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.
The question was asking the community page if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose.
The answer was if you set up first, you always get to choose, and that that was allegedly answered by the rules devs and would be in the FAQ.
I take with a grain of salt since the FAQ could change between now and then. Especially since only the celebrities have had the full rules and I imagine they will wait for the full community (us) asking questions first before they finalize that faq.
Kanluwen wrote: I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.
In their review of the 2nd Edition rules, the MiniWarGaming.com guys claim their confusion led to them contacting their official GW folks who clarified that Auticus is correct. Like him, and you, I want to read it the way you are, but at least two factions within GW say otherwise (while a third says that your version was correct, as backed up by the German 2.0 rules wording).
Basically, it really is an unclear mess, but I REALLY want you to be correct, so formation/battalions aren't still disproportionately important.
Kanluwen wrote: I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.
In their review of the 2nd Edition rules, the MiniWarGaming.com guys claim their confusion led to them contacting their official GW folks who clarified that Auticus is correct. Like him, and you, I want to read it the way you are, but at least two factions within GW say otherwise (while a third says that your version was correct, as backed up by the German 2.0 rules wording).
Basically, it really is an unclear mess, but I REALLY want you to be correct, so formation/battalions aren't still disproportionately important.
I'm gonna be brutally honest here:
Until I see it directly from the GW team in a FAQ, I'm not going to play it that way. MWG gets basic rules wrong all the time in their previews.
It sounds like what happened is that they contacted not the actual studio/rules team, but rather their rep for ordering (who would have likely been their contact point for the actual boxes etc). There's literally one word missing between my being right and what Auticus seems to be doomsaying about and that is finishing. If someone finishes setting up first per what the Core Book says? They get to decide in the event of a tie. Going off of what Auticus is saying, it's whoever deploys a unit first chooses.
GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Confirmed where?
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Obviously difficult since the text is whoever is done setting up chooses who goes first in the event of a tie.
You want me to link it to you so that you can read it?
At the start of each battle round, the
players must roll off, and the winner
decides who takes the first turn. If the
roll-off is a tie, then the player who
went first in the last battle round can
choose who goes first in this one, but
if it is the first battle round, the player
that finished setting up their army
first chooses who has the first turn.
So what exactly was the issue again Auticus?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 22:05:07
Like I said above I agree with the interpretation above. I don't agree with the GW guys saying its basically a wordy way of saying if you finish first you go first. I hate that. I'm just passing along what the community guy said and confirmed.
The books in our hands saturday won't change that. The FAQ will be what confirms it.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/26 23:01:05
It wouldn't be the first time GW wrote a perfectly clear rule that said exactly the opposite of what they wanted it to say...
'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
I'd agree with you except for the gw guy saying that it indeed meant if you finish deploying first you get to pick. Thats why I'm waiting for the faq to finish this off.
auticus wrote: The question was asking the community page if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose.
The answer was if you set up first, you always get to choose, and that that was allegedly answered by the rules devs and would be in the FAQ.
I haven't seen the question...in question, but if this is how it is worded and asked then to me it still reads as intended.
The response "if you set up first, you always choose" in this context "if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose." is still on target. I'm reading this as the Community Team not taking themselves out of "Tie-mode", ie they are responding to the question within the context of a tie.
So while the second part of the question is asking what happens outside of a tie, the Community Team is responding as if it were still inside the tie.
auticus wrote: It is. It wouldn't be a gw release without some sweet confusion and running contrary to what the rules appear to be though needing FAQ'd day one lol
I think a small part of me would be disappointed if there wasn't, in a weird way. It just wouldn't feel right. Like if there was a starter box without some sort of whippy-stick (or derivative) ruler. Can you imagine if there was a solid ruler, or an actual measuring tape? It would be ridiculous.
For those that can't view FB, the response given was:
"The player who finishes setting up their army first will take the first turn in the new edition. We've heard everyone's feedback on the wording of this rule and we've passed it on - it'll be covered in a companion document that we'll be releasing next weekend.
For now, for further clarification we'd recommend checking out the How to Play video here: https://youtu.be/fGOWPzoNRuQ"
The funny thing is how the response literally means that the person finishing deployment first MUST go first. Obviously that isn't the intent (I double checked the video to make sure though) but still kinda funny.
