View Full Version : New Rules Update Affirms 8th Edition Rules Philosophy
The most interesting point about the new rules FAQ/Errata is that GW used the opportunity to change actual rules (not just clarifications) AND most importantly reaffirmed some rules that were already in the book. GW took this rules update as an opportunity to stand by 8th edition.
The first rules change they made (not really an errata or FAQ, but an actual complete change) is that now monstrous cavalry get the highest toughness of the 2 components instead of the riders toughness. This is a huge change for Empire Demigryphs and potentially any monstrous cav given in the future to elves.
The other important ruling they reaffirmed was that ward saves DO NOT APPLY from a rider to his monster mount or vice versa. While this rule was already in place, GW putting it in the FAQ is a clear indication that they like this rule and are going to stick with it (obviously, they don't believe cannons/war machines are too powerful).
Many other updates in this one (entombed beneath sands not required, Hurricanums don't stack, no overrun from instability, banner of rage gives increased attack to mount too, etc).
Clockwork
20-10-2012, 12:37
Brace yourselves. T4 Elves are coming.
(obviously, they don't believe cannons/war machines are too powerful).
Sadly true.
I mean, I'll give you I'd hate for ward saves to work on mounts ("Glory at my 3++ Tzeentch Dragon!" is a bad idea), but neither did they change cannonballs to not play fricking pinball with monstrous mounts. Sigh.
Still, I like the fact they're changing stuff.
Don Zeko
20-10-2012, 18:10
Brace yourselves. T4 Elves are coming.
If they give High Elves drake riders, it might be toughness 5....
Hudson Gameover
20-10-2012, 19:06
Rhinox Riders are now T5. I've got 4 of the $*@#&#$! People are going to be even more unlikely to let me play them:cries:
logan054
20-10-2012, 19:07
Brace yourselves. T4 Elves are coming.
T5 exalted heroes :D
Kalandros
20-10-2012, 20:13
Exalted BSB on Daemonic Mount with Mark of Tzeentch and a basic 4+ ward.
T5, 1+/3++
Tough to crack. O:
Killing blow still works if that ward is failed :D
logan054
20-10-2012, 20:19
I think I might have to start using my jugger as a daemonic steed, I think i'd rather have the +1T than a couple of higher WS S5 attacks.
Thank god the flying pendant lord got t4. He was too fragile...
Stupid rulechange that only serves to illustrate how poor the little monster mounts are now compared to monstrous ones.
BattleofLund
21-10-2012, 20:43
Exalted BSB on Daemonic Mount with Mark of Tzeentch and a basic 4+ ward.
T5, 1+/3++
:D
Yeah, no. Actually, no. How will you get the 1+ armour?
Yeah, no. Actually, no. How will you get the 1+ armour?
Hehe, I was about to comment that Dragonhelm/Enchanted Shield would do the job, but then I realised that 50pts of Magic items allowance doesn't do it (due to Enchanted Shield still being at a hefty 15pts).
Although saying that, it's still not actually impossible. The EotG +1armour roll will do it, if you take a normal shield. In any case, 2+/3++ T5 W2 is a pain.
Lord Inquisitor
21-10-2012, 21:29
Thank god the flying pendant lord got t4. He was too fragile...
Stupid rulechange that only serves to illustrate how poor the little monster mounts are now compared to monstrous ones.
You know what's funny about it? I reckon you could apply the new monstrous cavalry rules to monsters and it'd work just fine. Apart from a couple of oddities like the pendant that are broken anyway, it'd really solve the ridden monster problem.
Demigryph knight - T4, 3W, 1+ save.
Griffon with hero in full plate - T5, 5W, 2+ save (no barding!)
Makes a lot of sense.
Ah well, one can hope for 9th I guess.
Kalandros
21-10-2012, 23:52
Ah well, one can hope for 9th I guess.
Watch them pull the Allies crap they did for 6th ed 40k, into 9th ed rules.
I'd quit the game instantly.
Snake1311
22-10-2012, 09:21
THe power scroll errata is gone...
Gorbad Ironclaw
22-10-2012, 09:22
Why? It used to be possible and while I haven't been playing that close attention it doesn't seem to have provoked huge outcries about the mindbendingly broken combines that are now flooding the 40k tables. The worst bit of it in 40k seems to be than random and rather arbitrary nature of who get to play with who, but I really doubt it would actually make that much difference to warhammer. Except to let a few people play slightly different armies.
