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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Not really, no. Had you watched that video never having read the rules you would think that no roll-off happened on the first turn. Which, from all accounts, is indeed how GW means it to be played.

The new edition is not even out yet and we can't get the rules right. This must be a first.

All we have to do is wait for the White Dwarf and correct us all. They are never wrong.

Davor wrote:
The new edition is not even out yet and we can't get the rules right. This must be a first.

All we have to do is wait for the White Dwarf and correct us all. They are never wrong.

We "can't get the rules right" because people are, as usual, trying to find exploits and loopholes out of plaintext.

It is not only the players that are wrong but also the translator who works for GW as the German version is very clear in that part:

Bei einem Unentschieden in der ersten Schlachtrunde des Spiels
entscheidet derjenige Spieler, der zuerst mit der Aufstellung seiner Armee fertig war, wer den ersten Zug hat

With a tie in the first round the player who finished first setting up his army decides who gets the first turn.


So everything the same with GW, they don't know the (written) rules of their own games

Yeah, this sounds like a case of someone asking for a rules clarification in a non-intuitive way, and the community team getting confused.

Here's hoping thats the case.

Battletome Preview: Endless Spells on Warhammer Community

Man... Nagash with his body-guard Morghast Archai, and a Mortalis Terminexus is going to be unkillable. In the realm of 1150 total points... but unkillable. :-p

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en.pdf

FAQ and base size chart.

Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?

A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.

So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: What happens when a unit that has been split into two
groups because of casualties piles in?

A: A unit must finish any type of move as a single group,
including pile-in moves. If this is impossible for any
reason, no models from the unit can move.

That one is fun!

I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....

DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!

I like both SCE spells. Summoning hammers or a meteor right in the middle of an enemy army. Hope they release some sort of protection spheres to keep these spells in check, but seems fun.

Noticed a new option for the Guardian of Souls on the base size chart. The Guardian pictured below on the right is listed as a Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Unless a rule clarification is provided in my native language, I'm not recognizing it as official. I don't care what some dude on Facebook says - it's madness to think they can get away with this by using a limited social media avenue to clarify the intent of their rules. If I were you, I would immediately begin ignoring it as a source and you'll soon find GW sticks to their traditional methods - printed (and translated) FAQs and errata. Thankfully they've done so perfectly in this case, so there's no issue going forward.

As usual, though, if your opponent doesn't agree then you'll need a tiebreaker. I suggest both players stand on their heads until one falters and falls.

auticus wrote:
Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?

A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.

So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.

Yuck. Suppose it further justifies battalion points increases across the board + the need to include them if at all possible. Annnd sorry armies without battalions / books

- Salvage

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....

DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!

Has been in 8th ed 40k since the beginning.

auticus wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en.pdf

FAQ and base size chart.

Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?

A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.

Yeah, looks like they may have decided to change it after the Core Rules were published. I find the bolded part interesting, though. I'm assuming that means different battle plans will use different deployment methods, so in some cases, the first to finish always gets to choose, but in others, we'll roll of for who chooses. In the latter case, it'll probably say that ties go to the first to finish.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....

DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!

Has been in 8th ed 40k since the beginning.

Ah - getting old and blind :(

Well, we know now. This argument can be over. It's not the way it was written.

It also makes Briomdar Idoneth a hell of a lot more interesting now.

And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.

It's pretty weird that some stuff you can buy right now is suggested to be on a bigger base. I'm wondering those discrepancies are a preview of what is to come.

I am fricking overjoyed at seeing the Idoneth points reverted on the Leviadon and Aspect of the Storm.

I would have liked to see the Morrsarr retain their 20pt drop and the Warscroll Battalion price changes(+ and + on Akhelian and Namarti Corps - on the Council) remain the same.

It's always funny when they do an AoS FAQ and the number of 'changes' or 'new rules' that people talk about which were always how it was done.

auticus wrote:
And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.

Just bring a cutout of the right size and put your model on it, seriously...