What's funnier is that they imply the person who has turn choice will actually choose to go first. In a way it's a disservice to new players because that's actually bad advice; second turn for the potential double is much stronger on average and should be the go-to choice barring a specific context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 04:34:08
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
That is what the rule says, yes. But in the Learn to Play video on ageofsigmar.com they say the opposite: that whoever finishes deploying first, chooses. Which is where the confusion stems from.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
That is what the rule says, yes. But in the Learn to Play video on ageofsigmar.com they say the opposite: that whoever finishes deploying first, chooses. Which is where the confusion stems from.
Uhhh...did you watch the video?
She says what the Core Rules say.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 10:49:17
She doesn't, she separates the part about the first battle round from the part about what happens on a tie, there's even a little cut in between. In the Core Rules the first turn rules are in the same sentence as the "in the event of a tie" rules.
Mymearan wrote: She doesn't, she separates the part about the first battle round from the part about what happens on a tie, there's even a little cut in between. In the Core Rules the first turn rules are in the same sentence as the "in the event of a tie" rules.
Yes, that's the difference between something being written and something being spoken aloud.
auticus wrote: It is. It wouldn't be a gw release without some sweet confusion and running contrary to what the rules appear to be though needing FAQ'd day one lol
I think a small part of me would be disappointed if there wasn't, in a weird way. It just wouldn't feel right. Like if there was a starter box without some sort of whippy-stick (or derivative) ruler. Can you imagine if there was a solid ruler, or an actual measuring tape? It would be ridiculous.
Ghaz wrote: It wouldn't be the first time GW wrote a perfectly clear rule that said exactly the opposite of what they wanted it to say...
True, but until we know exactly what the question being asked was--it's kind of a moot argument, isn't it?
Not only that, as is the case on the 40k side too, do not use community posts as confirmation for anything having to do with rules. Even in cases where they have been correct, it does not suffice as an official confirmation until it is entombed in an official rules source. Stick with the clearly written rules until informed otherwise - don't get too upset about what the community poster said without context, if the rule changes it will come from an official source, and given the track record here I wouldn't be too worried, folks
What everybody forgets to take into account is that community posts about rules do not get disseminated in the dozen+ languages this game's rules are printed in, nor do they even have a tenth of the same reach the official avenues do. Without official translations available, following this community ruling would create an arbitrary disparity between English speaking players following the post and players in every other language who did not receive the information.
That's madness. The companion document is all that matters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 12:18:13
Lemondish wrote: Not only that, as is the case on the 40k side too, do not use community posts as confirmation for anything having to do with rules. Even in cases where they have been correct, it does not suffice as an official confirmation until it is entombed in an official rules source. Stick with the clearly written rules until informed otherwise - don't get too upset about what the community poster said without context, if the rule changes it will come from an official source, and given the track record here I wouldn't be too worried, folks
What everybody forgets to take into account is that community posts about rules do not get disseminated in the dozen+ languages this game's rules are printed in, nor do they even have a tenth of the same reach the official avenues do. Without official translations available, following this community ruling would create an arbitrary disparity between English speaking players following the post and players in every other language who did not receive the information.
That's madness. The companion document is all that matters.
Except they have decided to abandon that idea and now you have official word in FB posts that still after months not available anywhere else. I have had "fun" experience of nearly getting valid(as per clarified by FB team in actual official reply) play of da jumping boyz out of DZ turn 1 denied because a) opponent hadn't heard of it(well no surprise comment to post in FB missed him...) and even tournament judges were confused for a while.
So now to be safe I need to have that FB post link. And yes they specifically even clarified THIS IS OFFICIAL. In very contemptuous way to boot.
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
....so fething lol.
This was what I was also saying on previous pages about the same topic. That facebook post turned everything on its head and now we have to wait for the FAQ to give the final answer.
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
....so fething lol.
So now that we've seen the post, again it comes down to not an issue of proofreading but players being unable to read.
"We've heard everyone's feedback on the wording of this rule and we've passed it on".
It's like the Leman Russ' "Grinding Advance" rule and people claiming that you had to move in order to not actually move under half your Movement.
11527pts Total (7400pts painted)
4980pts Total (4980pts painted)
3730 Total (210pts painted) 
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
