolshie
12-12-2011, 16:37
Yeeeah, it seems so. Not sure. Is there any precident that says that spell damage counts as "ranged attacks"? Magic missiles probably yes. Other spells - well, I guess they're attacks and they're ranged, but this feels pretty cheesy!

It's no more cheesy than the big spells that target the Ogre's iniative. This is just a way to balance the playingfield.

If it catches on it will make the outcry about the OP Hellheart seem like small fry.:D

TsukeFox
12-12-2011, 20:01
Wow.... They did not even try to tone down to overpowered Ironblaster at all. WTF...!?

Did jezzails just lose their warpstone weapons on their stats?????

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 20:17
Wow.... They did not even try to tone down to overpowered Ironblaster at all. WTF...!?

It is definately very, very good, but pretty pricey for it. A dwarfcannon is half the cost.


Did jezzails just lose their warpstone weapons on their stats?????

No, unless they also lost "move or fire".

Lord Inquisitor
12-12-2011, 21:09
Wow.... They did not even try to tone down to overpowered Ironblaster at all. WTF...!?

:eyebrows: You mean apart from the fact that they confirmed that it has Slow to Fire and that Ironcurse Icons work against it? Would you prefer that Ironcurse didn't work against it and it could stand and shoot?

Seems to me every question people had about the Ironblaster got ruled against.

Adder007USA
12-12-2011, 23:00
So wait, backpeddling just a moment...

If SiN doesn't apply to general leadership, then just how are skaven getting the LD 10 bubble? That was my assumption as to why it worked.

Lord Inquisitor
12-12-2011, 23:03
The general passes on his Ld 7 to any unit in range. You then add whatever ranks the testing unit has.

So your general is Ld7 in a unit of 4 ranks, the slaves have 3 ranks and are in range of the general. The general's unit is Ld10, the slaves Ld is then is 9 (7+2).

CauCaSus
12-12-2011, 23:29
Yes, this faq hasn't changed how SiN works at all, its just that people didn't know how it worked from the beginning apparently.

The Ld bonus has always been the rank bonus of the unit and rank bonuses have always been maxed at +3 and will be lost if the unit is disrupted.

I was more shocked that people thought Skaven slaves in units 10 deep would get +9 Ld on their own!

Rosstifer
12-12-2011, 23:33
The Ogre FAQ has already been updated again, with a note from Jervis himself regarding the Ironfist/Magic Armour ruling. It doesn't change it, but he does say that it is against the spirit of the game and not his intention. He recommends that you don't use Magic Armour on your Butchers/Slaughter Masters for the reasons he's just given. Odd that he doesn't just change it, but hey ho.

Thalenchar
12-12-2011, 23:50
That is odd. All that does is widen the perceived gap between (I hate using these terms, apologies) raw and rai players. If any Ogre player now takes Magic Armour for his wizards his opponent now has a semi-legitimate reason to raise one eyebrow and say: you're not playing as the rule was intended.
I don't understand the need for that extra note at all. But apparently JJ feels strongly enough about it that it needed to be said. Ah well, all in a GW day, I guess :p

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2011, 23:57
That note is extremely annoying and ridiculous. either say it works or that it doesn't. but don't say that it works but only evil people will use it.

from now on, whenever someone takes armor on his SM, the "warhammer is just a beer and prezels game and there is only one way to play the game"-faction will frown at him. It's practically forbidden by peer pressure from a minority now...

some_scrub
12-12-2011, 23:58
That is odd. All that does is widen the perceived gap between (I hate using these terms, apologies) raw and rai players. If any Ogre player now takes Magic Armour for his wizards his opponent now has a semi-legitimate reason to raise one eyebrow and say: you're not playing as the rule was intended.
I don't understand the need for that extra note at all. But apparently JJ feels strongly enough about it that it needed to be said. Ah well, all in a GW day, I guess :p

Seconded. Warhammer already has enough problems with players "fluffy" players judging "competitive" players for stretching the rules, without that kind of behavior being encouraged explicitly by the FAQs. The FAQ has the right ruling, but then ruins it with this stupid side note.

Kalandros
12-12-2011, 23:58
Why can't they spell it "lose"? Why is everything on the internet so LOOSE.

ewar
13-12-2011, 00:26
That note is extremely annoying and ridiculous. either say it works or that it doesn't. but don't say that it works but only evil people will use it.

from now on, whenever someone takes armor on his SM, the "warhammer is just a beer and prezels game and there is only one way to play the game"-faction will frown at him. It's practically forbidden by peer pressure from a minority now...

Am I being blind? I can't see any note on the ogre FAQ from Jervis, unless I'm looking at completely the wrong thing.


No nasty surprises on the TK one this time thank goodness, although they managed to screw up the SC question, only answering it in relation to special rules (which was a non-question anyway) instead of the actual issue of whether or not Nekaph can take the Battle standard.