Daniel36
22-10-2012, 09:35
But if you have a ward save on your monstrous cavalry guy... If they fight against the mount's toughness... does that mean no ward save?
Ugh, I am confused... *I usually am though*
Lord Solar Plexus
22-10-2012, 12:20
No, it doesn't mean that, as you cannot pick out the mount. It only matters when both parts are hit/affected (templates, magic).
Hehe, I was about to comment that Dragonhelm/Enchanted Shield would do the job, but then I realised that 50pts of Magic items allowance doesn't do it (due to Enchanted Shield still being at a hefty 15pts).
Can you even take two armour items? I thought we're limited to just one from every category.
THe power scroll errata is gone...
Thats looks like a mistake. It looks like they used v1.4 as the templete for the v1.6. The only change between v1.4 and v1.5 was the WD scroll update. If they intended to remove it, they would have stated it that the WD update is no longer in effect. Not just drop it.
BattleofLund
22-10-2012, 18:56
Hehe, I was about to comment that Dragonhelm/Enchanted Shield would do the job, but then I realised that 50pts of Magic items allowance doesn't do it (due to Enchanted Shield still being at a hefty 15pts).
Although saying that, it's still not actually impossible. The EotG +1armour roll will do it, if you take a normal shield. In any case, 2+/3++ T5 W2 is a pain.
Can you even take two armour items? I thought we're limited to just one from every category.
No. The conundrum was to get 1+/3++ on a T5 Exalted Hero. We now get T5 from being mounted on a Daemonic Mount... but have to forgo barding, since the DM doesn't have it. Hence the need for EITHER Dragonhelm OR Enchanted Shield to get to a 1+ Armour Save, which in turn means we can't have the 3++ due to points restraints.
logan054
22-10-2012, 19:03
A Enchanted shield is 15pts, a dragon helm is 10pts and a 4+ wardsave is 45pts, its impossible until WoC start ignoring the old common item pricing for a exalted hero on a Daemonic steed to have a 1+ save and a 3+ wardsave, he could however take a 5+ wardsave (increased to a 4+ with tzeentch) and still be very viable, you could have something like
Exalted hero
Daemonic mount
Great weapon
Dragon helm
talisman of endurance
2+/4+ save with strength 7, certainly good enough to deal with most combat lords.
BattleofLund
22-10-2012, 19:30
Exalted hero
Daemonic mount
Great weapon
Dragon helm
talisman of endurance
2+/4+ save with strength 7, certainly good enough to deal with most combat lords.
I would rather have:
Exalted Hero
Mark of Tzeentch
Daemonic Mount
Great weapon
Talisman of Preservation
Potion of Foolhardiness
Shield
2+, 3+ in c-c/3++ save with Strength 7
and even as I type it, 'Give up attacking at Initiative 6?! Nooo...' echoes in my head. :)
logan054
22-10-2012, 19:33
I think I would rather have a charmed shield over a potion ;) but anyways, thats just me ;)
BattleofLund
22-10-2012, 19:37
I would rather have:
Exalted Hero
Mark of Tzeentch
Daemonic Mount
Great weapon
Talisman of Preservation
Charmed Shield
2+, 3+ in c-c/3++ save with Strength 7
Yeah okay, even filthier/safer!
You know what's funny about it? I reckon you could apply the new monstrous cavalry rules to monsters and it'd work just fine. Apart from a couple of oddities like the pendant that are broken anyway, it'd really solve the ridden monster problem.
Demigryph knight - T4, 3W, 1+ save.
Griffon with hero in full plate - T5, 5W, 2+ save (no barding!)
Makes a lot of sense.
Ah well, one can hope for 9th I guess.
If they do that, my Tomb King's Sphinx is going to be the best ride in town.
decker_cky
23-10-2012, 06:22
If they do that, my Tomb King's Sphinx is going to be the best ride in town.
Naw.....goblin great shaman on arachnarok. T3 increases to T6 and W3 increases to W8. Add a 4+ ward save and laugh...
I dunno. 4+ ward with 8 wounds is great. 4+ ward with toughness 8 and 5 wounds may be even more durable if there's no cannons involved. Especially because Tomb Kings can get armor.
Lance Tankmen
23-10-2012, 06:47
so does my hippogryph still get a wardsave it says so in the book...
someone2040
23-10-2012, 06:55
I think if your army book says so, then you do.
As always, army books overrule the main rules. So even though normally a ward save does not affect the mount, if your book says that it does, then it does.
