PDA

View Full Version : Skaven Faq?



Purge the Heretic
12-02-2010, 01:45
Do Fantasy Faq's generally take longer? cause SW's was out by now...or is the skaven codex just more confusing?

Stumpy
12-02-2010, 02:27
I would say its both. Fantasy doesn't get as much attention, and if they did the skaven faq properly it would be about 10 pages.

Ultimate Life Form
12-02-2010, 02:40
and if they did the skaven faq properly it would be about 10 pages.

Conclusions:

1) They won't adress half of the issues.

2) The ones they do address will be so horribly worded and illogical that it's probably better to stick with the Army Book.

3) FAQs are a waste of time.

Precedents: Too many.

Condottiere
12-02-2010, 03:50
Six months is usual.

bert n ernie
12-02-2010, 04:00
I saw the list that Dire Wolf(or whatever their name was) put together, and even though I think it hit on some interesting points, it hit a few that shouldn't be there if people had common sense, and missed out on something I've really been wanting to find out the answer to.
ULF, I really don't think it will be that bad. They can't mess up the explanaion of storm banner...again :(

tezdal
12-02-2010, 08:22
Meh, if you want a FAQ go play Space Marines, us fantasy fellers like our rules ambiguous and unbalanced.

Zarroc
12-02-2010, 12:19
Meh, if you want a FAQ go play Space Marines, us fantasy fellers like our rules ambiguous and unbalanced.

^^ LMAO so so true

The SkaerKrow
12-02-2010, 12:35
There's a new version of Warhammer coming out this Summer, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a Skaven 7th Edition FAQ.

Avian
12-02-2010, 14:09
Supposedly the FAQ was used to make rulings at the GT final last weekend, so it's close to ready, at least.
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68765

Poseidal
12-02-2010, 14:19
I don't like the implications for the Doomwheel (it's pretty ridiculous if it does through as is; no declarations, can hit things out of LOS).

Otherwise most of those look reasonable.

The SkaerKrow
12-02-2010, 19:52
Supposedly the FAQ was used to make rulings at the GT final last weekend, so it's close to ready, at least.
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68765
No kidding? Wow, good on GW for not letting us hang for the next five months with a semi-compatible set of rules. That's more than I expected from them.

Skyros
12-02-2010, 19:55
The doomwheel needs about a whole page of FAQ.

Do you have to declare your direction then roll the dice?

Must you move the full distance?

Must it move in straight lines?

Can it really charge people out of LOS at the start of a turn?

Can it really move around and charge people in the flank if it started in their front arc?

What is its unit strength?

Do the people being charged get a charge reaction?

etcetc

The Skaven rule book is full of stuff that needs FAQ attention, but perhaps nothing as much as the doomwheel.

I don't necessarily think this means the Skaven book is shoddily written, they just have a lot of 'special rules' and 'unique gadgets'.

Stumpy
13-02-2010, 08:40
I would cheerfully say its shoddily written. Its as if it was written by a fan (and not a good one) instead of a designer. The army contains more special rules than Vampires and Lizardmen put together.

Astafas
15-02-2010, 01:11
see the assumption is that we fantasy players are grown ups who can negotiate on ambiguous rules and not be complete pricks because we like ranks and flanks and actual strategy rather than "boom I roll 48 dice".

Hence they arent in a rush...

Lord Inquisitor
15-02-2010, 01:20
The doomwheel needs about a whole page of FAQ.

Do you have to declare your direction then roll the dice?

Must you move the full distance?

Must it move in straight lines?

Can it really charge people out of LOS at the start of a turn?

Can it really move around and charge people in the flank if it started in their front arc?

What is its unit strength?

Do the people being charged get a charge reaction?

etcetc

The Skaven rule book is full of stuff that needs FAQ attention, but perhaps nothing as much as the doomwheel.

I don't necessarily think this means the Skaven book is shoddily written, they just have a lot of 'special rules' and 'unique gadgets'.

Yeah, the FAQ for the Doomwheel pretty much boils down to "Um, how does the Doomwheel work?"

Personally, I think it needs to declare charges and follow all charging rules not excepted by its own rules, but that's not how it looks at first glance, nor is it how many people play it.

Condottiere
15-02-2010, 09:37
see the assumption is that we fantasy players are grown ups who can negotiate on ambiguous rules and not be complete pricks because we like ranks and flanks and actual strategy rather than "boom I roll 48 dice".