Its interesting how they are using the FAQs to counter percieved abuses, the idea of changing which wizard is your hierophant to fiddle your magic lores hadn't even occur to me.


What do you think of the change to the banner of the hidden dead (admittedly not new in this version, but new to me) as it makes it quite a lot more tempting for a one off gimmick in a game. Could actually fit a vaguely respectable unit in with it now (thinking horde of naked skellies with banner for 170).

The Low King
13-12-2011, 00:27
i cant see it either...

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2011, 00:50
Why can't they spell it "lose"? Why is everything on the internet so LOOSE.
LOL I noticed that too...

Am I being blind? I can't see any note on the ogre FAQ from Jervis, unless I'm looking at completely the wrong thing.

i cant see it either...
The note from Jervis was updated a few hours later with version 2.0. You're probably looking at the original version first posted. Try this link:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2120426a_Ogre_Kingdoms_FAQ_Version_2_0_December_2 011.pdf



What do you think of the change to the banner of the hidden dead (admittedly not new in this version, but new to me) as it makes it quite a lot more tempting for a one off gimmick in a game. Could actually fit a vaguely respectable unit in with it now (thinking horde of naked skellies with banner for 170).
I think the key factor was it allowed chariots to be entombed. The errata made the banner a lot more viable (much like what happened with the Rune Maw), but I've not seen it very much in competitive lists still.

The Low King
13-12-2011, 01:01
ok....so whats the problem with the note? its basically saying 'this is what the rule means' wich is the purpose of the FAQ then adding that the meaning of the rule was unintended and, whilst it gives no unfair advantage to the ogres (wich would warrent a rule change), it is unintended so is a bit sneaky.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2011, 01:31
Nothing is "wrong" other than that he's basically making us feel bad for using the FAQ answer!

Really we could figure out RAW and RAI beforehand. The designers now have given us a FAQ answer that upholds RAW with a note saying it still isn't RAI. Okay, well, this is the official errata document - if the designers have discussed it and decided that it presents no balance issues, it seems churlish to say "but it's still not the spirit of the game". They have the opportunity to actually make the letter of the rules fit the spirit of the rules with a simple errata yet Jervis puts this on us. That seems to do nothing but promote conflict between gamers if one does choose to use the FAQ answer they just gave!

It's just a bit annoying that's all.

Vepr
13-12-2011, 02:00
Either fix it and say they can't take armor (which I actually expected) or just say they can take armor and don't leave any notes sulking about the decision. I often run a giant in my list, no horde, and gnoblars with full command (just because I can and think it is funny) yet I will probably hear how I am a power gamer if I decide to give my butcher or slaughter master some magical armor because of a pouty note left by Jervis...

AmaroK
13-12-2011, 02:21
Either fix it and say they can't take armor (which I actually expected) or just say they can take armor and don't leave any notes sulking about the decision. I often run a giant in my list, no horde, and gnoblars with full command (just because I can and think it is funny) yet I will probably hear how I am a power gamer if I decide to give my butcher or slaughter master some magical armor because of a pouty note left by Jervis...

Well, ogres are not meant to be heavily armoured because of their fluff, and for sure not their mages. I guess the option for the fist was there because of fluffy reasons, and they didnīt intend to open the option for magical armours. But as far as the brb is pretty clear in that regard, I think it was either to invalidate it with a weird exception in the army book, or to make an errata and say that option wasnīt there at all. Both cases are the type of thing that GW try to avoid at all cost: invalidate their printed rules. So they went for a 3rd option: it is like it is written, but itīs not the way they wanted it to work. For me, it makes sense.

If you want to take magical armour, its ok, but donīt say you are a fluffy gamer, because you are not, at least in that regard. Nothing wrong with that at all, on the other hand. :)

Vepr
13-12-2011, 02:45
Well, ogres are not meant to be heavily armoured because of their fluff, and for sure not their mages. I guess the option for the fist was there because of fluffy reasons, and they didnīt intend to open the option for magical armours. But as far as the brb is pretty clear in that regard, I think it was either to invalidate it with a weird exception in the army book, or to make an errata and say that option wasnīt there at all. Both cases are the type of thing that GW try to avoid at all cost: invalidate their printed rules. So they went for a 3rd option: it is like it is written, but itīs not the way they wanted it to work. For me, it makes sense.

If you want to take magical armour, its ok, but donīt say you are a fluffy gamer, because you are not, at least in that regard. Nothing wrong with that at all, on the other hand. :)

I often change my lists up and like to try new things. I don't consider myself a fluffy gamer necessarily but I don't consider myself a power gamer either not that I find anything wrong with either approach. I just don't like having opponents roll their eyes at me if I decide to toss some armor on a butcher because I am allowed to. It might not be what Jervis wanted but it is not a game shattering advantage either.