Lance Tankmen
23-10-2012, 07:46
good... i love riding blood talon when i can
Lars Porsenna
23-10-2012, 19:02
Watch them pull the Allies crap they did for 6th ed 40k, into 9th ed rules.
I'd quit the game instantly.
Let me say now that if they did do 40K style allies rules in fantasy, this would be pure win for me! It would make "old style" Chaos armies possible again...
Damon.
Lord Inquisitor
23-10-2012, 20:20
If they do that, my Tomb King's Sphinx is going to be the best ride in town.
Naw.....goblin great shaman on arachnarok. T3 increases to T6 and W3 increases to W8. Add a 4+ ward save and laugh...
I dunno. 4+ ward with 8 wounds is great. 4+ ward with toughness 8 and 5 wounds may be even more durable if there's no cannons involved. Especially because Tomb Kings can get armor.
The question is, is it too good for the points?
A Tomb King on a Sphinx, for example. Remember flammable would apply to the whole model now, so a dragonbane gem or helm would be a necessity.
Let's try this. Shield, Dragonhelm, Ogre Blade, Talisman of Preservation. Warsphinx with fiery roar.
This is T8, 5W, 3+ armour, 4+ ward. It puts out 4 S7 attacks from the King, 4 S5 from the sphinx, and/or thunderstomp, thundercrush and flame breath.
However, it costs just a shade under 500 points. That's greater daemon level. It means no level 4 (you might be able to squeeze a level 3 in if you really cut down on the King's equipment). It's still 5 wounds, sure the 4+ ward makes it twice as hard to kill but it costs over twice the points!
I think it makes a ridden monster a lot more attractive... but not game-breaking either. I'd certainly consider a zombie dragon or a griffon under these rules, but I don't think ridden monsters would take over the world either, mostly because the monsters still come out of your Lord allowance.
decker_cky
23-10-2012, 20:45
I don't think it'd be a bad idea either. I think it definitely should be done for chariots, which currently sit in no-man's land as a character mount.
For characters on monsters, I think the armour save bonus should be removed at the very least, but I agree with it making sense to deal with the character percentages which really suffer from it. Perhaps taking the best of the character's or the monster's armour save, to remove auto-1+ save dragon riders?
Masters on manticores would become very enticing, as would dragon mages.
Montegue
23-10-2012, 21:37
Let me say now that if they did do 40K style allies rules in fantasy, this would be pure win for me! It would make "old style" Chaos armies possible again...
Damon.
My dwarfs would suddenly find themselves with some excellent Ogre mercenary help.
I don't think it'd be a bad idea either. I think it definitely should be done for chariots, which currently sit in no-man's land as a character mount.
For characters on monsters, I think the armour save bonus should be removed at the very least, but I agree with it making sense to deal with the character percentages which really suffer from it. Perhaps taking the best of the character's or the monster's armour save, to remove auto-1+ save dragon riders?
Masters on manticores would become very enticing, as would dragon mages.
To be fair, the armour save thing would be irrelevant, as it would cap at 1+. Although, even then not everyone would have said 1+ save - would only work if you had decent armour to start with. For example, the above Tomb King would actually have a 2+ save (5+ from the sphinx, 4+ with light armour, 3+ shield, 2+ with dragonhelm). Just don't include the +1 bonus for being on a mount in the first place.
If they made Monstrous Mounts with those rules, I'd take a monster riding lord happily. It still won't be points efficient as Lv4, but who cares? I can field my Carnosaur riding Oldblood and not feel like I'm paying literally double what I should. And that would make me a very happy man-eating dinosaur [Author's note: I am not actually a man-eating dinosaur nor do I intend to become one. Yet].
Lord Inquisitor
23-10-2012, 22:07
I was assuming the normal rules for mounts would apply so the armour of the mount wouldn't stack, but you'd get the 6+ for being mounted. So the Tomb King has light armour, dragonhelm, shield and mounted for a 3+.
For monsters with a great deal of natural armour, like dragons, adding +2 to the armour save (like MF, Juggers, etc.) seems reasonable. You could also give monsters like Griffons the option for barding.
To be fair, the armour save thing would be irrelevant, as it would cap at 1+.
It doesn't, the latest faq clarified that. Your save will still fail on a 1, but you can have better than 1+.
Lord Inquisitor
23-10-2012, 22:10
It doesn't, the latest faq clarified that. Your save will still fail on a 1, but you can have better than 1+.
