PDA

View Full Version : Highlights of new FAQs.



Artiee
23-04-2013, 12:37
Highlights of new FAQs.

Main
- Rolling 1 on shooting and CC To Wound always Fails.
- Clarified if 1st rank is included in Steadfast.
- :( Changed the ruling that stopped Overrun for Crumble/Warmachines/Rats, etc. (stupid)
- No longer KB a character on Monster, Chariot, MC. Only HKB.
- Added General IP to the allowed to be used for spells like Spirit Leech and Mindrazer.


DoC:
- Units leadership can not be reduced below 0.
- Warpflame are not Flaming Attacks.

WoC:
- Hellcannons and Daemon Princes count as Daemons from the Lore of Light Lore.
- Warpflame are not Flaming Attacks.
- Mark of Khorne only works on the rider.

OnG: :(
- Hand of Gork spell must place a NG unit wiht fanatics must 1st place the 8" away to release the fanatics and then continue.
- HoG can not move a unit out of a building.

Jim
23-04-2013, 13:17
I'd also add the Empire Detachment change:

Page 30 – Army Special Rules, Detachments.
Add the following after the second paragraph:
‘Whether or not a Detachment is Steadfast is determined by
their Regimental unit. This means that if a Regimental Unit is
either not engaged in combat itself, or is engaged in combat
and is Steadfast, then all of its detachments are Steadfast, even
if fighting an enemy with more ranks. If the Regimental Unit
is engaged in combat and is not Steadfast, then none of its
detachments can be Steadfast, even if fighting an enemy with
less ranks

Let the hijinks ensue!

Jim

RanaldLoec
23-04-2013, 13:25
Some of these answers have changed from the last faqs.:eek:

When I mean changed I mean they give the completely opposite answer to the last faq.:confused:

Sigh and I have to read all the new ones to catch the changes.:cries:

Lord Solar Plexus
23-04-2013, 14:04
I'm giving up on that. This is turning into work.

bigbiggles
23-04-2013, 16:30
How come they can't make up their mind on how spirit leech and mind razor are supposed to work. It should be leadership written in army book, with modifiers like doom and darkness. The general cheering you on, or yelling at you to do better should not have an effect on mind war type spells

Kayosiv
23-04-2013, 17:27
Very saddened by the lack of overrun on things that died due to crumble tests. Raise dead was a great spell... for a little while. Now it remains useful but has far less tactical applications.

thesoundofmusica
23-04-2013, 18:14
How come they can't make up their mind on how spirit leech and mind razor are supposed to work. It should be leadership written in army book, with modifiers like doom and darkness. The general cheering you on, or yelling at you to do better should not have an effect on mind war type spells

Is that what you think "unmodified" should be, really?

Saldiven
23-04-2013, 18:25
Very saddened by the lack of overrun on things that died due to crumble tests. Raise dead was a great spell... for a little while. Now it remains useful but has far less tactical applications.

It's still very good, it just require more thought than just conga-lining the summoned unit in front of the opponent's unit you want to block.

You can still summon the unit and place it at such an angle and such a position that it forces the charging unit to either overrun into a bad position or reform where they are.

kramplarv
23-04-2013, 19:00
Is that what you think "unmodified" should be, really?


I think unmodified is a crappy rule to those spells. It would have been better to just use leadership. With modifiers.

Iraf
23-04-2013, 19:08
Is that what you think "unmodified" should be, really?

I think Unmodified LD should be the models own LD listed in the book, without any modifiers or substitutions. But my opinion on the matter is not an opinion that matters.

Orion_76
23-04-2013, 21:32
The thing is now you not only get to use use IP but also discipline banner +1 Ld if the general has it AND the -3 LD death lore spell can be thrown into the mix as well, since that faq is gone. Good thing HE get a new book soon or else: level 4 mage with death lore and Book of Hoeth casting both spells the same turn..... that's ugly.

Lord Inquisitor
23-04-2013, 21:48
I refuse to accept that "unmodified" means "modified" whatever has been omitted from the FAQ.

Saldiven
23-04-2013, 22:14
I refuse to accept that "unmodified" means "modified" whatever has been omitted from the FAQ.

You ever get the feeling that the people writing the FAQs don't even read the rule book first?

