PDFs are officially up. I just downloaded them all and am going to go through them tonight. I wanted to make this post as a place to discuss the free PDFs, especially considering the mess the rumors thread has become (and cause these are no longer rumors).
Please post your thoughts and opinions on the new warscrolls.
Well, overall I'm liking what I'm reading. Seems like there's a good amount of stuff you can do between spells and command abilities and certain other synergies. Can't find the rules myself so I'm not 100% sure on how to put it all together, but going from what I know of how the game works, seems decent.
I do quite like how tongue and cheek some of it is. Makes me think about all the people saying "I miss when Oldhammer was good, and fun, and silly!" (although I've only really heard this from 40k players I guess)
Rihgu wrote: Well, overall I'm liking what I'm reading. Seems like there's a good amount of stuff you can do between spells and command abilities and certain other synergies. Can't find the rules myself so I'm not 100% sure on how to put it all together, but going from what I know of how the game works, seems decent.
I do quite like how tongue and cheek some of it is. Makes me think about all the people saying "I miss when Oldhammer was good, and fun, and silly!" (although I've only really heard this from 40k players I guess)
Excited to give my dwarfs a go ASAP.
Just make sure you have an impressive beard, grumble about the past and are younger than your opponent so you can use your thane, thorek and long beards effectively.
yeah. The rules are stupid. Buffs to characters if they lost to an opponents character. How does one stop someone from claiming he lost against every enemy opponent. And like hell am telling anyone how old I am .
Rihgu wrote: Well, overall I'm liking what I'm reading. Seems like there's a good amount of stuff you can do between spells and command abilities and certain other synergies. Can't find the rules myself so I'm not 100% sure on how to put it all together, but going from what I know of how the game works, seems decent.
I do quite like how tongue and cheek some of it is. Makes me think about all the people saying "I miss when Oldhammer was good, and fun, and silly!" (although I've only really heard this from 40k players I guess)
Excited to give my dwarfs a go ASAP.
Just make sure you have an impressive beard, grumble about the past and are younger than your opponent so you can use your thane, thorek and long beards effectively.
Don't ever plan on using Kraggi, and sadly I generally keep my beard trimmed. However, I wouldn't ever push for any of those bonuses since they're just silly fun.
I think these are pretty great. I cant deny it feels like I'm getting a lot for free! This is the first time I can ever recall having a set of working, bang up to date, set of rules for almost every model I own.at the same time. I've downloaded them all and am in the process of printing out.
I actually really like the smattering of lunacy mixed in with the rules - it reminds me of the early days where the game didn't take itself too seriously.
I'm pleased to see there are rules on the scrolls that give healthy buffs to larger units - extra attacks and stuff. This should mean that taken 30 clanrats isn't the total non starter it could have been.
I like that many of the monsters have diminished movement and attacks once they are wounded too.
I'm digging the Slayer of Kings on Archaon. He has 4 attacks with it, hits on 2+, wounds on 3+, and if he wounds a Hero or Monster at least twice with a 6 or better, the model is slain instantly. LOL
At no detriment to itself it can heal d3 wounds to characters and on a roll of 6 instant kills it's target regardless of wounds.
They heal wounds to itself, it looks like, and only if they're within 3" of terrain
Sorry my bad... waaay off. But still. A bit better than the older models it seems.
Yea, I'm finding that a lot of models seem really good... I don't think I've seen anything outright BAD as I've been perusing these scrolls. Obviously it will take some actual gaming to figure it out for certain but unlike 8th edition, I'm not seeing anything and instantly groaning at it.
Slayers (my favorite model/unit) don't seem GREAT, but on paper they're the most playable incarnation I've ever seen!
The problem is though while things seem good (I agree, nothing jumped out as sucky) but then with the current system why bother? I can take the best of the best with no downside.
Well, yea, but I personally don't plan on doing anything competitive with this. I see this as a great opportunity to design campaigns with set lists/custom scenarios that can be done in a day (instead of over weeks)
Example I'm thinking of:
My dwarfs enter the desert seeking treasure from the ancient tombs, and my brother's Tomb Kings seek to stop him. Their throng is greeted at the edge of the desert by a Royal Legion of Chariots, who warns them to turn back. They obviously don't, and battle is joined.
Should the dwarfs win this initial battle, they continue into the desert and face increased resistance - this time, a Tomb Legion marches out to repel the invaders! (if they lose, the survivors regroup and I take Slayers instead of Quarrellers, Longbeards, and Hammerers)
Should the dwarfs succeed in driving deeper, they arrive at the gates of the Tomb City and lay siege with their Throng + an Artillery Battery, but this time the Tomb Kings muster their statuary guardians!
Should we grind our way past the defenses, we enter the Tomb itself with the elite of the army (Thanes, Runepriests, Hammerers, Longbeards, Ironbreakers, etc) to loot it all, but face endless swarms of skeletons, tomb swarms, tomb guard, and kings/priests (Winning if we're able to get to an objective and then back to our board edge)
In the grand finale, the battered and beaten Dwarf throng (roll d6 for each unit, they suffer that many mortal wounds) try to escape with the loot, trying to make it to a board edge with their General while chariots, horse archers, and carrion try to stop them.
Could be, but before you even think about that would you not have to play a lot of games to see how much something is worth? Otherwise your scenarios could very well suck until you learn what things make for a balanced scenario.
Because what you just described is what I would do in a tight ruleset as well... except they have done the play testing for me so I know what to make my scenarios out of.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
My only concern, as I want to get into this game, is that there is no list of definitions for certain rules. Like Waaaagh! on the Orc Warboss is defined as givin units in the army 'Frenzied'.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
How can you change a die roll to something impossible to roll? If you roll 2d6, and can change one of the dice, how does it allow you to get 13? I'd genuinely like to know. Otherwise, its just super loose interpretation of the rules. I mean, I get the change it to "a result of your choosing", but that would imply that you can change it to a result that you can obtain by rolling... 2d6.
Confused. I've been reading the warscrolls and in the vampire counts ones they say Death Wizards know spells. But no one has that as a special tag. Some have Death and Wizard but there are no death wizards. Even the Necromancers were referenced as deathmage in their scroll.
Other than that god I wish there was a balance mechanism cause this looks so damn fun!
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
I know that some say that changing the dice result would count as applying modifier to the roll, which you can't. I'm just pointing out that fateweaver ability is base on the possible result of the d6 roll so you can't get result of 13 even if the rule let you use it with screaming bell.
guru wrote: It is curious.. silly rules only appear in old armies, not in the Starter Set
They seem to be poking fun at old armies but not the shiny new ones...
It's not viable that multiwound models are the same as single, that characters mounted on anything are the same "cost" as unmounted but with extra movement / abilities... The game is totally untenable from a list building perspective and can only be played amongst friends for a laugh. That's fine, but it's insane that they'd limit their market appeal to that (and folks who just want pretty models, but they'll buy less than they would otherwise).
No points, no problem...BUT only if there's some other mechanic to balance armies, to give players a fair chance. I'm looking for ways to make sense of it with what's available (like there ARE formations in the back of each compendium) that could be used...but even then I'm not sure if they're actually balanced.
Bretonnia Grail Knight Grail vow "You can re-roll failed hit rolls for this unit if, before rolling the dice, you hold aloft a grail or goblet and shout "For the Lady" in a heroic voice." Oh the years that just added to my lifespan.
At least there is some humor in some of it now again.
I'm personally looking forward to trying this out, and I'm amazed that for once all the armies have up to date rules (except for my Chaos Dwarfs). A green knight led Bretonnia force is going to be really fun.
As for the lack of points, considering any unit can take down any other unit, it doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. Agreeing on model count beforehand, or a number of scrolls with unit maximums is likely going to be standard for competitive games.
OrkaMorka wrote: My only concern, as I want to get into this game, is that there is no list of definitions for certain rules. Like Waaaagh! on the Orc Warboss is defined as givin units in the army 'Frenzied'.
