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.
Aren't the free 8th ed primer rules also on the community website? If so, I take it those aren't official either?
If those rules are not official, then does that mean GW would have to sue itself, for posting clearly pirated (unofficial) rules on their own website?
Thank you for reinforcing my point, the rules, the actual official rules are the only document on GWs site. Why do you think that is.... because that is the only official document. It's where they provide it for ever other game. Warhammer-community is virtual white dwarf in terms of it's rulings.... Cool in friendly games, it's house rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, just to see if I'm getting this right, people are arguing that this "FAQ" isn't an "FAQ" using much the same logic as the argument of "you can't use Forgeworld models because the rules say Citadel models" because of semantics and/or the location the FAQ is downloaded from?
To be clear, nobody denied this was an FAQ. To be more clear, it is not an official document. The people who posted the document have already made rules errors, we should not start down this path, let's wait for actual supported rules clarifications.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/18 22:14:49
Argued that the Drafts weren't official because they are just "drafts"
That they would not even use it until all the kinks have been ironed out (despite the draft explicitly being put out for players to test out).
Once the Draft became final, that it wasn't "Official" because it wasn't posted on the GW website.
And once that it was posted on the website, I still remember a few saying that it's "FAQs, not Erratas, therefore only count as house rules".
Of course, everyone who said that were known to have used armies explicitly exploiting some loophole that was closed by the FAQs and were unhappy that their army was "nerfed".
Again, I pity the FAQ writers. I'm willing to bet most of them would give anything to shout at the fandom "Read English!" without repercussions.
ohh most likely, I mean the keyword bit I can just HEAR them sitting there reading people trying to argue it and screaming "jesus these people are something else!"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here. Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules. That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/18 22:36:07
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
pointless818 wrote: To be clear, nobody denied this was an FAQ. To be more clear, it is not an official document. The people who posted the document have already made rules errors, we should not start down this path, let's wait for actual supported rules clarifications.
What if GW regards this as an official document and you end up waiting for something that will never come?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.
It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.
It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.
MaxT wrote: What exactly a FAQ is, is a matter of debate anyway. IMO clarifying a rule as it is written is a FAQ, changing the nature of a rule (or points changes) is an errata. But that's just me. Other peeps may think differently
It always depends on the nature of the answer, now doesn't it?
So then if you can reroll your attack (you hit on a +3) and you have a - 1 because your objective is a flyer, you reroll 1s and 2s since a 3+ is a hit.... But then you apply the - 1?
So if you get a 3 you can't reroll it because is a hit... Even if later with the - 1 will be a fail?
Franarok wrote: So then if you can reroll your attack (you hit on a +3) and you have a - 1 because your objective is a flyer, you reroll 1s and 2s since a 3+ is a hit.... But then you apply the - 1?
So if you get a 3 you can't reroll it because is a hit... Even if later with the - 1 will be a fail?
Is funny xD
Not really. Its a lot easier to understand if you interpret rerolls to only affect natural failures.
Which does limit their power somewhat, especially considering how there's so many modifiers in the game that it can have an odd effect on rerolls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/19 16:44:52
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10: if x = 5 return false else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/19 16:59:34
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
Yes it is part of the rules, but most of us will have it figured out in out heads before we even roll the dice.
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
That is not a race condition. The term race condition describes a bug which exists because two (or more) processes access the same resource in undefined order, while the order of operations influences the result.
Considering how everything in the rules is done in order it is literally impossible for a race condition to exist due to the lack of parallelism.
In this case you have one process with a clearly defined order, you simply don't like it.
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
Unless the function is called "IsNotFive()", of course.
The code for the actual rule looks like this:
Perfectly fine, non-racing code.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Spoiler:
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
As someone who has been playing Age of Sigmar the past year, it is a bit odd, and something that the AoS community has completely missed out on, even though it has the same mentioning. While a bit unusual, it does kind of make sense to me; calling it a bug seems a bit harsh, especially since it keeps toned down the possibility of "deathstar" type units and ability stacking.
I would argue that it's counter-intuitive, not illogical.
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
It's not like you have to overcharge...
No you do not, but its still funny that shooting at a something at night somehow makes the gun overload.
Mechanically it's consistent, its just odd.
I guess that the Machine Spirits are afraid of the dark. Knowing the Imperium, they probably put baby brains inside to act as temperature regulators or something.
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/20 01:18:31
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
It just seems weird that this is the correct order of play. I'd have thought you just add the bonus to hit to the BS as you're rolling
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
It just seems weird that this is the correct order of play. I'd have thought you just add the bonus to hit to the BS as you're rolling
As the rule says, it doesn't care what the result of the dice roll was. If the physical roll is a 1 it always fails.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
upsidedownindividual wrote: Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
upsidedownindividual wrote: Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
I know I did, and I couldn't belive it, as I think I outright commented, anyone who actually tried to make that arguement is someone you just walk away from
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Having it clarified by GW beats needing to argue a blockhead any day though.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
~4100
~1660