Lord Inquisitor
23-04-2013, 22:27
Yeah. Another example, Ward writing "unmodified Ld" for steadfast/stubborn in the daemonic instability rule. Given that the rulebook originally had steadfast incorrectly being "unmodified" and they changed that in errata, you wouldn't think he'd get it wrong again with instability. The FAQ also mentions "unmodified" Ld with regard to steadfast.

I think they need to have a critical look any time they use the word "unmodified"...

169488

AMWOOD co
23-04-2013, 22:58
They finally settled Mark of Khorne! Finally! It only took them almost three YEARS, but they finally resolved it. Now the extra for the Warshrine makes sense (though the 'riders only' for Bloodcrushers is redundant - oh well, it's done!).

theunwantedbeing
23-04-2013, 23:05
They finally settled Mark of Khorne! Finally! It only took them almost three YEARS, but they finally resolved it. Now the extra for the Warshrine makes sense (though the 'riders only' for Bloodcrushers is redundant - oh well, it's done!).

What do you mean 3 years, the latest book has only been out a few months :angel:........

The bearded one
23-04-2013, 23:15
I'd also add the Empire Detachment change:

Page 30 – Army Special Rules, Detachments.
Add the following after the second paragraph:
‘Whether or not a Detachment is Steadfast is determined by
their Regimental unit. This means that if a Regimental Unit is
either not engaged in combat itself, or is engaged in combat
and is Steadfast, then all of its detachments are Steadfast, even
if fighting an enemy with more ranks. If the Regimental Unit
is engaged in combat and is not Steadfast, then none of its
detachments can be Steadfast, even if fighting an enemy with
less ranks

Let the hijinks ensue!

Jim

.... huh? If the regiment isn't in combat the detachment is steadfast? Well gee, I have no idea how anyone might exploit that :eyebrows:

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 01:09
The detachment change leads to some amusing situations in the disadvantage direction too. A 10 rank parent unit is in combat with an 11 rank unit. Meanwhile, its detachment (2 ranks) loses combat to a unit with 4 ranks. The detachment is not steadfast because the parent is not steadfast against a totally different unit than the one the detachment lost to.

The bearded one
24-04-2013, 01:14
The detachment in your example wouldn't be steadfast if it were an independant unit either ;) If you swap the ranks around (4-rank detachment) your example situation would have more impact ;)

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 01:18
Detachment can still be steadfast on it's own right can't it?

edit: Weird...just reread that. That's some odd rule writing.

Lord Solar Plexus
24-04-2013, 07:20
And it's only the third attempt to make it work. Transferral of a rule based on multiple conditions should simply never have happened. Next time they should perhaps use round wheels from the start.

T10
24-04-2013, 08:04
It seems to me that it would be simpler to remove the Steadfast benefit altogether from the Detachment rules. It is obvious that the writer thought of Steadfast as a special rule and included it by mistake.

-T10

Avian
24-04-2013, 08:39
I think Unmodified LD should be the models own LD listed in the book, without any modifiers or substitutions. But my opinion on the matter is not an opinion that matters.
The WoC / DoC books are good examples of making a spell like that work. There the victim takes a Ld test at 3D6 and if failed they take a wound. Doesn't cause any oddities.



It seems to me that it would be simpler to remove the Steadfast benefit altogether from the Detachment rules. It is obvious that the writer thought of Steadfast as a special rule and included it by mistake.
The least nonsensical way of going about it would be to say that if a parent unit is in combat and is Steadfast, all its detachments in the same combat are also Steadfast. Again avoids oddities.

b4z
24-04-2013, 10:23
So can someone provide me a clear answer on how you resolve spells like Spirit Leech with regards to Unmodified Leadership please? ;) ;)

Kalandros
24-04-2013, 10:34
So can someone provide me a clear answer on how you resolve spells like Spirit Leech with regards to Unmodified Leadership please? ;) ;)

You divide by 0.

jtrowell
24-04-2013, 10:50
The WoC / DoC books are good examples of making a spell like that work. There the victim takes a Ld test at 3D6 and if failed they take a wound. Doesn't cause any oddities.



The least nonsensical way of going about it would be to say that if a parent unit is in combat and is Steadfast, all its detachments in the same combat are also Steadfast. Again avoids oddities.


