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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well of course they would like to kill matched play. GW abhors matched play. They already killed it 3 years ago. Then they realized that no matched play means no sales.

Lets not forget that killing matched play (which previously was just normal play and the only version they made) was the last major act of the old Kirby era GW management. For a time it did actually boost sales of Sigmar/Fantasy models, then again by that phase fantasy was at an exceptionally low sales rating anyway. In addition lets not forget the entire attitude of GW toward its fans and products was very different then; GW has changed since then. Sure many of the staff are still the same so there are similar patterns, but the overall attitude and focus has shifted.

Sigmar is also still finding its feet somewhat, though with 2.0 its in a good place to build from.

I don't see them trying to kill matched play at all. All of the GW dev buddies on twitter are hardcore matched play fanatics and the GW designers when they post on twitter are constantly posting their tournament armies or talking about tournament events.

Oh, just let them have their pity party, auticus. /s

Seriously, though, it gets really old hearing a bunch of armchair designers posting on every thread about how a missed issue obviously means GW is trying to kill the game.

auticus wrote:
I don't see them trying to kill matched play at all. All of the GW dev buddies on twitter are hardcore matched play fanatics and the GW designers when they post on twitter are constantly posting their tournament armies or talking about tournament events.

That and fast FAQ/Errata releases and, you know, releasing the Index and a whole editions worth of 40K codex in a year or so. Yes GW profits with every release; but those changes alone show that GW is taking a much more serious focus on matched play mechancis since all of those things tie right into matched play.

auticus wrote:I don't see them trying to kill matched play at all. All of the GW dev buddies on twitter are hardcore matched play fanatics and the GW designers when they post on twitter are constantly posting their tournament armies or talking about tournament events.

Than why are we getting a designer's comments FAQ with such stupid answers
Changings rules that peple liked and encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour

Or is it just that the FAQ guy wanted to show the Twitter guys who is the real boss

EnTyme wrote:Oh, just let them have their pity party, auticus. /s

Seriously, though, it gets really old hearing a bunch of armchair designers posting on every thread about how a missed issue obviously means GW is trying to kill the game.

Not the game, but matched play.

Of course, a FAQ that says its perfectly fine to act like a WAAC dick is the best way to get people to enjoy matched play
I don't know why I have the impression that it is the other way around

But it is really old hearing of a bunch of Fanboys that everything is fine while the printed book is outdated before it is released and 2 weeks after release the first events already have their own tournament comp including rule changes.

I hoped GW learned from the past but it seems they did not
At least it would have been a thing to release the GHB later. I hope the points and errors are fixed sooner and not next year with the GHB19

Overread wrote:

That and fast FAQ/Errata releases and, you know, releasing the Index and a whole editions worth of 40K codex in a year or so. Yes GW profits with every release; but those changes alone show that GW is taking a much more serious focus on matched play mechancis since all of those things tie right into matched play.

For 40k.
But there the first FAQ did not go that route if strange answers and changes

No, GW does not want to kill matched play. Years ago they simply made a mistake and over estimated the ability of their customers to set up games without explicit guidance. They thought the miniatures were "jewel like objects of magic and wonder" (actual Kirby quote) and that the rules didn't really matter and people would figure it all out for themselves. The truth is most people need scaffolding to prop up their collecting as well as the setting up of games. It was a dumb move, but it wasn't done out of hate for a particular mode of play. It was down out of an insane level of cost cutting. The less money and time they invested in rules development the more Kirby could squeeze out of the company with an unsustainable dividend payout ratio.

GW does not abhor matched play nor do they want to kill it. There was simply a time where they incorrectly believed they didn't need it. Under old management that was trying to cut costs no matter what. As someone who doesn't really do matched play, my instinct is that GW has gone a bit too far in its support of it, but it's actually probably about right.

They also seemed to be under the mistaken belief that players were adults who could sort out that "Big Scary Monster" is not the same as "Little Guys with Spears/Bows/Swords".

It still surprises me when people really seem to believe that open play is played with every model you own. So whomever can buy more will win. No one who actually plays open play does that, but people seem to have an idea in their head that it's what people do with open play.