Lemondish wrote:
Unless a rule clarification is provided in my native language, I'm not recognizing it as official. I don't care what some dude on Facebook says - it's madness to think they can get away with this by using a limited social media avenue to clarify the intent of their rules. If I were you, I would immediately begin ignoring it as a source and you'll soon find GW sticks to their traditional methods - printed (and translated) FAQs and errata. Thankfully they've done so perfectly in this case, so there's no issue going forward.

As usual, though, if your opponent doesn't agree then you'll need a tiebreaker. I suggest both players stand on their heads until one falters and falls.

Oh I'm in agreement but I can't decide to ignore what's official and what's not in tournaments. And of course in this case if I were to ignore it I would have been hampstrunging my game a lot as I couldn't have teleported my boyz outside deployment zone in turn 1(though albeit I went for fluffy "CHAAAARGE!" option rather than spread my army in multiple places hiding but that's not orky and scenario was so against orks it was foregone conclusion anyway) so I had vested interest trying to get official rules actually used.

But how many other official clarifications and changes I have missed...That's the issue with this their new "FB can contain official rules and clarifications" policy is. I don't even KNOW what are most up to date official rules and I would assume I'm above average in that regard. Many casual players don't follow things as closely as I and as shown here not even all tournament players(which generally indicates higher than average following of rules) follow every FB post.

This policy sucks. The GW really needs to backpedal on that and have all official stuff in one easy to find location. Yet I get accused of pointless complaining on this issue. But I have already ran into downside of this policy which ruined mood in one game already when GW could have sorted it out properly lot easier and quicker than what they did actually...

And last one is bad one. I would always lose




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....

DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!

Has been in 8th ed 40k since the beginning.

Weird though. In 40k the last part would be irrelevant as you end up rerolling those 3's much to players annoyance having to reroll what would succeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.

Of course GW's "suggestions" tends to be in practice iron hard rules. On 40k side "the rule of 3 is just a suggestion". well gee. It's suggestion but if you don't enjoy playing 40k solitaire you use it.

And having to eyeball 25mm square as 32mm round isn't easy.

It's the wording. Usually it's something like "may reroll all failed rolls to hit" .

If it doesn't force you to reroll fails then you can leave some premodified successes

Of course GW's "suggestions" tends to be in practice iron hard rules. On 40k side "the rule of 3 is just a suggestion". well gee. It's suggestion but if you don't enjoy playing 40k solitaire you use it.

And having to eyeball 25mm square as 32mm round isn't easy.

Yeah because tournaments dictate all of our games (seriously). Fortunately for me I am an event organizer and I can make the call that this won't be enforced, and that you can just use what bases your models came with.

Having to rebase every X years willy nilly is not happening for me as a modeler. I spend time on my bases.

Its one of the criteria I use to determine if I'm going to some other event as well. If that rule is enforced. If so, I just don't attend.

Our local games here are also surprisingly lax on the subject (no one is forcing anyone to rebase) though our couple hard core tournament players passive aggressively insinuate you are cheating if you don't rebase.

I expect some of these base sizes to be corrected sooner rather than later. For example Ogors, Dragons (like five different base sizes on the same/very similar models), and models that are supposed to use one size when they actually come with another size. They put out so much material at once with all the FAQs that I'm not surprised so many errors slipped through.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

auticus wrote:
Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?

A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.

So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.

Yuck. Suppose it further justifies battalion points increases across the board + the need to include them if at all possible. Annnd sorry armies without battalions / books

- Salvage

Well magootkin has a battletome and every batallion in the entire book is fething garbage, so toss us in that pile to.

Yeah I'm not really interested in paying a ton of points for half useful battalions. If I really want a command point I'll just shell 50 points for it instead of 220 lol.

It really blows because EVERY one of the realm of life artifacts are saw are so fluffly, and fun, cinematic and have amazing potential for conversions. But with items like the endless gift, witherstave, carrion dirge and so on (obviously maggotkin specific here) they wont ever get used because the only way to get artefacts is to use woefully mediocre battalions.

*cries in dreadwood*

or to have games that let you take those anyway and deviate from matched play tournament standard.

In my campaigns I have quest points you can earn which are used to buy artifacts.