I can hear it now... (Skaven playing friend) "What do you mean your slaughtermaster has magic armor! New OK are cheese and overpowered!" as he decides which abomination to move first... :p

Kevlar
13-12-2011, 02:52
So wait, backpeddling just a moment...

If SiN doesn't apply to general leadership, then just how are skaven getting the LD 10 bubble? That was my assumption as to why it worked.

SiN is a modifier for each individual unit. If the general has leadership 7 then any unit he gives commanding presence to will be leadership 10 if they have three or more ranks, and are not disrupted. If they have no ranks they only get leadership 7.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 08:48
If you want to take magical armour, its ok, but donīt say you are a fluffy gamer, because you are not, at least in that regard.

* deploys gnoblarthemed army with slaughtermaster general 'grargh the gnoblarlover', wearing a charmed shield consisting of a favourite gnoblar nailed on a shield *

"You're not a fluffy gamer!"

:shifty:



Jevis' note does have an air of pettiness about it. "Well fine, we'll have to let you do it, but we didn't intend it. Use it if you want, but you're an evil person, eeeeeeeeevil I tell ya!" Frankly if I played ogres I'd totally ignore Jervis' note. You're giving me the option, hell, you're pointing it out in a FAQ, so I'm going to use it if I want to. Also I doubt one piece of armour on a character without any other significant pieces of armour (heavy armour, barded mount etc.) is going to be a gamebreaker and I generally ignore fighting the slaughtermaster anyway and go for the rank&file ogres..

I dare say allowing them great weapons is more gamebreaking than allowing magic armour :p

Stonewyrm
13-12-2011, 09:10
I think the problem for Jervis and co. is a bit more complicated:

If they declare Ironfists not to be Armour then Tyrants/Bruisers can take Ironfist and Sheild at the same time.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour but say Slaughtermasters/Butchers can't take magic Armour then they break thier own rules.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour and allow Slaughtermasters/Butchers to take Armour then Slaughtermasters/Butchers more powerful then intended.

This answer gives every Tournament a easy way to comp (ban) Armour on Slaughtermasters/Butchers quickly and without fuss.

WarmbloodedLizard
13-12-2011, 09:19
I think the problem for Jervis and co. is a bit more complicated:

If they declare Ironfists not to be Armour then Tyrants/Bruisers can take Ironfist and Sheild at the same time.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour but say Slaughtermasters/Butchers can't take magic Armour then they break thier own rules.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour and allow Slaughtermasters/Butchers to take Armour then Slaughtermasters/Butchers more powerful then intended.

This answer gives every Tournament a easy way to comp (ban) Armour on Slaughtermasters/Butchers quickly and without fuss.

1. ironfists ARE shields
2. it's not rules but fluff that it breaks (as far as i know), so it could easily be marginalized by some imaginary ogre fluff
3. does that matter as long as SMs don't become too strong? (I don't think there will be many tournaments that ban it unless it becomes evident that it's overpowered)

Symrivven
13-12-2011, 09:40
That note is utter fail as neutral arbiters they should give us a clear answer not increase the confusion. If this continues new army books will be 80 blank pages with this short introduction:

"We as rules developers charge you money for a clear set of rules so you can enjoy our fantastic game without any disputes. Unfortunately we came to the conclusion that rules limit the game to much, so after finecast we now introduce the armybook of endless possibilities. These 80 blank pages give you, the player, the freedom to play this game in whichever way you see fit." :shifty:

Spiney Norman
13-12-2011, 09:52
But according to the greedy fist you don't even have to wound the person. Just hit them. 2D6 hits from Laniph/Bjuna will neuter a wizard ....If playing Ogres I would feel really dirty using this in a regular game or even a tourney.

Yeah, about that, I'm sure there are abuses that will result from this ruling, but Laniph/bjuna isn't really one of them. If Laniph/Bjuna is successfully cast on virtually any wizard in the game, unless you are very lucky, of have some god-like level of ward + MR on him/her, he/she is toast anyway and losing spells will be the last thing on the players mind.

Liber
13-12-2011, 10:20
I like Jervis's note.

If you're a power gamer, you're gonna ignore it, ditch your tyrant, and kit your slaughtermaster with some shiny new armor. And that's fine, its in the rules.

Otherwise play as you (and the game designers) feel is *right* and don't give magic armor to your slaughtermaster. Everybody wins.

If you're sitting there whining about how now "people are gonna judge me as some uber comptetive RAW player" well...are you or aren't you? If you aren't then you won't be judged as one because you don't take advantage of human error at other peoples expense. If you are then you shouldn't worry about people judging you, just have fun(win).