Another solution could have been to say that a detachment can use the number of ranks of his parents to determine if it is steadfast, this would work the same as your solution when both are in the same combat, and if a detachment is engaged separately, then the presence of his regiment would help them to hold , knowing that large reinforcement are near.

Mr_Rose
24-04-2013, 10:54
You divide by 0.
Oh no…!
169503
*plink*

Avian
24-04-2013, 11:00
That would still be very abusive. At the moment you could have a single Archer by himself Steadfast on a Ld9 with a re-roll just because the parent unit isn't in combat. Your suggestion doesn't do much to fix that problem and still heavily promotes non-engagement, akin to Dire Wolf conga lines.

ArtificerArmour
24-04-2013, 12:17
You cant be steadfast outside of combat ;) a unit can only be steadfast, which grants stubborn, if its in combat,

Orion_76
24-04-2013, 14:06
You cant be steadfast outside of combat ;) a unit can only be steadfast, which grants stubborn, if its in combat,

This is exactly what I'd always thought. No unit in the game has the steadfast rule; they acquire it once in combat... but apparently GW thinks otherwise.

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 17:06
So can someone provide me a clear answer on how you resolve spells like Spirit Leech with regards to Unmodified Leadership please? ;) ;)

There's a basic rule saying unmodified leadership is leadership without effects from outside the unit.

There's an advanced rule saying spirit leech can use the general's inspiring presence.

Advanced overrules basic rule, so spirit leech can use inspiring presence. For spirit leech, the only difference between leadership and unmodified leadership is that outside effects like enemy banners lowering leadership have no effect.

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2013, 17:42
So can someone provide me a clear answer on how you resolve spells like Spirit Leech with regards to Unmodified Leadership please? ;) ;)

Here's my best attempt, based on the FAQs as they stand.

When you cast sprint leech, both caster and target use their respective unmodified Ld.

"Their own Ld" includes any substitutions made to their Ld. So you can substitute their Ld for the highest in the unit, or for the general's inspiring presence. Presumably any other situation where Ld is substituted due to a spell or other rule would also count.

"Unmodified" is a mess. The "what is your unmodified Ld?" question explicitly states it cannot be IP and the "spells and Ld" question explicitly states that it can be IP. I guess the specific trumps the general, so my best guess for how it works is this:

Apply any substitutions to Ld including inspiring presence but without any modifiers.

So a Ld7 wizard in a unit with a Ld8 character under the effects of Doom and Darkness (-3Ld) in range of a Ld9 general who is in a unit with the standard of discipline (+1Ld) would apply the highest unmodified substituted Ld. In this case Ld9.

Avian
24-04-2013, 18:06
The really bizarre part is that they don't actually say anywhere that unmodified Leadership can't be modified. ;)

Iraf
24-04-2013, 18:46
The really bizarre part is that they don't actually say anywhere that unmodified Leadership can't be modified. ;)

That's kinda the same argument that Compulsory Movement isn't Compulsory. ;)

Avian
24-04-2013, 19:03
I'm not arguing that it isn't, my point is that the answers only deal with whose Ld you get to use when testing, but not what it means that Leadership is unmodified. :p Were you around for the discussion about Strength in Numbers and unmodified Ld a while back?

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 19:57
My view is that the current state of the FAQs allows SiN, banner of discipline, etc.., just not external modifiers (manbane standard, etc..).

Avian
24-04-2013, 20:59
That's only semi-unmodified Leadership, then.

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2013, 21:16
My view is that the current state of the FAQs allows SiN, banner of discipline, etc.., just not external modifiers (manbane standard, etc..).

On what basis have you decided that unmodified Ld should allow modifiers? Furthermore, how have you decided which modifiers to apply?

Unmodified means with no modifiers, surely. I guess replacements of your Ld are allowed per the FAQ but I'm going to stick with "no modifiers". When you reach a point where unmodified = modified, whatever argument has brought you there, something is wrong.

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 22:48
On what basis have you decided that unmodified Ld should allow modifiers? Furthermore, how have you decided which modifiers to apply?

Unmodified means with no modifiers, surely. I guess replacements of your Ld are allowed per the FAQ but I'm going to stick with "no modifiers". When you reach a point where unmodified = modified, whatever argument has brought you there, something is wrong.


