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.

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar

Interesting read.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/684521.page

Clarification! Sweet sweet clarification! Thanks GW.

Wow! Orbiting around a unit to allow more models into the fight is NOT allowed. Did not see that coming.

 oni wrote:
Wow! Orbiting around a unit to allow more models into the fight is NOT allowed. Did not see that coming.

Surprised about that too but it's my preferred interpretation. Almost all of this is common sense/do whatever you want. Only thing is I wish they'd start backing away from the model-to-model measuring.

FAQ looks ok.

The only FAQ interpretation that is clearly wrong is the idea of stacking models on other model's bases.

Having said that, they clearly wanted to avoid changing any rules. So the FAQ answers are pretty much ... just follow what is already written.

It would be nice to have an actual errata for things that need to be changed. Like measuring from bases, stacking bonuses, stacking summons, etc.

 oni wrote:
Wow! Orbiting around a unit to allow more models into the fight is NOT allowed. Did not see that coming.

I'd like for there to be no orbiting but it still seems unclear :-/ It needs to be worded something like, " If you are already the closest you can be then you can't pile in."


You can stack mystic shield from multiple wizards :-0

Warmachine and crew are seperate units, so they have to be targeted seperately

LOS for shooting, ( I always see bat reps ignoring LOS )

Don't need a warscroll in your army to summon it.


It's a start

Wargington wrote:

 oni wrote:
Wow! Orbiting around a unit to allow more models into the fight is NOT allowed. Did not see that coming.

I'd like for there to be no orbiting but it still seems unclear :-/ It needs to be worded something like, " If you are already the closest you can be then you can't pile in."

"If you are already in contact with a model, do you still get to pile-in and rotate around the enemy units?"
"No"
Seems pretty clear to me...

RoperPG wrote:

Wargington wrote:

 oni wrote:
Wow! Orbiting around a unit to allow more models into the fight is NOT allowed. Did not see that coming.

I'd like for there to be no orbiting but it still seems unclear :-/ It needs to be worded something like, " If you are already the closest you can be then you can't pile in."

"If you are already in contact with a model, do you still get to pile-in and rotate around the enemy units?"
"No"
Seems pretty clear to me...

"Q: Can a model that is piling in move around friendly units in order to reach the closest enemy model?

A: Yes, as long as you finish the pile-in move closer to the nearest enemy, you can move around friendly models or obstacles to do so."

"Q: Can a model ‘pile in’ – i.e. move 3" – in an ongoing combat from a previous round to allow more models to get into melee range as they pile in?

A: Yes, as long as each model that is moved finishes its move nearer to the closest enemy"


so yes you can, to an extent. Models in contact are locked and cannot move but other models from the unit can move around locked models as long as its to the closest model

Yeah, the principle concept of "moving closer to the nearest enemy model" s maintained throughout all the examples.

The thing I've been happiest with on the FAQ is that so far I haven't found anything contrary or "ooh crap, we didn't think of that", which to me is a good sign.
More clarification of intent rather than rewriting.

This ruling is annoying because it just makes orbiting tedious, but not impossible. You just have to do it Caerphilly.

The rule against orbiting assumes base to base measurement. If your figure is in base to base contact with an enemy, it’s impossible to move closer, even by orbiting, so you can’t move at all. However the rules mandate measuring from the figure, not its base. This means you can move close by rotating your figure on its vertical axis, to swing a weapon.

Suppose your unit’s figures are lunging with a spear, so the spear tip is the foremost part of the model when it is facing forwards. You arrange your spearmen with spear tips pointing sideways, which is fine as facing doesn’t matter.

You charge. When you pile in during Combat, you contact the enemy’s base. You don’t have to do this, but probably you will, in order to get more of your spearmen into range behind the front rank. Attacks happen.

Next combat phase, you orbit your figure around the enemy, assuming both are still there, and rotate the speartip 1/10th of an inch towards it. This moves your figure 1/10th inch closer towards the nearest enemy.

Surely it would be easier to allow people to orbit, and position their figures in a more pleasing alignment? The rule about measuring from the figure not the base would not have to be changed.

I was disappointed with this FAQ. I've always enjoyed brown sauce on bacon. Having that option taken away from me after years of faithful support is basically a slap in the face. Thanks GW.

Answered my only real queries of sliding round pile ins and whether a model is within x of itself. Good job GW.

The only thing that was contrary to my understanding was the wound allocation. That and their outrageous crusade against red sauce

RoperPG wrote:
Yeah, the principle concept of "moving closer to the nearest enemy model" s maintained throughout all the examples.

The thing I've been happiest with on the FAQ is that so far I haven't found anything contrary or "ooh crap, we didn't think of that", which to me is a good sign.
More clarification of intent rather than rewriting.

