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.

GW's AOS FB released the new FAQ. And it has a lot of people hot

Of note: no you cannot merge zombie units (EDIT my bad wording) *larger than their starting numbers* in pitched battles. And the ring of immortality costs points to use in reserve.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/12/22/faq-update-for-warhammer-age-of-sigmar/

Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.

Does it costs points? No.

Sounds like merging for free.

Wow. The ring of immortality is junk now. Thanks GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tydrace wrote:
Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement points to use the ability?
A: No to both.

Does it costs points? No.
Sounds like merging for free.

It seems like they just wanted to stop zombie mergers that ended up with a unit size of >60.

man.. I know a few guys that can restart creating an army...

Q: Some of the Compendium warscroll battalions have points
but the units in those battalions have been replaced with new
warscrolls. How does this work in a Pitched Battle?
A: Battalions which include units which no longer have a
warscroll cannot be used in Matched Play.

 tydrace wrote:
Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.

Does it costs points? No.

Sounds like merging for free.

Yeah merging for free. No to taking min size units of zombies to bypass the core tax and then on turn 1 merging them all into the mega unit. My bad wording sorry.

Looks to me as it depends on the number you take. You just can't bypass the max unit size.

Edit: There was something in the general's handbook faq, but iirc that is referring to setup and does not limit other ability to merge during a game

Ring nerfed to oblivion.

Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:

Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question

A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.

That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.

Wayniac wrote:
Ring nerfed to oblivion.

Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:

Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question

A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.

That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.

They may have just changed their minds. D3x3 does a better job of representing that some hits are stronger than others. 3D3 is loaded towards an average strength hit.

D3x3 has an equal chance of 3, 6 or 9. Sometimes hits are strong, sometimes they're weak and sometimes they're average.
3 damage = 33.3% chance
6 damage = 33.3% chance
9 damage = 33.3% chance

3D3 has more potential results. Sure, you can have a weak hit or a strong hit, but more than 70% of the time, you're doing between 1.67 and 2.33 damage per D3.
3 damage = 3.7% chance
4 damage = 11.1% chance
5 damage = 22.2% chance
6 damage = 25.9% chance
7 damage = 22.2% chance
8 damage = 11.1% chance
9 damage = 3.7% chance

Wayniac wrote:
Ring nerfed to oblivion.

Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:

Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question

A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.

That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.

They updated themselves on the facebook page almost immediately.

The rules FAQ 1.1 just got a 1.1.1 update.

Q: If I set up a Sylvaneth Wyldwood that is made up of three Citadel Woods, does each Citadel Wood need to be within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods, or can it be set up within 1" of only one of them? In other words, can I set up a Sylvaneth Wyldwood in a row, or must it be set up in a clump? A: Each Citadel Wood must be set up within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods (i.e. in a clump).


found this interesting. at least now my opponent cant just stake out a huge swath down the center of the table. Now its more like a huge black hole

They reverted the damage ruling back already which is great to see (GW looking at the direct feedback from the TGA thread).

I'm so glad it's 3D3 again and not D3x3! :-)

Yeah that was a stupid rule. I am however continually amazed at some of these questions and how people seem to try and game the system. A little thought/common sense/will this make me TFG would go a long way I think.

Yeah, the Ring of Immortality seems pretty useless now, especially in smaller games... there goes my respawning Necromancer

Also, the Tomb Herald's become a whole lot less useful for all non-Tomb Kings armies, as he can now only catch attacks made on Liche Priests or Mummy Heroes...

Some of the questions are inane. A lot of it is simply people trying to bend the rules as much as possible. But thats not anything new, these FAQs have had a lot of those type of questions since decades ago.

They are pretty much sweeping clean the concept of free points (respawning models effectively being two of that model for the price of one) in matched play - which as you can judge by the reaction on the fb page is pretty much the only method of play a good chunk of people consider.

I'm wondering if 40k summoning will receive the same treatment. I hope so.

 auticus wrote:
Some of the questions are inane. A lot of it is simply people trying to bend the rules as much as possible. But thats not anything new, these FAQs have had a lot of those type of questions since decades ago.

They are pretty much sweeping clean the concept of free points (respawning models effectively being two of that model for the price of one) in matched play - which as you can judge by the reaction on the fb page is pretty much the only method of play a good chunk of people consider.