What does that do?
I'm assuming you're serious.
It says right after "frenzied" - make 1 extra attack.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
I know that some say that changing the dice result would count as applying modifier to the roll, which you can't. I'm just pointing out that fateweaver ability is base on the possible result of the d6 roll so you can't get result of 13 even if the rule let you use it with screaming bell.
It isn't a modifier. You aren't adding or subtracting from itz you are changing it.
Kairos's rules say "change the result to a result of your choosing". By putting the result of 13 on the table, the rules acknowledge that you can acheive it, even if it's through cheating.
Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
I know that some say that changing the dice result would count as applying modifier to the roll, which you can't. I'm just pointing out that fateweaver ability is base on the possible result of the d6 roll so you can't get result of 13 even if the rule let you use it with screaming bell.
It isn't a modifier. You aren't adding or subtracting from itz you are changing it.
Kairos's rules say "change the result to a result of your choosing". By putting the result of 13 on the table, the rules acknowledge that you can acheive it, even if it's through cheating.
Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
That was my thinking as well. It doesn't say change a dice or the dice. It literally says change the result. And the result can be anything of your choosing. Now you could argue that this is modifying the dice roll, but again as Sim-Life said it isn't modifying it by subtracting or adding or rerolling or anything. It just changes the result.
All in all, I would say RAW that you could change the result to a 13 and win. My opponent can (and probably will) argue that that isn't legal. At worst, we roll off and I have a 50% chance to win the game phase 1 of turn 1
Of course, this is all semantics because I would never want to run an army like this. I don't need that much
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
I think the easiest way is using the formations provided at the bottom of each compendium. From what I can see, each formation is of a roughly similar power level to every other, so if you and your opponent both take the same number of formations, and each unit that formation only takes the minimum amount of models and you don't take any upgrades on leader mounts (i.e. taking a Dreadlord on Black Dragon) then you should be left with a fairly equal game. You can then, of course, agree with your opponent that you'll both take a single unit of 20, or that both your leaders will be on dragons etc.
Deportivodeej wrote:I'm pleased to see there are rules on the scrolls that give healthy buffs to larger units - extra attacks and stuff. This should mean that taken 30 clanrats isn't the total non starter it could have been.
I was also glad to see this, as well as the minimum unit sizes for many units. I know a lot of the theoryhammering before release was that it would be far better taking many units of single models, so it's nice to see benefits for not doing so and that, in many cases this isn't even possible. Still, it will be interesting to see how taking larger units fares tactically against simply choosing units that can be fielded as single models.
Lord Corellia wrote:Holy gak, they were right about no points costs?!
This, for me, is by far the single worst thing and biggest mistake GW have made here. Sure, the rules are very simple and it's not like old WHFB, but it's still a game that I could see my self enjoying playing. That is, only if my opponent and I both have an equal chance of winning. By removing points costs, one of the most integral components of the game, GW have made the game almost impossible to balance on a quick, casual level. Sure, people will come up with a house ruled points system but, aside from the formations like I mention above, you can't turn up to a game and say "how many points?" and know instantly that it'll be a fair game. You'll have to sit down with your pick-up opponent and meticulously work things out. And that's, of course, if your opponent isn't an utter arse and turns up with his entire collection of a thousand models and decides to field them all which, rules-wise, he is perfectly in his right to do.
From a business point of view, I can see why GW have done it though, and it's clever. If little Timmy keeps losing his 1500pt games of 40k, there's very little he can do except buy the models nice GW man says are good and use them. And of course, he won't know how to use them and so they won't be as good. Little kids have little enough patience to build and paint an army as it is, let alone keep practicing until they can win. This way though, little Timmy can simply buy more and more models and, as he has tons of models, he's more likely to win and GW will make more money.
Still, this lack of a points system completely alienate older, more veteran GW gamers who, no matter how silly the rules, will keep playing GW games but will want an even game, like it's always been. GW could have made an "unbound" version of the game (i.e. where you take what you want, and how much you want) and made that the main game for little Timmy and friends, but created a "bound" version with points for those who want an even game. Here's hoping they'll release something similar to the latter at a later date...
Looks like the daemon summoning factory has made it to Fantasy.
Lords Of Change are Chaos Wizards. It changes its magic rolls so that the lowest matches the highest. Ita command ability is +1 to your casting rolls.
Twice a turn, you can attempt to summon another Lord of Chang e on a 9+ (effictivly 8+ due to command ability). With the dice matching ability you effectivly summon another LoC on a 4+ on 1d6.
Nothing I can see stops summoned Lords Of Change from summoning MORE Lords Of Change. The rules only say they can't move in the Movement phase.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
The only thing that I've seen so far that is super broken is this. For those who haven't read, during the heroic phase you role two dice for the screaming bell and see what happens. On a 13, you win the game, which is supposed to be basically impossible. But if you have Fateweaver, he can use an ability to change a dice roll to whatever you want. i.e. your automatic 13. Thus game over on the first phase of the turn.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the rules where you have to scream out something or do some silly act. While it may be funny, those will get old very quickly. I will probably play a few games with friends to try to get them interested in basic tabletop gaming (something AoS does arguably decently) and hopefully get them to progress to trying 8th. But I doubt will spend much time or effort on AoS. Looks like my Brets will become display pieces for a while.
Well, it seems obvious to me that you only choose from the possible result of the d6 roll.
Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
I know that some say that changing the dice result would count as applying modifier to the roll, which you can't. I'm just pointing out that fateweaver ability is base on the possible result of the d6 roll so you can't get result of 13 even if the rule let you use it with screaming bell.
It isn't a modifier. You aren't adding or subtracting from itz you are changing it.
Kairos's rules say "change the result to a result of your choosing". By putting the result of 13 on the table, the rules acknowledge that you can acheive it, even if it's through cheating.
Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
The rules aren't very clearly written so you can argue about it, but the intent is obvious. If you don't choose possible results from dice roll, then you might as well use six-sided with 100-600 on them or just kill you opponent 's unit through changing d3 mortal wounds into 1000000000000000. No rules say you can't, but no one is going to play with you then.
Problem with summoning models is unless you wipe your opponents army you are going to lose horribly as the only count for models slain when working out the win percenatges.
Mythantor wrote: Problem with summoning models is unless you wipe your opponents army you are going to lose horribly as the only count for models slain when working out the win percenatges.
Start with Kairos and a Lors Of Change.
Choose assassination Sudden Death.
Arcane Bolt enemy to death with dozens of daemonic wizard while screening your scoring models with Great Unclean Ones (who can also summon stuff)
Sim-Life wrote: Looks like the daemon summoning factory has made it to Fantasy.
Lords Of Change are Chaos Wizards. It changes its magic rolls so that the lowest matches the highest. Ita command ability is +1 to your casting rolls.
Twice a turn, you can attempt to summon another Lord of Chang e on a 9+ (effictivly 8+ due to command ability). With the dice matching ability you effectivly summon another LoC on a 4+ on 1d6.
Nothing I can see stops summoned Lords Of Change from summoning MORE Lords Of Change. The rules only say they can't move in the Movement phase.
Why bother summoning models when you can already take an unlimited number of models?
Sim-Life wrote: Looks like the daemon summoning factory has made it to Fantasy.
Lords Of Change are Chaos Wizards. It changes its magic rolls so that the lowest matches the highest. Ita command ability is +1 to your casting rolls.
Twice a turn, you can attempt to summon another Lord of Chang e on a 9+ (effictivly 8+ due to command ability). With the dice matching ability you effectivly summon another LoC on a 4+ on 1d6.
Nothing I can see stops summoned Lords Of Change from summoning MORE Lords Of Change. The rules only say they can't move in the Movement phase.
Why bother summoning models when you can already take an unlimited number of models?
Because then you can take the Sudden Death objective victory easily.
Sim-Life wrote: Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
This right here is why GW gave up on trying to make a normal game.