Eh? p43 clearly caps armour save at 1+. Excluding dubious "army book trumps rulebook" cases like the EoTG table, has anything changed that? Edit: There is an errata to that section, but it still caps at 1+.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710122a_WARHAMMER_RULEBOOK_v1.6.pdf
Page 43, saving throws:
Change the third paragraph to “Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+. Also, remember that a roll of 1 is always a failure.
Which is the same as it was in the previous editions.
woodster17
23-10-2012, 22:19
Eurgh. I wish the VC FAQ had addressed the egregious annoyance that is people giving me grief for not allowing my Master Necromancer to be general if a Wight is in the army.
Thank god the flying pendant lord got t4. He was too fragile...
Stupid rulechange that only serves to illustrate how little the game designers grasp the concept of balance.
Fixed it for you :p
Lord Inquisitor
23-10-2012, 22:27
Page 43, saving throws:
Change the third paragraph to “Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+. Also, remember that a roll of 1 is always a failure.
Yeah, I saw that but the cap is still 1+. Just because your Captain of the Empire has a dragonhelm with full plate and a barded warhorse doesn't mean he has a 0+, it's still a 1+ because that's the cap. All the FAQ changes is that you're not prohibited from giving him the dragonhelm (which conceivably you might want for the 2+ fireward), but at no point can you get a 0+ save.
Eurgh. I wish the VC FAQ had addressed the egregious annoyance that is people giving me grief for not allowing my Master Necromancer to be general if a Wight is in the army.
Yeah, the FAQ for the VC really failed to answer any of the questions I thought were pressing. Can you use the Lore Attribute to heal characters or their mounts? Do models in supporting ranks suffer the Nightshroud's effect? Instead we got "Is a vampire with the wizard's hat your general" ... uh, yeah, we were all dying to know the answer to that one.
Not my reading . Maybe you're right in fact, but well, whatever, I can't even get to 1+, so I don't care anyway.
Montegue
23-10-2012, 22:32
I think it makes a ridden monster a lot more attractive... but not game-breaking either. I'd certainly consider a zombie dragon or a griffon under these rules, but I don't think ridden monsters would take over the world either, mostly because the monsters still come out of your Lord allowance.
Unkillable Dark Elf lord on a dragon....
Lord Inquisitor
23-10-2012, 22:36
Unkillable Dark Elf lord on a dragon....
Apart from a couple of oddities like the pendant that are broken anyway, it'd really solve the ridden monster problem.
Yes, the pendant of khaleth would be an issue, but really it's broken already.
I've not been able to find any really broken combos with any of the 8th edition books.
Montegue
23-10-2012, 22:54
Just because it's broken already doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into account in terms of game balance. We have to play with all the books, not just the three 8th ed ones. They clearly are OK with the pendant, since they didn't get rid of it on this last round of FAQs, so we can probably safely assume that it might be in our hair for a while.
Combinations like that are probably why they don't share toughness on ridden monsters.
woodster17
23-10-2012, 23:28
[COLOR="#EE82EE"]Yeah, the FAQ for the VC really failed to answer any of the questions I thought were pressing. Can you use the Lore Attribute to heal characters or their mounts? Do models in supporting ranks suffer the Nightshroud's effect? Instead we got "Is a vampire with the wizard's hat your general" ... uh, yeah, we were all dying to know the answer to that one.
Absolutely- there was actually a thread on that nonsensical idea at one point for some unknown reason but any VC general who considers the Wizarding Hat deserves to lose. The attribute issue should have been addressed, quite frustrated it wasn't tbh.
Yeah, I saw that but the cap is still 1+. Just because your Captain of the Empire has a dragonhelm with full plate and a barded warhorse doesn't mean he has a 0+, it's still a 1+ because that's the cap. All the FAQ changes is that you're not prohibited from giving him the dragonhelm (which conceivably you might want for the 2+ fireward), but at no point can you get a 0+ save.
Yup, I agree with the Lord Inquisitor here. If it caps the armour save at 1+, you're not getting a better armour save.
passwordman
24-10-2012, 07:08
Just because it's broken already doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into account in terms of game balance. We have to play with all the books, not just the three 8th ed ones. They clearly are OK with the pendant, since they didn't get rid of it on this last round of FAQs, so we can probably safely assume that it might be in our hair for a while.
Combinations like that are probably why they don't share toughness on ridden monsters.
Five 8th edition books; Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, Vampire Counts and The Empire.
