GW FAQ update

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

via https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/

Hey everyone,
Our rules guys have been hard at work sorting and answering the questions you all sent in for our FAQ thread a few weeks back.
They’ve just finished their first draft, and before we enshrined them as official, we wanted to get your thoughts on them.
Do the answers all make sense? Are they clear?
(We’re looking for whether you understand them rather than if you like the answer.)
We’ll leave these up over the weekend so you can try them out in your games, and then on Monday, we’ll pass on your comments to the rules guys for the final FAQs.
Oh, and if you’re waiting on the Warhammer 40,000 FAQ’s, we’re hopefully going to be doing the same in the next week or so.

link to 16 pictures :

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/photos/pcb.468272163369582/468270800036385/?type=3&theater

I don't have time currently to link them directly, apologies.

**skarsol**

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/posts/468272163369582

**the_scotsman**

No news for 40k as yet I assume?

**skarsol**

It says "in the next week or so."

**Desubot**

the_scotsman wrote:
No news for 40k as yet I assume?

"Oh, and if you’re waiting on the Warhammer 40,000 FAQ’s, we’re hopefully going to be doing the same in the next week or so."

Im surprised they even did it.

glad they are though

**the_scotsman**

Niiiice. I like it. Cheers.

**Swara**

Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

**Kanluwen**

Swara wrote:
Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

You do realize that they got 2k+ submissions for both AoS and 40k, right?

And that they had to:
a) weed through everything to sort out duplicates
b) check whether the question really even needed to be answered
c) format, organize, and prepare multiple documents

They said it was going to take time from the outset.

**Hulksmash**

Kanluwen wrote:
Swara wrote:
Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

You do realize that they got 2k+ submissions for both AoS and 40k, right?

And that they had to:
a) weed through everything to sort out duplicates
b) check whether the question really even needed to be answered
c) format, organize, and prepare multiple documents

They said it was going to take time from the outset.

I think he was genuinely being supportive. Not complaining

That said it's faster than I actually expected to be honest with you.

**Kanluwen**

Hulksmash wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Swara wrote:
Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

You do realize that they got 2k+ submissions for both AoS and 40k, right?

And that they had to:
a) weed through everything to sort out duplicates
b) check whether the question really even needed to be answered
c) format, organize, and prepare multiple documents

They said it was going to take time from the outset.

I think he was genuinely being supportive. Not complaining

Then the "finally" was kinda unnecessary.

That said it's faster than I actually expected to be honest with you.

Agreed. But there will always be those who think it coulda been done faster if they had been in charge.

**the_scotsman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Swara wrote:
Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

You do realize that they got 2k+ submissions for both AoS and 40k, right?

And that they had to:
a) weed through everything to sort out duplicates
b) check whether the question really even needed to be answered
c) format, organize, and prepare multiple documents

They said it was going to take time from the outset.

I think he means "finally" in the context of "since the last proper FAQ before the Necron Codex came out 2 years ago" rather than "since they asked for questions".

**Hulksmash**

That's how I took it to the_scotsman. Which I'm in full agreement with. I'm glad they finally are starting to care about unclear rules again. And solicited questions publically instead of just via email like they used to.

Age of Roundtree

**MasterSlowPoke**

I can't believe they said multi-Nagash is legal.

**Bottle**

It's good! Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.

Also took away base-orbiting. Nice. Should make positioning in charges much more tactical.

**Swara**

Kanluwen wrote:
Swara wrote:
Wow, go GW!
I'm glad they are finally getting some of this done.

You do realize that they got 2k+ submissions for both AoS and 40k, right?

And that they had to:
a) weed through everything to sort out duplicates
b) check whether the question really even needed to be answered
c) format, organize, and prepare multiple documents

They said it was going to take time from the outset.

I was being supportive and my finally meant as in the last few years of not having FAQs.

**Kanluwen**

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I can't believe they said multi-Nagash is legal.

To be fair, the wording is:

Yes, unless specifically noted otherwise. Players can always agree to use only one of each ‘named character’ or other model that represents a unique unit of which only one can be found in the Mortal Realms if they wish.

There are some things which "specifically note otherwise"(Celestant-Prime) but making it be on the player is an okay way to do it.
Someone wants to be TFG and bring multi-Nagashs and Archaons? Awesome!

He can have fun playing by himself at home.

**RoperPG**

Bottle wrote:
tactical.

Oh god, now you've done it!

Glad to see spells stack and warmachine & crew are indeed separate.

**casvalremdeikun**

Can't wait for the 40K FAQ to start rolling out.