However more "RIA" players (such as myself) shouldn't complain or be bad sports when facing "RAW" type players that might take advantage of certain things. Being a good sport and a friendly opponent is of the utmost importance, no matter what.

boli
13-12-2011, 10:57
I like Jervis's note.

If you're a power gamer, you're gonna ignore it, ditch your tyrant, and kit your slaughtermaster with some shiny new armor. And that's fine, its in the rules.

Otherwise play as you (and the game designers) feel is *right* and don't give magic armor to your slaughtermaster. Everybody wins.

If you're sitting there whining about how now "people are gonna judge me as some uber comptetive RAW player" well...are you or aren't you? If you aren't then you won't be judged as one because you don't take advantage of human error at other peoples expense. If you are then you shouldn't worry about people judging you, just have fun(win).

However more "RIA" players (such as myself) shouldn't complain or be bad sports when facing "RAW" type players that might take advantage of certain things. Being a good sport and a friendly opponent is of the utmost importance, no matter what.

The same kind of thinking lead to characters on terror causing monsters with 1+ re-rollable armour saves in 4th edition. Most people even if they are just starting out will find loopholes and combinations which untill they are told otherwise will use as often as possible.

FAQ are there to provide a "yes/no" "black/white" corrections to the ambigious rules in the army books.

Sexiest_hero
13-12-2011, 11:00
I'm not a Jervis fan In fact I remember when he was eight times as hated as Mat ward. With good reason too. That said. It seemed to cause a big argument that his side lost. I can respeect the uy for explaining how they came to that conclusion. Had they ruled the other way people would complain about them breaking their own raw again. Much like sports, lots of legal thins are "frowned on" that arn't illegal.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 11:04
I like Jervis's note.

If you're a power gamer, you're gonna ignore it, ditch your tyrant, and kit your slaughtermaster with some shiny new armor. And that's fine, its in the rules.

Otherwise play as you (and the game designers) feel is *right* and don't give magic armor to your slaughtermaster. Everybody wins.

If you're sitting there whining about how now "people are gonna judge me as some uber comptetive RAW player" well...are you or aren't you? If you aren't then you won't be judged as one because you don't take advantage of human error at other peoples expense. If you are then you shouldn't worry about people judging you, just have fun(win).

However more "RIA" players (such as myself) shouldn't complain or be bad sports when facing "RAW" type players that might take advantage of certain things. Being a good sport and a friendly opponent is of the utmost importance, no matter what.

deploys gnoblar themed army again:

* deploys gnoblarthemed army with slaughtermaster general 'grargh the gnoblarlover', wearing a charmed shield consisting of a favourite gnoblar nailed on a shield *

"You're not a fluffy gamer!"

:shifty:

theshoveller
13-12-2011, 11:30
I think the problem for Jervis and co. is a bit more complicated:

If they declare Ironfists not to be Armour then Tyrants/Bruisers can take Ironfist and Sheild at the same time.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour but say Slaughtermasters/Butchers can't take magic Armour then they break thier own rules.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour and allow Slaughtermasters/Butchers to take Armour then Slaughtermasters/Butchers more powerful then intended.

This answer gives every Tournament a easy way to comp (ban) Armour on Slaughtermasters/Butchers quickly and without fuss.
Wouldn't the compromise option be that Slaughtermasters/Butchers be allowed to only take magic armour with the Shield descriptor?

bolshie
13-12-2011, 12:01
If you're a power gamer, you're gonna ignore it, ditch your tyrant, and kit your slaughtermaster with some shiny new armor.

You probably won't have a Tyrant anyway.

As for the SM armour, it offers fluff gamers the possibiliy of running a Chaos Ogre Army. Rather than remove it from the book, the designers should run with it and expand the army.

J.P. Biff
13-12-2011, 12:04
This statement:


As long as people keep twisting every piece of rules text that GW write to squeeze out whatever broken benefit they can they'll have to keep doing this.

+ this statement


Yes, but the item is named Ironcurse icon. Pretty bad of GW to get the name wrong.

= a new FAQ. :D :p

Thalenchar
13-12-2011, 12:06
I like Jervis's note.

If you're a power gamer, you're gonna ignore it, ditch your tyrant, and kit your slaughtermaster with some shiny new armor. And that's fine, its in the rules.

Otherwise play as you (and the game designers) feel is *right* and don't give magic armor to your slaughtermaster. Everybody wins.

If you're sitting there whining about how now "people are gonna judge me as some uber comptetive RAW player" well...are you or aren't you? If you aren't then you won't be judged as one because you don't take advantage of human error at other peoples expense. If you are then you shouldn't worry about people judging you, just have fun(win).

However more "RIA" players (such as myself) shouldn't complain or be bad sports when facing "RAW" type players that might take advantage of certain things. Being a good sport and a friendly opponent is of the utmost importance, no matter what.

