Did the FAQ Answer all of Our Questions? | Warhammer the Old World | Square Based Show
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Our Patreon gets you exclusive access to Discord: / squarebased
This one's big! Rob and Val tear into the newly minted and SECOND Old World FAQ. Buckle up and join us for a stroll through the newly renovated rules of Old World.
Links to the podcast only version on all platforms:
squarebasedpod...
#warhammer #warhammertheoldworld #warhammerfantasy #warhammercommunity #squarebassed #theoldworld #warhammerpodcast #thehonestwargamer
havent played a single game, watched every episode. Love u guys
Yes, neither have I. In fact, I didn't even buy a model yet - Square Based seems to scratch my itch entirely
Same!
As a matter of fact I haven’t even been able to get my hands on the rules!! (Physical copies)
Same
Same unfortunately life has been getting in the way. Army is almost ready though!
Try warhall! You can play online at any time even when life is busy
The FBiGO discussion on what rules/weapons work when pursuing a FBiGO is actually quite simple. Any rules that work on a charge (Lances for example) work in the next round of combat after pursuing the FBiGO, but any rules that work specifically in the first round of combat (Flails or Hatred for example) do not work pursuing FBiGO because the combat is ongoing, not new.
Bingo.
Really nicely put 👍
This genuinely helped me a lot! Don't think I'd appreciated the difference between things that proc off charging and things that are just first round of combat
Well said. However, won't the lance example depend on whether or not the knights have switched to hand weapons as the faq says 'neither unit' can swap weapons. ?
@@d6wounds This is a good point. If the unit was already using hand weapons instead of lances (maybe because they received the charge or it’s already an ongoing combat) they would then not be able to use their lances against an enemy who has FBiGO’d.
I'm no rulesmith, but the advantages of Lance Formation beyond ranks and combat are:
- the ability to use the small width of the single front rank to charge lone characters/warmachines that would otherwise be able to hide between other units
-they wheel from the second rank of the lance, that is two models wide, so are able to easily make charges on the edge of their front arc with minimal loss of movement, allowing them greater mobility to take advantage of their speed and swiftstride, or simply to march around terrain or other units even possibly into flank/rear arc.
I think that it’s a good sign that there is another FAQ. It shows that it’s being played and that they feel a need to address the fan base.
I sent in the question about a unit giving Cover to itself... but it was mostly as a joke, among a handful of other actual, legitimate questions about Cover which they didn't bother to answer, lol.
I think the change of glittering robes was to remove a line of text so that they could fit in the extra text needed for Aetherblade.
And now we have to live with Plague of Rust modifying Ward saves for the next 6 months. I hope you’re happy!
@@Zenfoxgames LOL, well the same argument for Plague of Rust modifying ward/regen saves also means that Shields, Barding, and Armoured Hide improve ward and regen saves as well.
20:40 this one is so bizarre. If someone had tried to argue this to me they would've gotten a sock full of metal minis.
The reason for the wording change on the Daemonic robes flavor text is more obvious in the context of the page. The extra text on Æther Blade bumped up it's line count, so they had to cut something somewhere in that column in order to still fit everything in the same space.
hopefully thats the reason, and not "reflecting the rainbow".
Great video thanks both. Really loked the drilled clarification, finally my dwarfs can move more than 6inches!
Marching Column to assert dominance.
44:45
Biggest clarification in the FAQ and you just scroll by?!!
In plural it is "vortexes"
frfr old world got me back to the hobby after a decade away. this is the best thing GW has done since 7th edition 40k space wolves
33:30 the question about who shoots is probably trying to figure out if 1 or more crew members have to give up their own shots. The Dark elf scourge runner explicitly says one does but others - Stegadons and HE Skycutters don't.
I've been reading the rulebooks and waiting for the initial teething problems to be sorted out before playing. I am glad to see that GW are making an effort to clarify stuff.
Im really glad to see the FAQ, the only thing in not happy about is that the skaven, an army that is already up against the odds due to its lack of many things other armies take for granted and it's incredibly limiting list restrictions. Has received a quadruple nerf to the fellblade.
I understand the tactic they are trying to quell, it's why it's something I've actually not used yet. But any one of the nerfs they have given it would be enough. But to half it's damage, double it's chance to kill the weilder, drop from S10 to s+3 and to only allow infantry. It's gone from being a risky but rewarding option to being no where near worth 100pts
no fun allowed for rats, they nerfed everything into uselessness, every single rat toy and removed all the fun details.
the old world skaven are a complete mess, no cannons, nor useable artillery, overpriced and neglidgeable shooting, no cavallery and no dragon.
skaven was all about skryres toys, risky spells and double edged artifacts. all gone.
To clarify: triple nerf on the Fellblade.
STR, Infantry only and d3 to determine wounding self.
It never did d6 damage in Old World.
Still an awful change to the legendary sword that killed Nagash.