**Kanluwen**

Swara wrote:

I was being supportive and my finally meant as in the last few years of not having FAQs.

Then I'd like to apologize for being a bit snippy with you.

**Swara**

Kanluwen wrote:
Swara wrote:

I was being supportive and my finally meant as in the last few years of not having FAQs.

Then I'd like to apologize for being a bit snippy with you.

It's ok. It's the internet and sarcasm is sometimes assumed. <3

**Bottle**

RoperPG wrote:
Bottle wrote:
tactical.

Oh god, now you've done it!

Glad to see spells stack and warmachine & crew are indeed separate.

Haha, although if you don't play piling-in on top of bases (I.e. Everyone) it is most definitely possible to orbit the base and to finish your move closer to the actual model sitting on the base.

**Uriels_Flame**

Disregard that part! Thanks Kan.

Awesome stuff!

This was relatively quick yes? From when they actually asked for feedback?

Also I thought the bit about the base size being irrelevant was interesting. So why include such a large base to begin with unless it's just for stability?

Great first go at it, GW!

Really liking the common sense to most things.

**Sqorgar**

It's good to finally have some clarification on some of these things. With the summoning stuff, they are definitely leaning towards more permissive, which just means the restrictions must come from the players before the game.

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.

It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

**TedNugent**

:O they're even asking what we think of the FAQs.

Whoever did this is an angel.

**Bottle**

Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.
It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

Or it means they misunderstood where the confusion is with the rule lol. I think you're reaching with your answer there tbh, and it is still unclear if summoned units are automatically counted as casualties even if they don't die.

Well, it doesn't bother me, I haven't once played a game where we counted casualties to decide winner (and if I did - it would be with a comp to count points anyway).

Glad they finally debunked the "seeding" idea too (I.e. Warscrolls having to be present in the army for other units to be summoned from them.)

**Uriels_Flame**

Q: On the warscroll for the Lord-Celestant on Dracoth, there isn't any description about the shield he carries.

A: The ability for his Sigmarite Thundershield, if he has one, is exactly the same as the Lord-Celestant on Stardrake’s shield. We’ve added this to the version of the warscroll on the website and in the app.

I'm still not seeing this. Anyone else? I just always thought my LC didn't come with a shield.

And they are showing a sense of humor folks!

Q: The Saurus Oldblood on Carnosaur is the only Saurus that cannot ‘bite’. Is this a mistake? Has he gotten so old he no longer has teeth?

A: He is just too old to jump down from the Carnosaur to bite people. He’s called an Oldblood for a reason

**RoperPG**

Uriels_Flame wrote:
Q: On the warscroll for the Lord-Celestant on Dracoth, there isn't any description about the shield he carries.

A: The ability for his Sigmarite Thundershield, if he has one, is exactly the same as the Lord-Celestant on Stardrake’s shield. We’ve added this to the version of the warscroll on the website and in the app.

I'm still not seeing this. Anyone else? I just always thought my LC didn't come with a shield.

Press and hold on the warscroll, it'll give you the option to delete it. Download again and it'll be fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bottle wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.
It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

Or it means they misunderstood where the confusion is with the rule lol. I think you're reaching with your answer there tbh, and it is still unclear if summoned units are automatically counted as casualties even if they don't die.

Well, it doesn't bother me, I haven't once played a game where we counted casualties to decide winner (and if I did - it would be with a comp to count points anyway).

Glad they finally debunked the "seeding" idea too (I.e. Warscrolls having to be present in the army for other units to be summoned from them.)

I don't know about reaching - my understanding/impression of summoning has always been that addition is unlimited, but that summoned units aren't a meat shield because if they die they count as a 'starting model'.

**Uriels_Flame**

Guess I need a couple of extra shields

This might be the one page that gets me to actually join FB. Maybe...

**Mymearan**

I... I'm so happy...

Edit: well except they explicitly said they don't want rolls of a 1 to fail automatically. Come on guys, 1+ saves are lame...

**BorderCountess**

Bottle wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.
It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

Or it means they misunderstood where the confusion is with the rule lol. I think you're reaching with your answer there tbh, and it is still unclear if summoned units are automatically counted as casualties even if they don't die.

Well, it doesn't bother me, I haven't once played a game where we counted casualties to decide winner (and if I did - it would be with a comp to count points anyway).

Glad they finally debunked the "seeding" idea too (I.e. Warscrolls having to be present in the army for other units to be summoned from them.)

They also debunked the idea that you can't keep summoning units (ie, summon a unit of Horrors, and then re-summon them when they die).