I don't agree with most of this. If I can legally give my Slaughtermaster something like an Enchanted Shield because it's a cheap way to improve his durability somewhat and I have 5 points left I that I can't spend anywhere (let's assume I'm not using Gnoblar units), I will automatically be labelled a, in your words, uber-competitive RAW player. Apart from the fact that I despise the virtual distinction between competitive v fluff players, this totally puts a negative label on players for just doing something that they are allowed to do.

I do agree with your last sentence in that people should remain good sports and have fun. Just remember there is fun to be had from this game via different playing styles and labelling does nothing but affect things negatively.

Spiney Norman
13-12-2011, 14:06
I think the problem for Jervis and co. is a bit more complicated:

If they declare Ironfists not to be Armour then Tyrants/Bruisers can take Ironfist and Sheild at the same time.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour but say Slaughtermasters/Butchers can't take magic Armour then they break thier own rules.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour and allow Slaughtermasters/Butchers to take Armour then Slaughtermasters/Butchers more powerful then intended.

This answer gives every Tournament a easy way to comp (ban) Armour on Slaughtermasters/Butchers quickly and without fuss.

Ok, so why not use the catch-all insta win dream solution that would have zero repurcussions. Simply errata the ironfist item OUT of the slaughtermaster/butcher list entry.


This statement:



+ this statement



= a new FAQ. :D :p

It IS a little sad that the FAQ update was written almost a month before publication and yet they still failed to catch the typo, I mean, do they seriously just not proof them or what?

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 14:16
Ok, so why not use the catch-all insta win dream solution that would have zero repurcussions. Simply errata the ironfist item OUT of the slaughtermaster/butcher list entry.

Because apparently they really want the butchers/slaughtermasters to be able to have ironfists.

march10k
13-12-2011, 16:10
Its interesting how they are using the FAQs to counter percieved abuses, the idea of changing which wizard is your hierophant to fiddle your magic lores hadn't even occur to me.

That's cause you're not a cheater!


Ironcurse Amulet :shifty:


I want one! Apparently, it's a warmachine upgrade that prevents the target from taking a ward save...take that, Tz-marked blasted standard warriors!

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2011, 16:17
Well, ogres are not meant to be heavily armoured because of their fluff, and for sure not their mages. I guess the option for the fist was there because of fluffy reasons, and they didnīt intend to open the option for magical armours. But as far as the brb is pretty clear in that regard, I think it was either to invalidate it with a weird exception in the army book, or to make an errata and say that option wasnīt there at all. Both cases are the type of thing that GW try to avoid at all cost: invalidate their printed rules. So they went for a 3rd option: it is like it is written, but itīs not the way they wanted it to work. For me, it makes sense.

If you want to take magical armour, its ok, but donīt say you are a fluffy gamer, because you are not, at least in that regard. Nothing wrong with that at all, on the other hand. :)

That's not quite what he said though. If he said something tongue-in-cheek like this:

"Of course real ogre butchers won't be wearing any prissy magic armour - they trust in the Maw to protect their bellies!"

Make it clear that if you want to be fluffy then you won't do it. But what he said was he recommended we don't because it breaks the spirit of the rules. I feel that's different.

I think the problem for Jervis and co. is a bit more complicated:

If they declare Ironfists not to be Armour then Tyrants/Bruisers can take Ironfist and Sheild at the same time.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour but say Slaughtermasters/Butchers can't take magic Armour then they break thier own rules.

If they declare Ironfists to be Armour and allow Slaughtermasters/Butchers to take Armour then Slaughtermasters/Butchers more powerful then intended.

This answer gives every Tournament a easy way to comp (ban) Armour on Slaughtermasters/Butchers quickly and without fuss.
The FAQs aren't always consistent. The question could easily have been "can butchers/SMs take magic armour?" - "No". Job done. Okay that should be errata not FAQ but GW have done it many times before. Or even "Yes, but only magical shields, not armour."

WarmbloodedLizard
13-12-2011, 16:25
Because apparently they really want the butchers/slaughtermasters to be able to have ironfists.

but not maneaters :( I really think maneaters should also have ironfists. let's hope that's in the next errata: "oh, we kinda forgot ironfists and cathyan longswords, my bad, there you go!" :D

TsukeFox
13-12-2011, 16:26
I don't agree with most of this. If I can legally give my Slaughtermaster something like an Enchanted Shield because it's a cheap way to improve his durability somewhat and I have 5 points left I that I can't spend anywhere (let's assume I'm not using Gnoblar units), I will automatically be labelled a, in your words, uber-competitive RAW player. Apart from the fact that I despise the virtual distinction between competitive v fluff players, this totally puts a negative label on players for just doing something that they are allowed to do.