Than why are we getting a designer's comments FAQ with such stupid answers
Changings rules that peple liked and encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour

Or is it just that the FAQ guy wanted to show the Twitter guys who is the real boss

I would say without polling information that really what this comes down to you is that they put something out you didn't agree with or like, so you are saying that that means they are trying to kill matched play when really they just went in a direction that you strongly disagree with.

 frozenwastes wrote:
It still surprises me when people really seem to believe that open play is played with every model you own. So whomever can buy more will win. No one who actually plays open play does that, but people seem to have an idea in their head that it's what people do with open play.

I think that's partly because that's how GW marketed Age of Sigmar open play initially.
Don't forget the launch of Sigmar had no formal points at all, they were stripped out and the original Battle Tomes brought off sale. There were rules, light rules, but there was no point system to balance the armies unless players had earlier battletomes to use those points.

Ergo its not that gamers couldn't tell a monster from a spearman; but that they had no way to know if that monster was equal to one spearman or thirty or fifty. There was no grounding for them, meanwhile GW was basically encouraging them to put whatever they owned on the table. At that time that could mean just throwing together random models not even with any army alliance.

Yes that is the ultimate extreme of casual play and that's what was pitched.


Right now its totally different; casual play is far more structured and there's a points system to let players have a measure by which to balance their armies up. Sure its not perfect (no game is perfectly balanced) but it at least established a base line. Players now know if they are doing a narrative or open play that the monster is equal to 20 spearmen; so they know if they are taking 10 its going to be a challenge in the narrative or even a loss; whilst if they take 50 they should win - in theory.

Essentially the modern take of casual is that its got some formal backbone to it that gives structure to the play.

Players who want to just line up whatever they've got and have fun with no rules never needed GW to give them a "rules system" to allow that; they just do it. It's the other end, the formal end, that needs the rules established. And good established rules filtrate down into more casual environments

auticus wrote:

I would say without polling information that really what this comes down to you is that they put something out you didn't agree with or like, so you are saying that that means they are trying to kill matched play when really they just went in a direction that you strongly disagree with.

It is not what I don't like, it it something that was considered cheating or un-sportsmanship (we got once a FAQ that said don't be "that guy"), and now they say that it is fine as this is how the game is played.

The thing I personally don't like in this point is that GW is still not able to print rule books that are valid for more than a week.

So yes, at the moment GW is doing things I don't like by selling outdated rules, and is doing stuff I don't understand by having a designers comment that say "being "that guy" is fine, this is how matched play works"

That Guy is just the person playing the rules as written and designed to best advantage. That just means they are playing the game well, they shouldn't be "that guy" for doing that at all; its a (common) miss-use of the term.

Now I do agree if the rules identify an issue that gives a faction a series of options that results in them being way more powerful than the average bar then that should be addressed; but that's probably beyond the authority for the community relations team to put into practice. That's the kind of thing you get from a bigger FAQ/Errata release after a bit more time in the market with the game being tested at large by the playerbase.

I'm kind of confused as to which FAQ you're referring to.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm kind of confused as to which FAQ you're referring to.

Designers’ Commentary

Q: Sometimes an ability is used after a model moves. When this is the case, assuming the model is allowed to make a move, if Idecide to leave it stationary, can I still use the ability?
A: Yes. For the purposes of the Age of Sigmar rules, if a model is allowed to move, you can choose to ‘move’ it 0 inches.

Q: Some abilities require a model that can fly to ‘pass across’ a model from an enemy unit. How exactly does this work?
A: In order for a model to pass across another, part of the moving model’s base must have moved across any part of the other model’s base. To determine if this is the case, trace the flying model’s move across the battlefield, checking to see if its base passed across any part of the other model’s base at any point in its move. Note that this means that the flying model can move up to an enemy model so that their bases overlap, and then move back, and will count as having ‘passed across’ the other model.

I agree that the first ruling is counterintuitive, but the second seems pretty logical. Not sure why anyone has a problem with it. Do you have a link to that FAQ?

Having start and endpoint being the same (and with the FAQ confirmed that pile in is move), stuff like he Stardrake mount trait "Stormwinged" workes fine in close compat as you can pile in to move a bit forward, end at the same position in base to base contact and deal mortal wounds for crossing across the unit.


Link:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en2.pdf

All makes sense to me and how it works in most other games.

 AduroT wrote:
All makes sense to me and how it works in most other games.

It is however counter to 20 years of previous GW rulings.

We can't use WHFB rulings as a basis for AOS though.