Q: When taking a Leadership test, sometimes you have to take it on
your unmodified Leadership. What is your unmodified Leadership?
(p10)
A: Your unmodified Leadership is the highest Leadership
characteristic in the unit. So the Leadership from any
characters in the unit itself (but not from outside the unit, from
Inspiring Presence for example) with a higher Leadership can
be used unless specifically stated otherwise.

Highest leadership characteristic is the normal leadership value you use (eg, modified). Actually...I did misread on the outside modifiers. Rereading that FAQ, looks like aside from things like bretonnian peasants using nearby knight leadership, for spirit leech, unmodified leadership = leadership.

BTW, because of that "unless stated otherwise", the spirit leech FAQ is consistent with the unmodified leadership FAQ.

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2013, 22:52
That FAQ, despite what has been omitted from an earlier version, still does not anywhere tell you to include modifiers in unmodified Ld.

It tells you to use the highest characteristic in the unit and the other FAQ says this can be IP. This is consistent with your Ld value being substituted not being modified (which I think is dumb, but still). So peasants would be able to use a knight's Ld as their Ld characteristic, but modifiers would still not apply.

This whole thing is begging the question why did the spell say "unmodified" in the first place?

(And the "unless stated otherwise" really should apply to the rules and errata not to FAQs. FAQs are meant to clarify unclear rules not act as new rules.)

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 22:54
Does the highest leadership characteristic in a unit reflect modifiers or not?

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2013, 23:01
I would assume not. Any time you apply a modifier that's surely no longer unmodified Ld!

decker_cky
24-04-2013, 23:09
I'm saying the term, which is used consistently throughout the rules of warhammer. Unmodified leadership is a defined term as explained in the FAQ. That definition includes a term of art that throughout warhammer includes modifiers. Therefore, the definition includes modifiers.

This interpretation also avoids the strange situation of dealing with a general with modified leadership who has a modified inspiring presence. A target of spirit leech is using the general's leadership - can he use the modifiers from the general?

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2013, 23:19
Show me where the definition includes modifiers. It doesn't specify either way.

If "unmodified" means for spirit leech "your Ld, including all substitutions such as other models in the same unit and IP and including all modifiers" ... what exactly is the difference between "unmodified" and normal Ld?

You cannot build a logical argument that will allow me to accept "unmodified" to mean "modified". It's either unmodified or it is not. I can mentally break it down into "substitutions" and "modifiers" and say that you can have unmodified substitutions. But you can't have unmodified modified - it's a direct contradiction.

Again, what's the point of saying "unmodified" in the first place if it includes modifiers? It's gibberish.

VampireCountJP
25-04-2013, 02:08
Guys what about the change to the impact hits. No look out sir rolls allowed. Impact hits are classified as unusual shooting attacks please someone correct me if I am wrong. Normally if there is a character in a unit they get Los rolls if at least 5 or more rank and file models not incl champion. Does this mean that you get no Los rolls for characters if hit by chariots, hell pits charging etc. What else am I missing. Thanks in advance guys

Avian
25-04-2013, 06:06
Impact hits aren't classified as shooting hits. The previous FAQ was making stuff up.

Lord Solar Plexus
25-04-2013, 07:40
That would still be very abusive. At the moment you could have a single Archer by himself Steadfast on a Ld9 with a re-roll just because the parent unit isn't in combat.


That is pretty much the point of the rule - to allow an otherwise non-SF unit to be SF. Whether that's one archer or 5 Free Company is situational and besides the point. In fact, it is already quite popular.


You cant be steadfast outside of combat ;) a unit can only be steadfast, which grants stubborn, if its in combat,

That's hotly debated, ArtificerArmour. On W-E, some argue in favour of the "Persistent SF" theory: If more ranks than enemy = SF. 1+ rank > 0 ranks, ergo SF.

The bearded one
25-04-2013, 09:14
Man, these FAQs are turning into a labour intensive study of their own... I'll just not dabble in 'unmodified leadership' shenanigans with my own army and spells and meekly follow whatever someone else says on it, this is turning into too much work and conjecture....