Why? Other companies can make a tight rule sets with minimal holes. Why should GW get free pass for having holes in their rules that you can drive a tank through?
Sim-Life wrote: Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
This right here is why GW gave up on trying to make a normal game.
Why? Other companies can make a tight rule sets with minimal holes. Why should GW get free pass for having holes in their rules that you can drive a tank through?
"Tell me where it says I can't" isn't a hole in the rules, it's a hole in your reasoning. There's nothing in Warmachine telling me I can't roll d20s, either.
There actually is, because they tell you exactly what to roll and don't have silly rules like some of the ones here that are causing issues (like the mustache one). These kinds of rules questions comes up on the PP forums all the time and are quickly officially answered...
I'm not a PP apologist, but you really can't compare the ambiguity in this ruleset to theirs.... It's night and day!
Freytag93 wrote: PDFs are officially up. I just downloaded them all and am going to go through them tonight. I wanted to make this post as a place to discuss the free PDFs, especially considering the mess the rumors thread has become (and cause these are no longer rumors).
Please post your thoughts and opinions on the new warscrolls.
Well, I downloaded some files too.
One four-page PDF containing the rules.
One PDF for scenery and 15 PDFs containing war scrolls for the factions.
Is this all?
By looking quickly through the rule set I haven't seen a hint on army size, ie point costs.
Some clarification would be nice.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
Explain to me how you interpret "once per game, you can change the result of a single dice roll to the result of your choosing." into "I can change it into a result that doesn't exist in the game and is impossible to achieve."
I know where you're going, its shoddily written on the part of the bell, but if someone legitimately pulled this, after a long, pregnant pause of a deadpan my response would be "Ok. If you can make two normal dice come up with an unmodified result of 13, you not only win, but i'll want to play a game with you again in both of our natural lifespans."
I mean really. An ounce of common sense. Fateweaver's ability does not magically allow you to get a dieroll of 47 on 1d6, 13 on 2d6, or negative 4 on eleventyd6.
Dark Riders with Corsairs look like a fun combo. Shoot and charge in your Corsairs and keep the combat within 14" of the Riders. If your opponent rolls a 1 for battleshock you get to add d6 to the roll. Then the Corsairs can force another model to flee on a 6 for every model in the unit that flees.
RiTides wrote: There actually is, because they tell you exactly what to roll and don't have silly rules like some of the ones here that are causing issues (like the mustache one). These kinds of rules questions comes up on the PP forums all the time and are quickly officially answered...
I'm not a PP apologist, but you really can't compare the ambiguity in this ruleset to theirs.... It's night and day!
For AOS - how exactly is this ambiguous?
Warhammer: Age of Sigmar uses six-sided dice (sometimes abbreviated to D6).
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So how do you build a force and then know if your in the realm of playable with each other.
All you need is Fateweaver and a Screaming Bell.
Allows you to play hundreds of games every evening, and win every one. Lotsa fun!
Explain to me how you interpret "once per game, you can change the result of a single dice roll to the result of your choosing." into "I can change it into a result that doesn't exist in the game and is impossible to achieve."
I know where you're going, its shoddily written on the part of the bell, but if someone legitimately pulled this, after a long, pregnant pause of a deadpan my response would be "Ok. If you can make two normal dice come up with an unmodified result of 13, you not only win, but i'll want to play a game with you again in both of our natural lifespans."
I mean really. An ounce of common sense. Fateweaver's ability does not magically allow you to get a dieroll of 47 on 1d6, 13 on 2d6, or negative 4 on eleventyd6.
But the result does exist in game. Its right there.
kairos's rules don't say the result needs to be possible. You just choose it.
Its not that people are going to do it, just like people aren't going to take 5 Nagash's, but its an easy way to illustrate problems in the rules.
Sim-Life wrote: Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
This right here is why GW gave up on trying to make a normal game.
Why? Other companies can make a tight rule sets with minimal holes. Why should GW get free pass for having holes in their rules that you can drive a tank through?
"Tell me where it says I can't" isn't a hole in the rules, it's a hole in your reasoning. There's nothing in Warmachine telling me I can't roll d20s, either.
Agreed, and well said.
To quote Not Dice, a fellow infernal from my days as an Infernal for PP "The rules don't say I can't ? Well, the rules don't say I can't hit you in the face with a toaster, either." That quote stuck with me throughout the almost 3 years I did Infernaling with Privateer.
Both PP games and AoS are what are called positive clarification games. The rules tell you what you can do ; by that virtue, they do not have to call out everything you cannot do, as it would literally be impossible to do. Sometimes those rules require clarification as to mechanical operation or intent (or both!). PP does a good job of this, whereas GW used to give it a reasonably well intentioned try (we'll see if they continue).
Anyone using the "The Rules don't say i can't" as a justification as to why AoS is a weak rule set : post another ruleset that is "strong" by comparison, and i'll immediately engage in the same logic. Hell i'll save us both the time: I guarantee you that the ruleset posited doesn't say I can't run over my opponent if I lose, but if I win, they have to buy me lunch. Therefore, because it doesn't say that, if i lose, i'm redecorating my opponent in radial tire print & Road Grease Grey, or getting a fething sammich outta it.
Look, the AoS core rules are... goofy. There are some Fozzi Bear warscroll rules that are wokka wokka wokka. Konrad's is clever, most of the rest are stupid, the bell's is unnecessary. But let's not take a goofy ruleset we're all trying to come to terms with and go completely off the rails and intentionally make it worse than it really is through gakky logic and non-starter conclusive leaps.
I got the white dwarf and read the rules. They look quite simple and easy to use, certainly better than 8th, IMO.
Then I looked at the Dwarf PDFs, and now I'm not so sure about AoS. I don't like what they've done to Gyrobombers, no more dropping templates onto hordes of clanrats, just D3 instakill, or Cannons, with no more line passing through and creating a visual effect of the cannonball smashing through, just d6 wounds, or what they've done to the thunderers who now don't have any melee to speak of, as well as my beloved organ gun, which now looks like it isn't worth bringing, and THERE ARE NO MORE RUNES!
Runes were, IMO, the best bit of being a dwarf player. At least now that thunderers aren't just warriors with guns, there is some point to brining warriors.
Oh w8 no, since it's model count not points, all my warrior models are now proxying as longbeards, because grumbling is way more awesome and you don't have to worry about points racking up.
tenebre wrote: ok so i never have the rules hole lawyering nonsense to deal with...
but i am at a loss as to how this a playable game?
there is no army building guides.
you can literally take everything you own or make a unit as big as you want..
i mean 100 zombies all get +3 to hit and to wound ... or take 100 Nagash's .. just cuz
Rules hole lawyering nonsense - sorry as long as there is any kind of rule in any kind of game - someone will try and exploit, pick holes in it or otherwise lawyer it. We are stuck with them as this thread shows.
re army building - yeah its way odd but there are some thoughts - once I have played a few games may have more of an idea.....
Actually, as i read more and more of the silly rules on the warscrolls, like Settra's one with the kneeling, the maintain arrogant expression one for the elves, kraggi's if you're younger rule, the goldtooth guy's bribe your opponent with real things rule, I think I might actually enjoy this game.
I will give GW credit for trying something radically different. But I'm still not seeing the game yet. I hope they aren't expecting the community to finish their game for them.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Not to ruin a good bit of whining but the exact rules are this:
Peal of Doom: In your hero phase, the
Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the
scores together and consult the table below
to see what happens (no modifiers can be
applied to this roll). If a result says that it
effects units ‘within range of the Peal of
Doom’, consult the Damage Table above to
see the current range of that effect.
Again: color=red](no modifiers can be applied to this roll)[/color]
Of course that means you might get to roll off for results, so you auto win only half the time.
I know that some say that changing the dice result would count as applying modifier to the roll, which you can't. I'm just pointing out that fateweaver ability is base on the possible result of the d6 roll so you can't get result of 13 even if the rule let you use it with screaming bell.