Hence they arent in a rush...Part of the problem is that because we don't want to be seen as Pricks and would like the game to continue smoothly, an FAQ allows us to defer to an authority other than our interpretation; there'd been many time when I just made a minor protest and then just said forget it, only to keep the game moving, once I realized the opponents had a set interpretation of a particular rule and I had nothing to back mine up (at least nothing substantially more than theirs).

xxRavenxx
15-02-2010, 11:04
(at least nothing substantially more than theirs).

I would say that is the problem exactly. Ambiguous rule = 2 ways to read it.

Immediately you have a problem, as generally the person with said rule wants the more powerful reading, and their opponent wants the other.

Check the beastmen ambush for a great example:- Do you get one ambush unit per on table unit you take, or do you just take one big on table unit, and ambush with 20? I disagree with version 2, but sadly, nothing in the book says anything in favour of either way of reading it.

Condottiere
15-02-2010, 11:39
I remember trying to cite Warseer, but wilted under the derisive stares.

Skyros
15-02-2010, 20:56
Yeah, the FAQ for the Doomwheel pretty much boils down to "Um, how does the Doomwheel work?"

Personally, I think it needs to declare charges and follow all charging rules not excepted by its own rules, but that's not how it looks at first glance, nor is it how many people play it.

under RAW it definitely seems like you could charge any unit in any facing, regardless of orientation or LOS, as long as you can curve a string 3D6" long from the doomwheel to the unit.

I see absolutely nothing, for example, preventing a doomwheel from charging a unit of knights behind the doomwheel...in their own rear. He just has to roll high enough on 3D6.

Lord Inquisitor
15-02-2010, 22:22
Not wanting to reopen this debate, but the thing stopping you from doing that is the line that says "The Doomwheel moves and manoeuvres like a chariot with a few exceptions." There's no exception listed in the Doomwheel rules (other than when moving Out of Control which is an entirely different scenario to an intended charge) to having to declare a charge, charging the appropriate facing or wheeling only once per charge. Note also that the Doomwheel does not have the same text as Spawn or the Hell Pit Abomination that says "if the abomination's movement is sufficient to take it into an enemy unit then it counts as charging" (except, again, under moving Out of Control). Also note that it is illegal for spawn to charge via movement a unit's side that it wouldn't be able to declare a charge against, so that would presumably apply to the skaven units too.

If you disagree with me, fine (I did say we needed an FAQ on this!), but this appears to be the general consensus as to how the rules should be played. It just doesn't look like it unless you pull apart each section of the Doomwheel rules carefully.

Oddly enough I was having a discussion with a skaven playing friend of mine yesterday, who just couldn't see that you could legitimately say that it could charge 360-degrees ("It says it moves like a chariot!").

AzureDruchii
16-02-2010, 04:54
If I remember the debates correctly, the Doomwheel moves with compulsory movement meaning it can't declare charges. Hence if following the rule of using it like a chariot it can never get into combat unless charged OR pursuing into a new enemy.

Honestly, it needs a complete re-write from a semi competent person... or monkey. Either one will be progress.

-Rex

Condottiere
16-02-2010, 07:49
Peanuts add to the overhead.

Lord Inquisitor
16-02-2010, 15:15
If I remember the debates correctly, the Doomwheel moves with compulsory movement meaning it can't declare charges. Hence if following the rule of using it like a chariot it can never get into combat unless charged OR pursuing into a new enemy.
Why not? Declare charges comes before compulsory movement... There's no reason it shouldn't have to declare a charge, it's just that it moves in stage 3 of the movement phase (compulsory moves) rather than stage 4 (move chargers). All it says on the subject of "does it have to declare a charge?" is "it moves like a chariot". So yeah, it does.


Honestly, it needs a complete re-write from a semi competent person... or monkey. Either one will be progress.

The whole Skaven book could have done with someone standing behind the writer shouting keep it simple, stupid every time he added a new special rule.

Razakel
16-02-2010, 15:17
If I remember the debates correctly, the Doomwheel moves with compulsory movement meaning it can't declare charges. Hence if following the rule of using it like a chariot it can never get into combat unless charged OR pursuing into a new enemy.

By that logic wouldn't Chaos Spawn never be able to charge the enemy?

The rules need clarification alright, but this is obviously untrue.

Lord Inquisitor
16-02-2010, 15:24
By that logic wouldn't Chaos Spawn never be able to charge the enemy?
The Chaos Spawn and the Hell Pit Abom both have a specific rule that permits them to move into an enemy and count as charging.