Umm you know a lot of other wizards would love To take charmed shields ( plague priest for one- who in 5th had light armour but now no more)

Ogre casters, as long as they cast their ogre magic, are pretty durable with self healing correct?

If one wants something durable-take a tyrant?

Now more More than ever their is no reason to take one. Whompnwhomp

WarmbloodedLizard
13-12-2011, 16:31
Umm you know a lot of other wizards would love To take charmed shields ( plague priest for one- who in 5th had light armour but now no more)

Ogre casters, as long as they cast their ogre magic, are pretty durable with self healing correct?

If one wants something durable-take a tyrant?

Now more More than ever their is no reason to take one. Whompnwhomp

it was possible to take armor since release and rarely anyone took magic armor, because fencer's blades, greedy fist and a 25pts arcane item were just better. (the newly gained GW might change this to GW+Armor, of course, but we'll see. at the very least there might be some variety)

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 16:32
Ogre casters, as long as they cast their ogre magic, are pretty durable with self healing correct?

If one wants something durable-take a tyrant?

Now more More than ever their is no reason to take one. Whompnwhomp

That might be because taking a slaughtermaster AND a tyrant is fraking expensive. You're looking at 460 points bare.

WarmbloodedLizard
13-12-2011, 16:37
That might be because taking a slaughtermaster AND a tyrant is fraking expensive. You're looking at 460 points bare.

and because tyrants lost a lot of their equipment from the last book. there were basically 3+ builds: unhittable, unwoundable, Thundermace, and other. all of them are gone/weakened.

march10k
13-12-2011, 16:39
I don't agree with most of this. If I can legally give my Slaughtermaster something like an Enchanted Shield because it's a cheap way to improve his durability somewhat and I have 5 points left I that I can't spend anywhere (let's assume I'm not using Gnoblar units), I will automatically be labelled a, in your words, uber-competitive RAW player. Apart from the fact that I despise the virtual distinction between competitive v fluff players, this totally puts a negative label on players for just doing something that they are allowed to do.

I do agree with your last sentence in that people should remain good sports and have fun. Just remember there is fun to be had from this game via different playing styles and labelling does nothing but affect things negatively.

I don't have a problem with this sort of powergaming, as GW has legalized it. The problem is when people invent novel interpretations of rules that they themselves don't actually believe are right in order to cheat out some competitive advantage, such as claiming that the green knight can charge on arrival in spite of deploying in the remaining moves phase based on the wording along the lines of "may move normally" in his entry. Unfortunately, it seems that you're wrongfully getting painted with the same "cheater" brush, not the less-disgusting "WAAC" brush.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2011, 16:46
That might be because taking a slaughtermaster AND a tyrant is fraking expensive. You're looking at 460 points bare.

Specifically the Slaughtermaster got 85 points more expensive, which all but squeezed Tyrants out.

Really Tyrants needed to be about 30-50 points cheaper. Then you'd see 'em!

However, I should point out I've been running a Tyrant and a SM with the new book at 2500 points and I have been doing fine with them.

Liber
13-12-2011, 23:35
deploys gnoblar themed army again:

* deploys gnoblarthemed army with slaughtermaster general 'grargh the gnoblarlover', wearing a charmed shield consisting of a favourite gnoblar nailed on a shield *

"You're not a fluffy gamer!"

:shifty:


Hey now, thats not fair Mr. Beard!

I specifically, and very intentionally did not use the phrase, "fluffy" but spoke of RAI and RAW.

You can be an individual that forces this toxic competitive culture on the game (as in one of the people that forces such stupid questions for FAQ's to answer like "are Tomb Kings undead really undead?") and still like fluff, and name your characters etc. "Fluffy" players and RIA are not mutually inclusive at all. One deals with rules and game mechanics, the other...fictional stories.


Not to make this too political, but the financial crash of 2008 was caused largely by immoral, greedy, hyper competitive type behavior...but nothing illegal was done. They followed the rules as written. So its up to the individual to define this as "bad" or "good" because it wasn't in fact illegal.

Understand i am not equating Warhammer to world economic practices!
Just an interesting observation, please take it as lightly as possible :)

Liber
13-12-2011, 23:38
FAQ are there to provide a "yes/no" "black/white" corrections to the ambigious rules in the army books.

And the FAQ provides it. It provides a solid "Yes, you can" answer.

The fact that there is a note reminding people that the reason the answer is a "yes" is due to rather unfortunate wording/circumstances simply gives people an opportunity to make a more personal decision when it comes to this little issue.

The Low King
13-12-2011, 23:52
i agree, FAQ's are there to answer what the right interpretaion of a rule NOT to change a rule.

The Errata then changes rules/rewords them if they unbalance the game in some way or do not make sense. The ability to weak magic armour does neither.

SunTzu
14-12-2011, 16:59
The best thing GW have done since the release of 8th Edition was nerf the Power Scroll.