It isn't a modifier. You aren't adding or subtracting from itz you are changing it.
Kairos's rules say "change the result to a result of your choosing". By putting the result of 13 on the table, the rules acknowledge that you can acheive it, even if it's through cheating.
Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
That was my thinking as well. It doesn't say change a dice or the dice. It literally says change the result. And the result can be anything of your choosing. Now you could argue that this is modifying the dice roll, but again as Sim-Life said it isn't modifying it by subtracting or adding or rerolling or anything. It just changes the result.
All in all, I would say RAW that you could change the result to a 13 and win. My opponent can (and probably will) argue that that isn't legal. At worst, we roll off and I have a 50% chance to win the game phase 1 of turn 1
Of course, this is all semantics because I would never want to run an army like this. I don't need that much
Don't forget RAW Fateweaver would let you choose the result of those roll offs too.
Sim-Life wrote: Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
This right here is why GW gave up on trying to make a normal game.
Why? Other companies can make a tight rule sets with minimal holes. Why should GW get free pass for having holes in their rules that you can drive a tank through?
"Tell me where it says I can't" isn't a hole in the rules, it's a hole in your reasoning. There's nothing in Warmachine telling me I can't roll d20s, either.
Agreed, and well said.
To quote Not Dice, a fellow infernal from my days as an Infernal for PP "The rules don't say I can't ? Well, the rules don't say I can't hit you in the face with a toaster, either." That quote stuck with me throughout the almost 3 years I did Infernaling with Privateer.
Both PP games and AoS are what are called positive clarification games. The rules tell you what you can do ; by that virtue, they do not have to call out everything you cannot do, as it would literally be impossible to do. Sometimes those rules require clarification as to mechanical operation or intent (or both!). PP does a good job of this, whereas GW used to give it a reasonably well intentioned try (we'll see if they continue).
Anyone using the "The Rules don't say i can't" as a justification as to why AoS is a weak rule set : post another ruleset that is "strong" by comparison, and i'll immediately engage in the same logic. Hell i'll save us both the time: I guarantee you that the ruleset posited doesn't say I can't run over my opponent if I lose, but if I win, they have to buy me lunch. Therefore, because it doesn't say that, if i lose, i'm redecorating my opponent in radial tire print & Road Grease Grey, or getting a fething sammich outta it.
Look, the AoS core rules are... goofy. There are some Fozzi Bear warscroll rules that are wokka wokka wokka. Konrad's is clever, most of the rest are stupid, the bell's is unnecessary. But let's not take a goofy ruleset we're all trying to come to terms with and go completely off the rails and intentionally make it worse than it really is through gakky logic and non-starter conclusive leaps.
I love you and thank you for this post. No sarcasm intended, but this sort of thing needs to [apparently] be said way more often.
Melissia wrote: So since I can't grow a beard or a mustache, I cannot effectively use some units.
This is fething stupid.
I'd give it to you if you pulled out a fake beard or moustache and put it on. Or even just had one in your pocket. Doesn't say you have to have grown the impressive beard, just that you have one.
Heck, if you're this torn up about it, how about I just give you re-rolls to hits and to wounds for your entire army? Wouldn't want you to be upset about the game or anything.
Rihgu wrote: Heck, if you're this torn up about it, how about I just give you re-rolls to hits and to wounds for your entire army? Wouldn't want you to be upset about the game or anything.
The problem is Some people play games to test there abilities and minds, not for Silly goofy childishness.
If you're fine playing a game that feels like a 10yr made up the rules that is Ok, but don't get mad at others for wanting something more.
Rihgu wrote: Heck, if you're this torn up about it, how about I just give you re-rolls to hits and to wounds for your entire army? Wouldn't want you to be upset about the game or anything.
Really don't be an ass. If you cannot see why this is not angering then don't respond. Switch the roles of you want - imagine if GW said that if you had hair to or longer than your shoulders your Elf force re rolls all hits and wounds - or if you owned lizards but no other pets the lizard men could re roll break tests. It's getting stupid and really degrading. I'm not even that old and I see how insulting it is. If you don't have breasts or at least B cup or better, you are not allowed to field any ogres.
So please do not be a jerk and dismiss people's feelings especially if there is sense to it
Rihgu wrote: Heck, if you're this torn up about it, how about I just give you re-rolls to hits and to wounds for your entire army? Wouldn't want you to be upset about the game or anything.
Really don't be an ass. If you cannot see why this is not angering then don't respond. Switch the roles of you want - imagine if GW said that if you had hair to or longer than your shoulders your Elf force re rolls all hits and wounds - or if you owned lizards but no other pets the lizard men could re roll break tests. It's getting stupid and really degrading. I'm not even that old and I see how insulting it is. If you don't have breasts or at least B cup or better, you are not allowed to field any ogres.
So please do not be a jerk and dismiss people's feelings especially if there is sense to it
I don't see it as insulting at all? I'm notoriously bad at winning staring contests but the night goblin rule that gives you bonuses for winning one doesn't outrage me. I wouldn't consider my beard nor my moustache impressive and I'm not riled up.
I'm not the one being the jerk, I'm the one offering to make the gaming experience more enjoyable for someone else (they're the ones threatening to shove a miniature up my arse...) If they really want the re-rolls that badly, I'll give it to 'em, sure. I'm just here to have fun, and if I feel like wearing a hood to the game I may just do that and have a laugh at the bonus my wardrobe is giving me, but I won't tool my outfit around a game I'll be playing that day.
edit: I do agree that the rules are dumb, though. Silly, dumb, fun. If you're not for silly, dumb, fun, then say that and ask your opponent to please take the game as seriously as you will.
Rihgu wrote: Heck, if you're this torn up about it, how about I just give you re-rolls to hits and to wounds for your entire army? Wouldn't want you to be upset about the game or anything.
The problem is Some people play games to test there abilities and minds, not for Silly goofy childishness.
If you're fine playing a game that feels like a 10yr made up the rules that is Ok, but don't get mad at others for wanting something more.
1. If you have receipts proving you spent more money on your army than your opponent you may use D10 dice instead of D6.
2. If your miniatures were painted using only GW primers and paints you may re-roll armor saves.
3. If you are shorter than your opponent your dwarves get an extra attack.
4. If you are naked at the gaming table all of your Slaanesh aligned models gain regeneration.
5. You may declare a sudden death victory by violently kicking your opponent in the groin while he is not expecting it.
6. If you have more piercings and/or tattoos than your opponent your chaos marauders may re-roll saves.
7. Your ogre army wins the game if you grab and swallow one of the enemy models.
The silly rules are kind of strange to me and I really do not like them. I am an Oldhammer player but wanted to give this game a try. The silly rules are embarrassing.
kenofyork wrote: 3. If you are shorter than your opponent your dwarves get an extra attack.
This one actually follows the theme quite well and now that you've pointed it out, I'm surprised it isn't on a warscroll.
The silly rules are kind of strange to me and I really do not like them. I am an Oldhammer player but wanted to give this game a try. The silly rules are embarrassing.
When a model has rules I don't like, I don't use it. Which is why my army has consistently sported more Slayers than war machines
kenofyork wrote: A few more special rules GW considered for AoS-
1. If you have receipts proving you spent more money on your army than your opponent you may use D10 dice instead of D6.
2. If your miniatures were painted using only GW primers and paints you may re-roll armor saves.
3. If you are shorter than your opponent your dwarves get an extra attack.
4. If you are naked at the gaming table all of your Slaanesh aligned models gain regeneration.
5. You may declare a sudden death victory by violently kicking your opponent in the groin while he is not expecting it.
6. If you have more piercings and/or tattoos than your opponent your chaos marauders may re-roll saves.
7. Your ogre army wins the game if you grab and swallow one of the enemy models.
The silly rules are kind of strange to me and I really do not like them. I am an Oldhammer player but wanted to give this game a try. The silly rules are embarrassing.