I'm wondering if 40k summoning will receive the same treatment. I hope so.

40k has numerous instances of free models and free upgrades that need to be reversed. The concept of a points based balancing system becomes worthless as soon as you give certain factions the ability to have lots of free points. Core AoS was a problem for our group because one player always summoned in MANY free daemons units.

Yep I fully agree with you.

The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.

Sounds like it's time for "How to pile-in, things changed!" and using Tzeentch models to demonstrate it.

aquietfrog wrote:
The rules FAQ 1.1 just got a 1.1.1 update.

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how far we've come from the old days of massive rulebooks and long overdue faqs to basic problems and how some other systems "better than GW" force those similar problems on players?

Great job, GW.

 minisnatcher wrote:

man.. I know a few guys that can restart creating an army...

Q: Some of the Compendium warscroll battalions have points
but the units in those battalions have been replaced with new
warscrolls. How does this work in a Pitched Battle?
A: Battalions which include units which no longer have a
warscroll cannot be used in Matched Play.

Which models lost their warscrolls? I didn't notice anything gone in the app.

[Edit]: Nevermind, didn't see the "replaced".

 privateer4hire wrote:
The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.

That was just an oversight on the video and I agree it was unclear. Those at the back couldn't get into the combat for that turn (which I think was all Rob wanted to illustrate - not that they couldn't move at all), because they could fully well move 3" towards the closest if they wanted to with the aim of getting in in future turns.

 Bottle wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.

That was just an oversight on the video and I agree it was unclear. Those at the back couldn't get into the combat for that turn (which I think was all Rob wanted to illustrate - not that they couldn't move at all), because they could fully well move 3" towards the closest if they wanted to with the aim of getting in in future turns.

Yeah, I just wish he had at least said he could move them---even if they couldn't get close enough to attack.

Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points, even though I mostly disagree with that design (the units that have replacement abilities are rarely overpowering) but I still feel that the intent was mostly clear. It is good that they confirmed it since there was some grey area here and there, but then they took it overboard with the ring of immortality. They should have just errata'd the thing to bypass reserve.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points, even though I mostly disagree with that design (the units that have replacement abilities are rarely overpowering) but I still feel that the intent was mostly clear. It is good that they confirmed it since there was some grey area here and there, but then they took it overboard with the ring of immortality. They should have just errata'd the thing to bypass reserve.

The Ring of Immortality definitely went from being overpowered to being mostly useless. Ideally, you'd just charge for the Ring, because it's really just giving you an extra D3 wounds on your Hero. Charging for artefacts would be a major problem though, as you'd no longer be able to have a random chart to roll on. They could also have left it as is, with no reserve point requirement, but Errata it so that it can't be taken by Behemoth models. Fluffwise, it should be bringing back the rider and not the mount. Being able to bring back the mount always felt like abuse.

In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.

The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.

Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points

What is that? I dont see where you find this. This would also imply the chaos lord -> daemon prince would cost points.

 auticus wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.

Does it costs points? No.

Sounds like merging for free.

Yeah merging for free. No to taking min size units of zombies to bypass the core tax and then on turn 1 merging them all into the mega unit. My bad wording sorry.

No, you can still take 3 min sized units and merge them turn one, the question was "can you merge them during set up?" which you could never do as the zombie merge rule is during the hero phase

broxus wrote:
If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites.

As it's a new unit (and that's why you needed to pay reinforcement points in the first place) the resummoned unit would not be your general anymore and so you would lose the command abilities.

I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.

More than my "anti matched play" thoughts, this makes sense when you think of it in that context and why some of these rules seem so off/screwy for no reason at all. In a tournament sure, it makes sense to limit an item that can bring back a 400ish point (or more?) monster for free. But outside of that, it seems like an unwarranted nerf.

broxus wrote:
In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.

The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.

Spoken like someone who doesn't play Death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaargh wrote:

Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points

What is that? I dont see where you find this. This would also imply the chaos lord -> daemon prince would cost points.

You're right, I should have said replacement units, not models.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

broxus wrote:
In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.

The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.

Spoken like someone who doesn't play Death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaargh wrote:

Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points

What is that? I dont see where you find this. This would also imply the chaos lord -> daemon prince would cost points.

You're right, I should have said replacement units, not models.

Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.