They could have looked at it and gone "well, it's not unbalanced because every army has access to it, but it is ridiculously overpowerful... tell you what, we'll leave it as it is, but just bear in mind that if you take it, you're scum, worse than scum in fact". And games would have gone on being ruined by one stupid 30pt scroll that decided the entire battle.

Instead they went "whoa, hang on... we didn't realise it would be that bad when used in the real world, there's only so much playtesting we can do after all. Sorry guys, we screwed up, we have to hit the Power Scroll with the nerf stick". And the world of Warhammer players rejoiced. (Seriously, did anyone in the world prefer the old version?)

Now they need to grow a spine. They've once again noticed that something had unintended effects (albeit, nowhere near on the scale of the Power Scroll) and instead of recognising that and making a tiny minor change to do something about it, they drew attention to it, said it was completely OK, but also that it's completely not OK. At the same time. Get off the fence, GW. It's just sad that they have this unreasoning fear of improving their own game for fear, apparently, of upsetting people who (by their own judgement) aren't playing the game in the spirit it was intended anyway. FFS srsly.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 17:22
I don't think their reluctance to errata things has anything to do with upsetting powergamers at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. My understanding from interviews was that what they wanted was to avoid being in a situation where someone can't walk into a GW and buy a codex or army book off the shelf and use it right off without downloading the FAQ.

Until relatively recently* GW has only errata'd stuff if there's an actual mistake or if there's a major conflict. The reason being is that they'd rather just suffer the effects of an unbalanced unit or wargear or magic item (only of concern to competitive players, who have always been regarded as "fringe" by GW anyway) than let a newbie buy a book and find out that there's a dozen-page set of corrections they need to download. So they allow unbalanced units to persist, after all most newbies aren't going to be looking for power combos anyway.

It's nice to see GW have certainly made a real attempt to make WFB more balanced and a more aggressive approach to FAQs and errata has been most welcome and made 8th edition into the success it is now - without the rulebook errata I suspect the game would have been less well received, it fixed a huge number of issues that were barriers to smooth play.

That said, they're still not going to go in and change something that is merely a bit good or a bit rubbish though. There are a lot of things in the OK book that could have been tweaked and they just addressed the two most obvious "huh?" moments in the book - the SM lacking great weapons and the Rune Maw.

*Way back when, GW used to make changes more frequently like Crux Terminatus and soforth, but that's ancient history now.

SunTzu
14-12-2011, 17:55
I see what you're saying, but in the modern world aren't most people used to the internet? All they'd need to do is put one sentence in the introductory page (right after "Why collect an Ogre Kingdoms army?" or whatever) about "Check this address on the website for modelling and collecting articles, and the latest FAQ about this book" and there wouldn't be a problem. I don't think anyone, newbie or otherwise, would object to that. Surely?

I can see it was different when rules updates were only obtainable from White Dwarf, so you had to cart a whole magazine collection around with you just to be able to play a game, and if you hadn't purchased the relevant issues you'd have no way of knowing. I can completely understand why they moved away from that model (I think they moved too far and made WD valueless, but that's another discussion entirely). But nowadays the FAQs/errata are available on the internet... for free. So why not loosen the leash a little bit, and make actual improvements as well as just clarifications?

I mean, y'know... it's not a big deal. I don't know if the Ogre player in our gaming group will take magic armour on his wizards and it probably won't make much difference if he does (he's probably the best player in the group, specifically he's somewhat better than me, so games against him will be challenging regardless). So I'm not saying this is the end of the world or anything. Just that, well... they've seen fit to release a FAQ/errata anyway. Seems strange that they don't fully make use of it when the opportunity is right there.

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 17:56
They could have looked at it and gone "well, it's not unbalanced because every army has access to it,

my poor vulnerable-to-initiative-templates dwarfs :cries:


(Seriously, did anyone in the world prefer the old version?)

people who used it :p

Harwammer
14-12-2011, 18:02
My little theory is that the power scroll was (at least in part) changed for SoM, hence the timing of the errata. That it was changed because it was overpowered is just an assumption.

As for who misses the old version? Many Beastmen players do. Stone of Spite + Power Scroll was a popular combo! I never used it though, applying arcane items to bound items seemed outside what is intended to me.

decker_cky
14-12-2011, 18:06
I prefered the old power scroll because it let me force through the stone of spite, which meant I didn't have to deal with broken arcane items.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 18:13
I see what you're saying, but in the modern world aren't most people used to the internet? All they'd need to do is put one sentence in the introductory page (right after "Why collect an Ogre Kingdoms army?" or whatever) about "Check this address on the website for modelling and collecting articles, and the latest FAQ about this book" and there wouldn't be a problem. I don't think anyone, newbie or otherwise, would object to that. Surely?