I believe there was a thread a while back which was "Things the Space Marines should say to the Sisters of Battle" or something like that. It got to a ridiculous number of tongue in cheek suggestions like this, perhaps you should consider starting a similar thread? Would give us all a good laugh
Not sure why anyone who wants to play a game with mustache size-related rules would object to changing a 2d6 roll to a 13. Seems perfectly within the GW silliness wheelhouse, actually.
Melissia wrote: Fine, I'll point to the beards on my models, and tell you if you don't 'like it to shove it up your ass.
The rule is dumb, and it's sad seeing people pretend otherwise.
My crew is houseruling the Fozzie Bear Wokka Wokka Wokka rules (as we are calling them) to Automatic on the first use, 3+ each desired use thereafter if you don't want to do the silly gak, or your opponnent asks that you not do the silly gak. Greasus is being evaluated, and so are a couple others. We're thinking of Greasus being a wound cap of 5, once a game.
Fixt.
I agree though, there's some massively fething stupid things in the new rules.
My crew already has 8 house rules to try to fix it.... but its going to suck when i go to other regions i play in and say "Hey this is how my playgroup unfethed this game, do you want to play this way ?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spy_Smasher wrote: Not sure why anyone who wants to play a game with mustache size-related rules would object to changing a 2d6 roll to a 13. Seems perfectly within the GW silliness wheelhouse, actually.
As i said in another thread, people using the bell and weaver can auto-win the moment they put two unmodified d6 dice on the table and they (correctly) add up to 13. If they state "It doesn't SAY the "change" has to be a legal result of two dice!", then my response is "It doesn't SAY i can't hit you in the face with a toaster either."
And then I pack up my models, as I have no desire to play with a dill weed.
Agreed though, the lulz rules are dumb. I have a feeling someone wrote Konrad's rule (which is truly about the only clever one), there was probably a good office water cooler laugh (amongst, ya know, both game designers!), and then they tried to recreate that magic with the other silliness.
EDIT: I take that back.... Greasus' real world Bribe is actually quite clever.
The arbitrary stuff like "Insult your opponent with Wulfrik", "Have a moustache", "Be Younger" is nonsensical.
Nagash is a powerhouse. Ad a lodestone CC and a Necromancer and you have enough power to make skellies and zombies pretty much steamroll forward unless the enemy have good cunning plans to counter...
trumpeters
Models in this unit may be Trumpeters. A unit that includes any Trumpeters can shoot and charge in its turn even
if it ran during its movement phase.
So can I move, run, shoot and charge? Seems a bit excessive. I guess I can only shoot or charge, despite the ambiguous wording.
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Edit: oh I see all units can shoot and charge anyway!
I also just noticed, units in combat (I.e. Within 3") can shoot in the shooting phase and then make an attack in the combat phase too!
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Not true, any model can shoot and charge in the same turn. Unless that's an outrider special rule?
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Not true, any model can shoot and charge in the same turn. Unless that's an outrider special rule?
You're right! My mistake. And units in a melee (in 3") can also shoot in the shooting phase!
BomBomHotdog wrote: Dark Riders with Corsairs look like a fun combo. Shoot and charge in your Corsairs and keep the combat within 14" of the Riders. If your opponent rolls a 1 for battleshock you get to add d6 to the roll. Then the Corsairs can force another model to flee on a 6 for every model in the unit that flees.
Corsairs (and jack-of-all-trades models in general) are going to do well I think.
Honestly, the scrolls seem to work fairly well, just use wounds to represent points: "let's play a 200 wound game. I'm running two bloodthirsters and X bloodcrushers, XX bloodletters, 20 warriors of Khorne and two blocks of 20 marauders and a skull cannon. 200 wounds on the dot. What did you bring?" I'm gonna give it a try! If it works, it has the potential to be an awesome ruleset. Remember, "simpler" doesn't mean "worse". Instead of memorizing tons of crap, you can really focus on a synergistic army. Just roll your eyes at things like a Slaanesh champion's "enthralling gaze" that makes models worse if your opponent meets your gaze *eyeroll*.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, the scrolls seem to work fairly well, just use wounds to represent points: "let's play a 200 wound game. I'm running two bloodthirsters and X bloodcrushers, XX bloodletters, 20 warriors of Khorne and two blocks of 20 marauders and a skull cannon. 200 wounds on the dot. What did you bring?" I'm gonna give it a try! If it works, it has the potential to be an awesome ruleset. Remember, "simpler" doesn't mean "worse". Instead of memorizing tons of crap, you can really focus on a synergistic army. Just roll your eyes at things like a Slaanesh champion's "enthralling gaze" that makes models worse if your opponent meets your gaze *eyeroll*.
Wounds dont work.... Unit size + Number of Scrolls do.
I want to try the game before I pass judgement. It looks fun and silly and I long ago saw the writing on the wall. I told my group years ago that GW was trying to kill tournaments with their games and was scoffed at. I did not expect them to take the nuclear option though and ruin all ability to play seriously.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
It wasn't a point Mel, he was trying to make a joke .
Wulfrik gives you re-rolls if you be insulting and shock your opponent. Shoving a model up someone's behind is a sure way to shock them .
God of all the silly rules Wulfrik's is the worst...
Honestly I think he was successful with his joke, you just failed to understand it. Not that I can blame you for not knowing Wulfrik's rule since you don't like AoS.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
Yes, there are a lot of silly new rules. Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you. GW, purposely or not, has set up an opportunity to be creative in a multitude of ways. Your negativity, while it is your right to express it, is not constructive. Embrace your opportunities. Create your own fixes. Or, don't play. GW won't be missing your business (they've made that abundantly clear).
I am excited to make an entire list of Corsairs lead by Fellheart with an accompaniment of trees lead by Groot (Treeman). The scenarios my opponent and I can come up with are endless. And, most importantly, fun.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
Yes, there are a lot of silly new rules. Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you. GW, purposely or not, has set up an opportunity to be creative in a multitude of ways. Your negativity, while it is your right to express it, is not constructive. Embrace your opportunities. Create your own fixes. Or, don't play. GW won't be missing your business (they've made that abundantly clear).
I am excited to make an entire list of Corsairs lead by Fellheart with an accompaniment of trees lead by Groot (Treeman). The scenarios my opponent and I can come up with are endless. And, most importantly, fun.
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
Before you play, ask your opponent "can we not abide by any 'beard rules'?" It's that simple. Do powergamers not know how to, like, discuss things w/ people in real life?
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
Melissias comments were a little unnecessary, and reeked of Sarkeesian ideology. Misconstruing something silly and un serious as something it is not.
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
I have read the entire thread. While the opening may have been directed at an individual, the rest was targeted at the collective bubble of group-think that has plagued this game since before its release. GW owes us nothing and we are entitled to nothing. We have our expectations, which are under no obligation to be filled. And please direct me to the precedent set by GW that they make anything "fair". I can point you to many instances to the contrary.
The fact that, in order to have a fair and fun game, you have to houserule away stupid arbitrary crap is proof that the elements you had to houserule away were bad game design.
Which is kind of the point. I don't really have all that strong of feelings about the rest of the rules-- I could take or leave them. There might even be a good game somewhere in there that I could enjoy.
But.
This particular part annoys me enough that I don't really see a reason to expand my Dwarf army beyond the squad of thunderers and thane that I currently have-- and I was actually hoping to get in to WHFB after wanting to for such a long time. I love the feel of the medieval gunners in the Empire and Dwarves armies, aesthetically speaking.
But if this is the type of rules GW is going to give my Dwarves, explicitly saying I'm not allowed to play my dwarves the same way others do because of genetics, I'm certainly not going to give money to them by buying more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbad wrote: Melissia's comments were a entirely necessary
Melissia wrote: The fact that, in order to have a fair and fun game, you have to houserule away stupid arbitrary crap is proof that the elements you had to houserule away were bad game design.
Which is kind of the point. I don't really have all that strong of feelings about the rest of the rules-- I could take or leave them. There might even be a good game somewhere in there that I could enjoy.