Passwordman
Fear Ghoul
24-10-2012, 10:47
Yeah, the FAQ for the VC really failed to answer any of the questions I thought were pressing. Can you use the Lore Attribute to heal characters or their mounts? Do models in supporting ranks suffer the Nightshroud's effect? Instead we got "Is a vampire with the wizard's hat your general" ... uh, yeah, we were all dying to know the answer to that one.
I don't have my book on me at the moment, but I thought the Vampire Counts followed the rule that the general had to have access to Lore of the Vampires? If that is the case then a Wight King could never be the general, and I remember people complaining about the impossibility of Barrow King armies at the time of release. Also, does the Lore attribute not say that you can restore a wound to one model within 12", in which case you could heal your characters? If you can't then I've been inadvertently cheating in every game since last January.
Just because it's broken already doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into account in terms of game balance. We have to play with all the books, not just the three 8th ed ones. They clearly are OK with the pendant, since they didn't get rid of it on this last round of FAQs, so we can probably safely assume that it might be in our hair for a while.
Combinations like that are probably why they don't share toughness on ridden monsters.
If they release one broken army book it would take far longer to balance all the other books around it than to simply ignore and continue on as normal. The anomaly can then be dealt with using house rules.
woodster17
24-10-2012, 11:17
[COLOR="#EE82EE"]
I don't have my book on me at the moment, but I thought the Vampire Counts followed the rule that the general had to have access to Lore of the Vampires? If that is the case then a Wight King could never be the general, and I remember people complaining about the impossibility of Barrow King armies at the time of release. Also, does the Lore attribute not say that you can restore a wound to one model within 12", in which case you could heal your characters? If you can't then I've been inadvertently cheating in every game since last January.
You must have missed the thread when people argued that because Master Necromancer was Lvl.8 and Wight King was Lvl.9 the MN couldn't be general even though a Wight King isn't a wizard and you MUST have the LoV as you say. Honestly still get people debating that now.
I take it as a contradicting rule, and therefore I allow either to be the general, it helps themes too, and it's not like it gives an unfair advantage to the VC player either way. Not that I expect people to share my view on that subject :p
woodster17
24-10-2012, 11:48
I take it as a contradicting rule, and therefore I allow either to be the general, it helps themes too, and it's not like it gives an unfair advantage to the VC player either way. Not that I expect people to share my view on that subject :p
You allow a Wight King to be the general? How on earth do you justify that Urgat haha? That't the first army specific rule in the VC book!
Any one else notice in the Ogre FAQ that the Greedy Fist has been errata'd to only work when they hit a wizard in close combat, but the FAQ says it still works for ranged attacks?
woodster17
24-10-2012, 14:56
Yeah Moses in the rumours thread it was mentioned as a bit of a contradiction. Still going to cause some debates that unfortunately.
logan054
24-10-2012, 15:03
Yeah, I saw that but the cap is still 1+. Just because your Captain of the Empire has a dragonhelm with full plate and a barded warhorse doesn't mean he has a 0+, it's still a 1+ because that's the cap. All the FAQ changes is that you're not prohibited from giving him the dragonhelm (which conceivably you might want for the 2+ fireward), but at no point can you get a 0+ save.
The original reading never stopped you from taking the equipment, infact the original wording was so much clear, now i can't figure out if it means before or after mods, mind you WoC can have a 0+ save, eotg rule says so :P something else to consider, the juggers knights come with shields, I assume that is because before save mods they count as a 0+ save.
You allow a Wight King to be the general? How on earth do you justify that Urgat haha? That't the first army specific rule in the VC book!
I justify it with Barrow King armies being cool ;). In my own set of houserules, the number one rule is the rule of cool and no other rule can override it :p I've allowed a chaos warrior friend to use the SoC lore used by Be'Lakor for years because he liked it, for example. Of course, I later regreted my choice because it was quite a nasty lore, but heh, it made him happy, and that made the games more fun.
woodster17
24-10-2012, 15:20
I justify it with Barrow King armies being cool ;). In my own set of houserules, the number one rule is the rule of cool and no other rule can override it :p I've allowed a chaos warrior friend to use the SoC lore used by Be'Lakor for years because he liked it, for example. Of course, I later regreted my choice because it was quite a nasty lore, but heh, it made him happy, and that made the games more fun.
Good on you then! House rules are house rules, I thought you meant in a more rules driven environment. That's very generous of you, although I can see why it would be a bit of a disadvantage to have the general not as a Vampire.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.