Also they're asking for feedback, so even if you did find something they'd fix it

If sales drop another 4% I hear they'll do an errata next.

hobojebus wrote:
If sales drop another 4% I hear they'll do an errata next.

To what end?

IMO an errata will not happen. people that hate AoS will still be gloating over GW's dwindling sales and people that like the rules as they are will at most continue playing and at worst stop altogether. There may be a mythical third party that is on the verge of entering AoS if only the rules were a liiitle different but personally I don't think there's such a group. IMO the current FAQ isn't a FAQ&Errata as in the old times - just a public Q&A session so people can sort out questions raised through games - you know a FAQ .

 CoreCommander wrote:
IMO an errata will not happen. people that hate AoS will still be gloating over GW's dwindling sales and people that like the rules as they are will at most continue playing and at worst stop altogether. There may be a mythical third party that is on the verge of entering AoS if only the rules were a liiitle different but personally I don't think there's such a group. IMO the current FAQ isn't a FAQ&Errata as in the old times - just a public Q&A session so people can sort out questions raised through games - you know a FAQ .

That's as maybe, but Hobo has heard about this from somewhere, so I'm hoping he's able to elaborate on the point.
Otherwise, that'd make him.. well.. I guess some kinda flamebait troll labouring under the impression he's funny?
Which would just be silly.

Well he's got hobo in his name, hobos live under bridges. What else lives under bridges and has nothing better to do than harass people....

motski wrote:
I was disappointed with this FAQ. I've always enjoyed brown sauce on bacon. Having that option taken away from me after years of faithful support is basically a slap in the face. Thanks GW.

This was a major slap in the face for me as well. So much so that I propose that we make our own sauce system, we shall call it the sauce age! All sauces and condiments will be made equal under it and the system will be balanced by the consumers and not the arrogant sauce-pushers!

...except horse radish which will be always a low-tier condiment that other sauces can out do in all flavor departments but we shall always insist that it's the consumer's fault for not properly applying it to the sandwhich's flank.

*edit: stupid autospell*
Unless wording changes their interpretation of moving, from the pivot question, is not what I read or used until it was pointed out. Doesn't make much sense IMO but in this case I was wwwwwwrong!

Was surprised basing was completely clarified as gone. We use house rules and comp packs so this won't ever come up or be a problem but I am surprised nonetheless and was wrong in my interpretation. wrong I tells ya!

The "don't worry about bases" thing could work...other than the fact that there are bases! My main issue with this is when you have a hordish unit trying to get close enough rather than stepping on a giant monster base. There is clearly enough space to get nearly 20 bloodreavers (for example) in within an inch if bases didn't exist. Unfortunately they do and even if you move on up on top of some they still get in the way. What I really wonder is whether GW wrote the rules with this in mind so allowed for it.

Dai wrote:
What I really wonder is whether GW wrote the rules with this in mind so allowed for it.

I'd be prepared to bet the sole reason for 'bases don't matter' is because of the transition from square to round, as it makes checking ranges more argument prone...

RoperPG wrote:

Dai wrote:
What I really wonder is whether GW wrote the rules with this in mind so allowed for it.

I'd be prepared to bet the sole reason for 'bases don't matter' is because of the transition from square to round, as it makes checking ranges more argument prone...

Yeah, absolutely agree 100%. Maybe in 2017 they change it? Who knows. If we house rule or comp pack doesn't really matter. But still, odd.

I was joking, but I do think people are giving GW too much credit they are only doing faq's because sales continue to drop.

GW on and off have done FAQs and errata for all kinds of games over the years. There's no correlation with sales figures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW on and off have done FAQs and errata for all kinds of games over the years. There's no correlation with sales figures.

I guess so. Sometimes GW seems to hear what the community is asking for.

In this case GW asked the community for questions, and they have given answers.

I don't think the original rules were completely clear, and neither are these responses, but at least something is being done to address people's concerns.

RoperPG wrote:

Dai wrote:
What I really wonder is whether GW wrote the rules with this in mind so allowed for it.

I'd be prepared to bet the sole reason for 'bases don't matter' is because of the transition from square to round, as it makes checking ranges more argument prone...

Yes, I agree 100%. I can't wait for GW to get passed this and embrace the base once more.

hobojebus wrote:I was joking, but I do think people are giving GW too much credit they are only doing faq's because sales continue to drop.

GW is changing its whole business culture because sales have started to drop. You can see it from the Start Collecting bundles to the new tone of the webstore blog to the reopening of social media to the bringing back of specialist games and to these FAQs. There's no need to colour it as a dishonest cash grab. GW is a very profitable company but it's growth has stagnated because the company has refused to innovate in many areas - with the new CEO that's changing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In this case GW asked the community for questions, and they have given answers.

I don't think the original rules were completely clear, and neither are these responses, but at least something is being done to address people's concerns.

What's unclear about them? They are asking for feedback before they release the final version so if you see something unclear you should comment on FB.