But.
This particular part annoys me enough that I don't really see a reason to expand my Dwarf army beyond the squad of thunderers and thane that I currently have-- and I was actually hoping to get in to WHFB after wanting to for such a long time. I love the feel of the medieval gunners in the Empire and Dwarves armies, aesthetically speaking.
But if this is the type of rules GW is going to give my Dwarves, explicitly saying I'm not allowed to play my dwarves the same way others do because of genetics, I'm certainly not going to give money to them by buying more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbad wrote: Melissia's comments were a entirely necessary
If you have a rational objection to what I have said, go say it instead of being passive-aggressive about it.
I was on your side in the beginning of this thread. But you are taking something that is completely un-serious, and AFICT a JOKE and turning it into a promotion of patriarchal ideals or something like that.
I understand women feel marginalized in the gaming community, but to say that a joke is preventing you from doing something you love... is silly.
do you need to go to a university safe room?
Do the rules need to come with a trigger warning?
I'm not trying to be an ass, but you've been unreasonable.
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
I have read the entire thread. While the opening may have been directed at an individual, the rest was targeted at the collective bubble of group-think that has plagued this game since before its release. GW owes us nothing and we are entitled to nothing. We have our expectations, which are under no obligation to be filled. And please direct me to the precedent set by GW that they make anything "fair". I can point you to many instances to the contrary.
As someone that; has a mustache and beard, is younger than most of my group, is good at staring contests, and can do all the other silly rules I am not effected by them so much. This was not due to my gameplay skills or superior planning. I was simply born with the randomly correct chromosomes, at a later year than my group, and I like having facial hair. None of this should give me game advantages. That is all Melissia is saying. It is unfair for no reason in a game that costs quite alot of money to play.
Brotherjanus wrote: As someone that; has a mustache and beard, is younger than most of my group, is good at staring contests, and can do all the other silly rules I am not effected by them so much. This was not due to my gameplay skills or superior planning. I was simply born with the randomly correct chromosomes, at a later year than my group, and I like having facial hair. None of this should give me game advantages. That is all Melissia is saying. It is unfair for no reason in a game that costs quite alot of money to play.
Those rules are jokes.
I don't take them seriously, and ignore them, as can anyone else.
I agree, to get benefits because of genetics is silly, but they can just be ignored.
she has been very agressive and confrontational this whole thread, which I believe is unnecessary.
just ignore the rules and move on.
Brotherjanus wrote: As someone that; has a mustache and beard, is younger than most of my group, is good at staring contests, and can do all the other silly rules I am not effected by them so much. This was not due to my gameplay skills or superior planning. I was simply born with the randomly correct chromosomes, at a later year than my group, and I like having facial hair. None of this should give me game advantages. That is all Melissia is saying. It is unfair for no reason in a game that costs quite alot of money to play.
As far as the last statement goes, it's patently false. The game requires exactly no money to play, just an imagination, some cardboard (for cutting out little circles), and the free rulesset.
Everything else "required" to play, strictly speaking, is not required.
And I would definitely let a woman get the re-rolls for Ulfrik if she had a fake beard on she went out and got, which was far more impressive than mine XD
That is not so easy to do. Why should she have to ignore rules? It shouldn't have been done that way to begin with. It is very easy to dismiss her anger when you have not had to deal with her situation. I have seen her here for years and different people tell her the same things when things have happened negatively to her because of her gender. In any case, that option isn't really an option and this isn't really on topic.
Brotherjanus wrote: That is not so easy to do. Why should she have to ignore rules? It shouldn't have been done that way to begin with. It is very easy to dismiss her anger when you have not had to deal with her situation. I have seen her here for years and different people tell her the same things when things have happened negatively to her because of her gender. In any case, that option isn't really an option and this isn't really on topic.
She doesn't have to ignore rules - she can do whatever she wants. If she doesn't like it, ignore it. If she does like it, then don't ignore it.
I think "not being required to do something" shouldn't equate to "having to not do something" as you have implied with this post.
I will not argue. This will quickly turn absurd and will get nowhere. The bottomline is that these are bad rules and should never have been released as a replacement to Warhammer. "Unglued Party Warhammer" would have been more appropriate and then ignoring it would be valid.
Brotherjanus wrote: I will not argue. This will quickly turn absurd and will get nowhere. The bottomline is that these are bad rules and should never have been released as a replacement to Warhammer. "Unglued Party Warhammer" would have been more appropriate and then ignoring it would be valid.
Does it say anywhere that it is replacing Warhammer? Because it reads like "unglued party warhammer" and is free like "unglued party warhammer" and I've never seen anywhere that says one can no longer play WFB 8th because this replaces it.
Brotherjanus wrote: That is not so easy to do. Why should she have to ignore rules? It shouldn't have been done that way to begin with. It is very easy to dismiss her anger when you have not had to deal with her situation. I have seen her here for years and different people tell her the same things when things have happened negatively to her because of her gender. In any case, that option isn't really an option and this isn't really on topic.
Staying in line with this sub-topic for a second:
I'm on her side.
I think if it were any other system, I would be as vocal as her. But this is a light and goofy set of rules, with some silliness thrown in.
a few comments on it is fine.
I understand her anger, but it has been a bit excessive here.
I will stress again: I AM ON HER SIDE.
I'm not some bigoted MRA with a neckbeard.
This will probably be my last comment on this sub topic.
I may comment further, depending on who says what, and whether or not I need to defend my position.
They pulled all Warhammer books and are no longer selling Warhammer as we know it. That is them replacing Warhammer. While it is true that you can still play 8th that is not a reasonable expectation as it is not the current rule set. Just because we can play any edition that doesn't mean we can find games for it. Maybe she plays strictly in tournaments? Tournaments very rarely use old rule sets.
Brotherjanus wrote: That is not so easy to do. Why should she have to ignore rules? It shouldn't have been done that way to begin with. It is very easy to dismiss her anger when you have not had to deal with her situation. I have seen her here for years and different people tell her the same things when things have happened negatively to her because of her gender. In any case, that option isn't really an option and this isn't really on topic.
Staying in line with this sub-topic for a second:
I'm on her side.
I think if it were any other system, I would be as vocal as her. But this is a light and goofy set of rules, with some silliness thrown in.
a few comments on it is fine.
I understand her anger, but it has been a bit excessive here.
I will stress again: I AM ON HER SIDE.
I'm not some bigoted MRA with a neckbeard.
This will probably be my last comment on this sub topic.
I may comment further, depending on who says what, and whether or not I need to defend my position.
I am sorry if I upset anybody
Thanks
austin
Her anger isn't just this one time. She has gotten this way after years of dealing with the same thing.
Brotherjanus wrote: They pulled all Warhammer books and are no longer selling Warhammer as we know it. That is them replacing Warhammer. While it is true that you can still play 8th that is not a reasonable expectation as it is not the current rule set. Just because we can play any edition that doesn't mean we can find games for it. Maybe she plays strictly in tournaments? Tournaments very rarely use old rule sets.
And I am sure TOs will work out the silly AoS rules. So she can stick to 8th, play AoS if she wants, or play tournaments.
I'm going to read the rules, but for now, silly system or no, that a rule like that got past the "wouldn't it be fun if...?" phase to the public one shows a pretty ridiculous lack of judgement in my opinion.
people need to also realize that the game will grow with new units being released that are built around this game (like the sigmarines are all pretty well made if you ask me) and over time the old ones will also be updated to fit better (or at least there will be other units released that can be used with the older miniatures as proxies), getting it right is not simple thing as people claim it is.... I am excited for the new phase, at least I am back to gaming
Haven't read through all the posts (sorry) but remind me, is there anything stopping someone from just playing all Heroes and Monsters with no regular Troops?
KiloFiX wrote: Haven't read through all the posts (sorry) but remind me, is there anything stopping someone from just playing all Heroes and Monsters with no regular Troops?