Wow... I don't think some of the... probably unintended... rules for piling-in being a move, impact me. Things like Hexwraiths just got even better, getting their mortal-wound roll-chance, every combat phase...

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Wow... I don't think some of the... probably unintended... rules for piling-in being a move, impact me. Things like Hexwraiths just got even better, getting their mortal-wound roll-chance, every combat phase...

I have every reason to believe that they've thought of this...read the current bit for Spectral Hunters as it's written on the app.

In your movement phase, immediately after this unit has moved, you can pick an enemy unit that has any models that a model from this unit passed across. If you do so, roll a dice for each model from this unit that passed across the enemy unit. For each roll of 5+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound.

They don't get the chance to do it again since it's specifically locked to the Movement Phase.

Good catch, Kan. I didn't have the book in front of me. Interesting, but i'll admit, I would've been ok with Hexwraiths getting a little unexpected love. So much of the new Nighthaunt book eclipses them.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Good catch, Kan. I didn't have the book in front of me. Interesting, but i'll admit, I would've been ok with Hexwraiths getting a little unexpected love. So much of the new Nighthaunt book eclipses them.

Looks like the Hexwraiths are in movement phase only, too:

In your movement phase, immediately after
this unit has moved, you can pick an enemy
unit that has any models that a model from
this unit passed across. If you do so, roll
a dice for each model from this unit that
passed across the enemy unit. For each roll of
5+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound

from the newest warscroll online.

The stardrake + metal realm cloak is a filthy combo. It's a 2+ and a 3+ chance for mw for every move, charge, and pile in. Thats a decent chance for 6d3 mw without swinging.

 EnTyme wrote:
I agree that the first ruling is counterintuitive, but the second seems pretty logical. Not sure why anyone has a problem with it. Do you have a link to that FAQ?

Barring a rule saying there is a minimum amount required in order to count as a move that first ruling was in effect anyways; one could always have chosen to 'move' an infinitely small distance; moving 0.000001 of a millimeter is still moving.

Speaking of the faq, I'm not sure that changing the summoning command ability from start of hero to end of movement was a good idea. Sure, the unit can't move again, but now they don't have to position their general

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I agree that the first ruling is counterintuitive, but the second seems pretty logical. Not sure why anyone has a problem with it. Do you have a link to that FAQ?

Barring a rule saying there is a minimum amount required in order to count as a move that first ruling was in effect anyways; one could always have chosen to 'move' an infinitely small distance; moving 0.000001 of a millimeter is still moving.

They could gave also FAQ'd it to be 1" minimum instead of 0".


All those answers could have been different and I am not sure what was the intention of changing rules back to the old version were people were looking forward to the new one.

My guess would be a large number of the tournament players that also drink at the pub with the designers expressed a desire for that to be the direction that the faq went.

Got around to my first tourney in the new edition. Top three armies were (get ready for a shock): Seraphon, Tzeentch, and Legions of Nagash.

Kroak is as bad as they say, even without spamming the one spell just being able to summon the portals and sit in the corner while dropping the aoe from the middle of the board is enough just with one cast to grant an insurmountable advantage. Seraphon summoning is also as bad as they say between summon points and engine of the gods; the wise play is to bring another slann as the general to be a summon battery while kroak casts. Great remember also lets kroak teleport out to the middle, drop his aoe, and teleport back. One of the players the Seraphon guy went up against conceded without even deploying. (Fortunately the Seraphon guy was very polite about all this and readily acknowledged how broken his list was.)

Legions is also as bad as they say, with a potential caveat. The Legions guy would have done better expect he kept being unable to finish games due to time since his army took so long to actually play. Might have just been his specific build though.

Overall it feels like there are less cheese builds but the ones that are there are much worse than before. It was a big de-motivator seeing and hearing about some of the top tier lists floating around.

auticus wrote:
I think because the seraphon now have the stain of being a power gamer army he doesn't want people to say he is only winning because he's playing a broken army.

I think to get around the Kroak issue without hammering the rest of the game the easiest event modification would simply be "Kroak follows the rules of one for his abilities like everyone else".

I play a full Saurus list with no summoning. If someone wants to call that power gaming, then they're welcome to try.

If someone is claiming they won't play a faction because they're easy mode due to one particular strategy, then they can always just not use that strategy.