Lord Inquisitor
25-04-2013, 12:03
The spirit leech one is intensely frustrating because the FAQs have done nothing but confuse matters. The spell is simple - take the Ld of each model without modifiers, add a D6 and that's it. Really, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Asensur
25-04-2013, 14:09
The spirit leech one is intensely frustrating because the FAQs have done nothing but confuse matters. The spell is simple - take the Ld of each model without modifiers, add a D6 and that's it. Really, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Do not want to repeat myself, but here I go:


Q: Do units benefit from their General’s Inspiring Presence for the
purposes of spells that use Leadership, such as Spirit Leech or
Okkam’s Mindrazor? (p107)
A: Yes.
Spirit Leech
"...and add their respective unmodified Leadership values."

Okkam's Mindrazor
"Models in the target unit use their Leadership instead of..."

One example with Leadership, and another one with unmodified Leadership.

Seems like they choose Spirit Leech wrong as an example of Inpiring Presence taking effect on Ld with spells.


My final guess is that unmodified Leadership stays the same. And the spirit Leech example was due to not reading the rules of the spell correctly when they were writting the FAQ.

yeknoMehT
25-04-2013, 15:47
I'm not sure if there is much to this, but I thought I'd throw it out there. The FAQ which says you cannot use IP for unmodified ld test is different to the spirit leech/mind razor FAQ in that the first refers to Ld tests using unmodified Ld, the other to a different use of unmodified Ld.

We naturally expect the use of the phrase to be referring to the same thing in both cases, but perhaps we should interpret it literally as two separate concepts: "Ld test using unmodified Ld" and "other use of unmodified Ld".


This solves the contradiction, albeit in a somewhat clumsy fashion (but it's not the first time the language of warhammer rules has been clumsy and unintuitive!)


As I said, I'm not saying this is the solution, but it might be a solution.

dementian
25-04-2013, 19:13
Curious how would these two FAQ interact?

"Q: Does Queek’s “Trophy Heads” special rule mean that he could
automatically wound an enemy (because he needs a 2+ and receives a
+1 modifier to the dice)? (p72)
A: Yes."

"Page 51 – Close Combat, Roll To Wound.
Add the following sentence to the end of the fourth paragraph:
‘A To Wound roll of a 1 on a D6 always fails, regardless of any
dice modifiers."

I assume that GW just failed to erase the FAQ from the Skaven book when they updated but if it is still in the FAQ does it still stand?

bigbiggles
25-04-2013, 19:13
Is that what you think "unmodified" should be, really?

i think Unmodified should be leadership written in profile. No other characters in units, no General IP, no spell modifiers.

From a fluff standpoint I would like it to be leadership written in profile with modifiers for spells and items. But it seems like GW went the entire other extreme though

Iraf
25-04-2013, 20:25
Curious how would these two FAQ interact?

"Q: Does Queek’s “Trophy Heads” special rule mean that he could
automatically wound an enemy (because he needs a 2+ and receives a
+1 modifier to the dice)? (p72)
A: Yes."

"Page 51 – Close Combat, Roll To Wound.
Add the following sentence to the end of the fourth paragraph:
‘A To Wound roll of a 1 on a D6 always fails, regardless of any
dice modifiers."

I assume that GW just failed to erase the FAQ from the Skaven book when they updated but if it is still in the FAQ does it still stand?

It still stands. All bow to the might of Queek.

decker_cky
25-04-2013, 22:20
It still stands. All bow to the might of Queek.

Except of course when he's fighting dwarfs. Them he can't auto wound. :P

dementian
25-04-2013, 23:31
Except of course when he's fighting dwarfs. Them he can't auto wound. :P

Why would he not? He normally needs a 2+ to wound dwarves so the same wording would be used

theunwantedbeing
26-04-2013, 00:01
Why would he not? He normally needs a 2+ to wound dwarves so the same wording would be used

That 2+ to wound dwarves doesn't get modified in a challenge, says so in his rules.
So that would be why.

dementian
26-04-2013, 01:15
That 2+ to wound dwarves doesn't get modified in a challenge, says so in his rules.
So that would be why.

Touché, thats the problem with cliff notes from Army Builder

Wilhelm das Blutige
29-04-2013, 20:37
You ever get the feeling that the people writing the FAQs don't even read the rule book first?

They don't need to. In a lot of cases the answer to the question is either yes or no, so the only rule they need to know is "Roll a die: 1-3=Yes, 4-6=No".

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2013, 20:58
Touché, thats the problem with cliff notes from Army Builder

Almost as if they weren't designed to be used as rules references......