No.
EDIT: Though the scenarios might if they exist/when they're released.
Melissia wrote: The fact that, in order to have a fair and fun game, you have to houserule away stupid arbitrary crap is proof that the elements you had to houserule away were bad game design.
I think that in order to have a fair and fun game, I should probably just not play against people who make it their life mission to complain endlessly about how the game can't be fair and fun for them.
Brotherjanus wrote: Her anger isn't just this one time. She has gotten this way after years of dealing with the same thing.
At this point, I'm not really expecting a rational response. Just the same old "oh look at that silly emotional woman" nonsense that people who don't have a point often rely upon.
Look at the GW website. Warhammer Fantasy Battle no longer exists there. In the Warhammer webpage, there is Age of Sigmar.
I think he means no one is forcing you to not play 8E...
The lack of players does. Most players will move on to the newest edition. Inertia means if I don't, I won't get games, or if I do, they will be more rare and less varied than if I move on to the newest edition myself.
So many people continued to play D&D 3.5 Edition after 4th Edition. I'm not sure what difference in circumstances would make people totally drop 8th edition WHFB...
Perhaps wargamers are a more flighty and emotional lot that they would abandon a game that's no longer supported?
At this point, I'm not really expecting a rational response. Just the same old "oh look at that silly emotional woman" nonsense that people who don't have a point often rely upon.
Has anybody referenced your gender up until this point? I've been following along with the discussion and most people are directly responding to your actions. To be perfectly honest with you, had you not just referenced yourself as a woman I would not have assigned a gender to you at any point during this discussion
Look at the GW website. Warhammer Fantasy Battle no longer exists there. In the Warhammer webpage, there is Age of Sigmar.
I think he means no one is forcing you to not play 8E...
The lack of players does. Most players will move on to the newest edition. Inertia means if I don't, I won't get games, or if I do, they will be more rare and less varied than if I move on to the newest edition myself.
but why the lack of players? If so many player hate it as much as you, can't you just gather together and form an 8E grandfather group, rather than quit?
Rihgu wrote: So many people continued to play D&D 3.5 Edition after 4th Edition
Pen and Paper roleplaying games have a very different culture than Wargaming does, as well as more commitment in terms of time (to play a single proper game of DnD requires months at least; to play a single proper game of WHFB or 40k you need a couple weeks at most, including time to assemble and paint your miniatures). Some are still playing 3.5 literally because their game is still ongoing after all this time. Even then, a good number of DnD 3.5th edition players have moved on-- to Pathfinder, while others have moved to 5th edition-- games with similar enough rules to adapt quickly, but far better balance and less obnoxious quirks.
Wargames have a very different culture, and a very different economic footprint, than pen and paper games, and making asinine arguments about how wargamers are "flighty and emotional" shows a great amount of disdain for your fellow players.
Rihgu wrote: So many people continued to play D&D 3.5 Edition after 4th Edition
Pen and Paper roleplaying games have a very different culture than Wargaming does, as well as more commitment in terms of time (to play a single proper game of DnD requires months at least; to play a single proper game of WHFB or 40k you need a couple weeks at most, including time to assemble and paint your miniatures). Some are still playing 3.5 literally because their game is still ongoing after all this time. Even then, a good number of DnD 3.5th edition players have moved on-- to Pathfinder, while others have moved to 5th edition-- games with similar enough rules to adapt quickly, but far better balance and less obnoxious quirks.
I guess I'm in a weird place, where I play D&D with the same people I play Warhammer with. A single proper game of DnD takes months? What are you talking about? A single proper game of DnD takes about twice as long as it takes a game of Warhammer, if you write lists/make characters before hand. It just requires more people to have the time to do it.
And yes, SOME have moved onto other editions (ours have moved on to 5th) but I literally COULD NOT CONVINCE anybody to play 4e. If Age of Sigmar is as bad as people are saying, I'll have the same issue, and I'll be sticking with 8th until the group moves on to 10th edition or whatever (my group only had 1 campaign of Pathfinder, had only a few sessions. On that note, I think I've figured out why you think a game of D&D takes months? Because you're calling a campaign a game. A campaign = a campaign. A game of Warhammer = a session of D&D)
Wargames have a very different culture, and a very different economic footprint, than pen and paper games, and making asinine arguments about how wargamers are "flighty and emotional" shows a great amount of disdain for your fellow players.
No, I was just musing why D&D is any different from Warhammer. There is MORE incentive to stick with an edition of Warhammer that your group likes. Hey, I spent $X00 on Warhammer. That's X00 reasons to stick to 8th. With D&D I spent probably 130$ on books. New books costs 130$ again, but it still pales in comparison to my investment into 8th.
What rational reason is there for wargamers to move on to an edition of a game they hate just because it's new?
Played my first real game of AoS. I borrowed a lizardmen army (that I did not build) made up of Korq-Gar, Chakkax, EotG, troglodon, 3 ripperdactlys, 20 Saurus warriors, 12 temple guard, and 10 CoC. I had no idea what i was going up against. Neither did my opponent. He wanted to gauge how many models his nasty units would be worth when determining "fairness". He brought Malekith, Alerial, Teclis, Loremaster, 3 bolt throwers, 11 glade guard, 15 swordsmen, 15 executioners, and 2 hydras. By all means he should have smoked me. I ended losing because I would have had to endure 2 turns of shooting before I could reach charge range. All he had left were his guard and one bolt thrower. If you play smartly, and use the rules given to you, you can make something from nothing. There's a lot to be said about synergy and tactics in AoS. Just in different ways than 8th Ed.
Try actually playing a game and working out what you don't understand or don't like before throwing your models and having a fit because you read things you don't like. It was a challenge and I had fun.
Rihgu wrote: A single proper game of DnD takes about twice as long as it takes a game of Warhammer
One single session of DnD is not a "game" of DnD.
One single match of Warhammer is not a "game" of Warhammer. Look, I can do it, too!
My friends and I can meet up for a night and have our characters go through a dungeon and find the Amulet of Yendor *****OR****** we can go on an epic campaign through the multiverse collecting thousands of Amulets of Yendors to save everything!
My friends and I can meet up for a night of Warhammer and play one match *****OR**** we can have a sprawling campaign across the Old World stomping eachother at every turn until one of us forges a mighty empire.
Rihgu wrote: One single match of Warhammer is not a "game" of Warhammer.
Yes, it is. One match of Warhammer is a full game of Warhammer, because Warhammer is designed to be started and completed in a single match. Different rules can change this-- such as tournament rules or campaign rules. But as the basic rules are designed, a game of Warhammer starts when you determine who goes first, and ends when one side or the other achieves victory. Beyond that match, the game does not keep a persistent record of what happens from game to game without house rules.
By contrast, DnD's core rulebook is explicitly designed around a long-term progression of persistent characters, spanning games that last through many sessions. Even its baseline "newbie" story included in each edition lasts numerous sessions.
Wargaming and PnP roleplaying (at least, insofar as DnD and most other well known RPGs are concerned) are quite different beasts, and comparing the two runs the risk of comparing apples to oranges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blackforge wrote:before throwing your models and having a fit
We did it wrong, then! The baseline newbie story took us one night, probably between 4-6 hours!
You don't have a point. A game of Warhammer is the equivalent of a session of D&D. If you link them together they become a campaign. A session does not need to become a campaign, much as a game does not need to become a campaign.
As the basic rules are designed, a game of DnD starts when the DM begins narration and ends when the DM ceases narration.
If you're playing a DnD campaign and bring your character sheet to mine, under most circumstances I'm going to ask you to make a new one. Your character isn't persistent outside of the campaign you're in in most cases!
Listen - if you don't actually want to discuss the major point at hand, just say so. Don't try to force your asinine and baseless definition of a "game" of Dungeons and Dragons to make it so you "win" the discussion.
Rihgu wrote: One single match of Warhammer is not a "game" of Warhammer.