I can see it was different when rules updates were only obtainable from White Dwarf, so you had to cart a whole magazine collection around with you just to be able to play a game, and if you hadn't purchased the relevant issues you'd have no way of knowing. I can completely understand why they moved away from that model (I think they moved too far and made WD valueless, but that's another discussion entirely). But nowadays the FAQs/errata are available on the internet... for free. So why not loosen the leash a little bit, and make actual improvements as well as just clarifications?

I mean, y'know... it's not a big deal. I don't know if the Ogre player in our gaming group will take magic armour on his wizards and it probably won't make much difference if he does (he's probably the best player in the group, specifically he's somewhat better than me, so games against him will be challenging regardless). So I'm not saying this is the end of the world or anything. Just that, well... they've seen fit to release a FAQ/errata anyway. Seems strange that they don't fully make use of it when the opportunity is right there.
Oh, I'm not saying I agree with GW's policy or commenting on whether or not I think it actually works - I'm just pointing out why they hold the policy they do. Personally, I would love to see online living rulebooks with the errata pasted right in and regular updates to all books including points values and soforth. The game would thrive. But GW would have to give away "free" rulebooks for that to happen so it basically isn't going to happen, whether or not it'd improve sales of models. That's the subject for another thread however.

As noted earlier though, it seems from the little designer's note (which is quite uncharacteristic) that Jervis might agree with you that it should just have been changed.

To be honest I never understood why they gave them the options for Ironfists in the first place. None of the models have them and they don't seem very "butchery" whereas XHW and great weapons are cool for "butchers". Particularly since even maneaters don't have the option for ironfists.

bolshie
14-12-2011, 18:27
my poor vulnerable-to-initiative-templates dwarfs :cries:

Get a Deathfist.

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 18:33
Get a Deathfist.

A whatnow? Does that mean 'I don't care' or something in that slang you kids be using? :p

bolshie
14-12-2011, 18:47
A whatnow? Does that mean 'I don't care' or something in that slang you kids be using? :p

It's the fashionable way for low init armies to avoid those spells ;)

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 18:53
Is that the term we've settled on now? I still think it should be a Greedy Fister.

SunTzu
14-12-2011, 18:55
my poor vulnerable-to-initiative-templates dwarfs :cries:

Pfffffffffft, as if anyone cares about them! :p

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 19:15
It's the fashionable way for low init armies to avoid those spells ;)


Is that the term we've settled on now? I still think it should be a Greedy Fister.

What is 'it' :p Greedy fist is Ogre only, I'm talking about dwarfs :)

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 19:19
I guess if you can't take a greedy fist then there's just no hope of you being fashionable then. ;)

Oh wait, you play Dwarfs. Not much hope of that to begin with. :p

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 19:39
Bling-bling is always fashionable ;)

Vepr
14-12-2011, 22:03
my poor vulnerable-to-initiative-templates dwarfs :cries:



people who used it :p

Wait... someone has actually gotten a spell off against those little bastiges? I generally count on no spells going off against dwarves and I am happily surprised when one occasionally sneaks through... :p

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 23:30
Irresistible force ;)

What you are quoting is a response in relation to the unnerfed powerscroll.

Korraz
14-12-2011, 23:40
I guess if you can't take a greedy fist then there's just no hope of you being fashionable then. ;)

Oh wait, you play Dwarfs. Not much hope of that to begin with. :p

Preposterous! Everybody knows that Dwarfs possess the greates fashion sense known to the Warhammer World! The Old Ones specifically designed them to be as fashionable as possible!


And yes, it's generally a good plan to just throw as much dice as possible at a single spell and suck the IR up against Dwarfs, instead of casting loads of small ones that won't get through anyway.

Vepr
14-12-2011, 23:49
Irresistible force ;)

What you are quoting is a response in relation to the unnerfed powerscroll.

Irresistible force the beautiful double edged sword... Sadly with my ogres against dwarves it is usually "Ha! I was finally able to buff my own troops...Poof!!! and there goes my slaughtermaster into the magic ether" :cries: :p

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 23:55
instead of casting loads of small ones that won't get through anyway.

Heh, yeah.. I tried it with my ruminations-slann who typically enlargers my pool by about 80% and got only 2-3 spells through in the game..

though spectacularly poor winds of magic and breaking concentration on the very first spell 2 or 3 times don't help either..

Thruster
15-12-2011, 01:57
Skaven FAQ are 9 pages now? wow....

woodster17
15-12-2011, 02:18
Skaven FAQ are 9 pages now? wow....

Half by book is invalidated...

Lord Inquisitor
15-12-2011, 02:24
It was 9 pages in 7th too but they saved some space by simplifying things like the doom wheel via errata. Now we're back to nine again.

It was Jeremy's first book and boy did it show.