Yes, it is. One match of Warhammer is a full game of Warhammer, because Warhammer is designed to be started and completed in a single match. Different rules can change this-- such as tournament rules or campaign rules. But as the basic rules are designed, a game of Warhammer starts when you determine who goes first, and ends when one side or the other achieves victory. Beyond that match, the game does not keep a persistent record of what happens from game to game without house rules.
By contrast, DnD's core rulebook is explicitly designed around a long-term progression of persistent characters, spanning games that last through many sessions. Even its baseline "newbie" story included in each edition lasts numerous sessions.
Wargaming and PnP roleplaying (at least, insofar as DnD and most other well known RPGs are concerned) are quite different beasts, and comparing the two runs the risk of comparing apples to oranges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blackforge wrote:before throwing your models and having a fit
People aren't doing that.
RPG games are mean't to be played over months as you say. But they don't take any effort to play outside of the GM reading the rules. Once that is done you are good to play. Wargames take many months to get models, terrain and so on ready to actually start playing.
In saying that, what about Gorka Morka? Mordheim or all the other games that do keep track of your models game after game. I still have my first warband somewhere from 10ish years ago. A friend has his gorka morka lists from 20 (I think) years ago. My Necromunda Arbites have fought hard and long, some members have been alive for a few years now.
Ultimately it depends on the game for both RPG PnP and Wargames in how much time spent playing. But usually when you add the time spent on modeling all the bits for a wargame and then time spent playing I think you will find it all evens out.
I have to agree with the comments about the women and the beard rules. There are 2 actually, the mustache and the beard rule. There should be counter balancing rules that for example benefits old guys or women. What if witch elves gained a bonus if the player had larger breasts than their opponent? Kind of absurd in a way, but not that much difference. That would be extremely sexist and I am sure would be met with criticism.
If the rules are already being discounted and everyone is planning to ignore them, why bother even including them? What is the point?
My take on it is that it reeks of very juvenile humor. Which demonstrates the intended target. Why not include a bonus for flatulence during the game while they were at it? Perhaps belching? All the staples of laugh out loud humor for the younger set.
The comments about breast bonuses for witch elves were made to illustrate the absurdity of things, and was not an actual suggestion in case anyone is planning to miss the point and offer a sharp rebuke.
kenofyork wrote: I have to agree with the comments about the women and the beard rules. There are 2 actually, the mustache and the beard rule. There should be counter balancing rules that for example benefits old guys or women. What if witch elves gained a bonus if the player had larger breasts than their opponent? Kind of absurd in a way, but not that much difference. That would be extremely sexist and I am sure would be met with criticism.
If the rules are already being discounted and everyone is planning to ignore them, why bother even including them? What is the point?
My take on it is that it reeks of very juvenile humor. Which demonstrates the intended target. Why not include a bonus for flatulence during the game while they were at it? Perhaps belching? All the staples of laugh out loud humor for the younger set.
Well there are also children... men who can't grow beards and men who aren't allowed facial hair for work.
To get around that use the brain inside and use a fake facial hair thing for the bonus. Or ignore the rule and get the bonus regardless.
The rules are still munted. Probably the worst set of rules I have seen to be honest.
Yeh I got that much. I love both hobbies,but am limited on funds. Which is probably why I play WFRP/Dark Heresy more than I play their respective tabletop wargames these days. And well, these silly rules just aren't convincing me I want to do this.
I'll see what the future holds for AoS once their non-legacy armies are released, but this crap makes me lose interest.
Melissia wrote: Yeh I got that much. I love both hobbies,but am limited on funds. Which is probably why I play WFRP/Dark Heresy more than I play their respective tabletop wargames these days. And well, these silly rules just aren't convincing me I want to do this.
I'll see what the future holds for AoS once their non-legacy armies are released, but this crap makes me lose interest.
Have you tried armies of arcana?
Pick up games are rare, but it plays nicely, and if you can convince a friend, you may have some use for those dwarfs.
KOW is another option, but not as good, IMHO as armies of arcana.
If you rely on pick up games to get your games in, and you don't like AOS, sadly, you'll have to fold, or play a new game.
I hate saying that.
I'm also sorry for some of my comments earlier.
The anonymity of the Internet took over, and I never considered that your feelings were maybe actually hurt.
kenofyork wrote: I have to agree with the comments about the women and the beard rules. There are 2 actually, the mustache and the beard rule. There should be counter balancing rules that for example benefits old guys or women. What if witch elves gained a bonus if the player had larger breasts than their opponent? Kind of absurd in a way, but not that much difference. That would be extremely sexist and I am sure would be met with criticism.
Fake boobies are also available from halloween shops for the flat-chested among us.
The rules said impressive beard, it didn't say what kind.
Oxford Dictionary wrote:A person who pretends to have a romantic or sexual relationship with someone else in order to conceal the other’s true sexual orientation.
Whoever has the most impressive of these gets the rule, none of this facial hair nonsense.
Melissia wrote: The rules said impressive beard, it didn't say what kind.
Oxford Dictionary wrote:A person who pretends to have a romantic or sexual relationship with someone else in order to conceal the other’s true sexual orientation.
Whoever has the most impressive of these gets the rule, none of this facial hair nonsense.
Sim-Life wrote: Tell me where the rules say you're restricted to only choosing what it's possible to roll on 2d6.
This right here is why GW gave up on trying to make a normal game.
Why? Other companies can make a tight rule sets with minimal holes. Why should GW get free pass for having holes in their rules that you can drive a tank through?
"Tell me where it says I can't" isn't a hole in the rules, it's a hole in your reasoning. There's nothing in Warmachine telling me I can't roll d20s, either.
Agreed, and well said.
To quote Not Dice, a fellow infernal from my days as an Infernal for PP "The rules don't say I can't ? Well, the rules don't say I can't hit you in the face with a toaster, either." That quote stuck with me throughout the almost 3 years I did Infernaling with Privateer.
Both PP games and AoS are what are called positive clarification games. The rules tell you what you can do ; by that virtue, they do not have to call out everything you cannot do, as it would literally be impossible to do. Sometimes those rules require clarification as to mechanical operation or intent (or both!). PP does a good job of this, whereas GW used to give it a reasonably well intentioned try (we'll see if they continue).
Anyone using the "The Rules don't say i can't" as a justification as to why AoS is a weak rule set : post another ruleset that is "strong" by comparison, and i'll immediately engage in the same logic. Hell i'll save us both the time: I guarantee you that the ruleset posited doesn't say I can't run over my opponent if I lose, but if I win, they have to buy me lunch. Therefore, because it doesn't say that, if i lose, i'm redecorating my opponent in radial tire print & Road Grease Grey, or getting a fething sammich outta it.
Look, the AoS core rules are... goofy. There are some Fozzi Bear warscroll rules that are wokka wokka wokka. Konrad's is clever, most of the rest are stupid, the bell's is unnecessary. But let's not take a goofy ruleset we're all trying to come to terms with and go completely off the rails and intentionally make it worse than it really is through gakky logic and non-starter conclusive leaps.
So apparently a GW (technically FW) employee confirmed the screaming bell and lord of change combo does indeed work to quote "I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against.". Here's the link http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html
So...where do we actually find the bloody keywords, other than on warscrolls that don't tell us what they do? For instance, I'm looking for the chaos Mark keywords, like Khorne, Nurgle, etc., but the only place I see them written out are on the lord cards. Should I use that ruling? Because then everything Nurgle gets an additional wound. Wtf?! That's insane.
No, if you give the model the Keyword Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, the only thing that that serves to do is to interact with abilities which depend on said keyword.
Not sure if any exist at the moment, so for right now it, like most keywords, are "useless". But be sure that future expansions will make use of that (such as spells that only target "Khorne" keyworded units and the like)
Greasus is being evaluated, and so are a couple others. We're thinking of Greasus being a wound cap of 5, once a game.
.
I think he means no one is forcing you to not play 8E...