Sad and true 😢
Woooo. Thanks for running through all the info for us.
Kev, what an absolute Gem of a human, and such a fun opponent…rip his giant rats though.
These mugs answered all of my open Qs, thanks for the review. 🎉
So the take-back thing. It's fine so long as you haven't rolled dice or committed to the move. This question is asking if I use this marker so we know where my unit was, can I try moving it a couple different ways before I make up my mind. They are saying yes you can, this is something that can be taken back. Once you move onto the next thing though, you're committed and you can't take it back. Until then, 'Yes, absolutely' you can take it back.
Toot that horn, Val!
You guys shouldn't hold back.
You're goddamn pillars of the community!
I read the Frenzy unit charging though skirmishers different: "if there is a chance of the skirmishers moving, so they are no longer an obstruction, yes" if the skirmishers could theoretically move out of the way, then the frenzied unit must declair a charge. it doesn't matter if the skirmishers choose too move, they could have, and therefore there is a chance that they would have.
That feels more in line with other frenzy/impetuous stuff like marching column, ie 'you can't prevent your frothies from frothing at the enemy.'
It's only a ~feel~ but TOW designers kinda expect us to run off feels.
I read it like this too. It all hinges on the “chance”. That could be read both ways I guess. Maybe that will be a blue faq eventually.
But skirmishers definitely block LOS as normal, so if the frenzied unit cannot see through the skirmishers, then it just doesn’t have to declare.
@@iJasko page 184 of the main rule book, last paragraph - "other untis can see through units in skirmish formation if a line of sight can be drawn between the individual models. The individual models block line of sight as normal"
if there is a gap between the skirmishers, then a unit can see though it.
@@Reldane yes, but if that unit is arranged dense enough, it will block frenzied units regardless of how the FAQ is read.
1:00:00 what if the rider had a talisman with a ward save, but the mount had the good armor, do you get both?
I'm glad my doc has been a help to people!
I am excited that the creators of the game are stealth updating the Renegade/Legacy factions but I'm sad about my Lizardmen Slann who was already weak :(
What changed with the fat frog?
@@ianparker9080 they used to be Monstrous Infantry which made them a Lone Character and therefore a Skirmisher. This allowed them to see 360 degrees, pivot freely, and hide from being targetted quite easily.
Now they are a Monstrous Creature which is awful.
But they can still cast through the Skink Priest as LoS?
@@ianparker9080 Just the once per turn but yes
I feel the same, I am struggling with the faction as a whole tbh!
Heck yeah, let's go, baby! FAQ talk time!
They removed the flavor text from the FBiGO locked in combat thing because a lot of people online were using it to argue that it meant you only got lances in the first round of combat. The intent is clearly that a lance unit is hoping to force a FBiGO so they can refresh lances, while a Cavalry Spear unit has the flexibility of either getting the strength bonus on a new charge or fighting in extra ranks on a give ground.
Just gotta hope you don't FBIGO on the charge and force them cavalry to switch to hand weapons.
I’m glad they finally have bought JTY a new box of pens to write the rules.
I'd still like to see an FAQ/Errata about how redress the ranks work in terms of models having to be moved around evenly & whether having a command group affects this... Reasonable important for how lothern sea guard can be used.
The very first things with how the USRs interact with Characters and units was much needed! Unfortunately it is still unanswered for a few: Can a unit still be set up as Ambushers or Scouts with a character attached? Pretty sure the answer is "No." OK, that was fairly easy. But how about Drilled and Shieldwall? Or Move Through Cover and Feigned Flight?
Regarding the take back on movement, maybe they are trying to push us towards marking the final position rather than the starting position and then moving the unit, which is probably easier to be fair. Maybe it is the correct approach.
As Chorf Player that last one made me so happy.
No armor of rust....very interesting....I like that steam tanks can no longer shoot 360 degrees.....The balls on the man who argued to shoot the steam cannon out its butt...hahahaha
absolutely
@SquareBasedOldWorld I have it been told by all the gw staff and refs at the tournement at the weekend that plague of rust only affects armour save not wards and regen
I miss an FAQ on Multiple wounds and Regeneration vs 1-Wound-Models. RAW (and RAI?) a single W1 model will count Multiple dmg X against the combat resolution if it succeeds at a regeneration roll.
In General I miss fixes to Dark Elves:
- Manticore should grant +2 Toughness
- Hekaarti's blessing should work exactly like the High elves one
- Pegasus Mount for Masters, Lords, Beast Masters and (ofc, already) Sorceresses
- edited out, my mistake about the hydra
- Witch Elves with murderous, why, it makes no sense ruleswise.
Vamps:
- Plate Armour option and LD10 for Vampire Lords is missing.
- Maybe allow Vamps to cast spells despite wearing armour?
- Stomp for the poor Varghulf
they wont fix legacy stuff.
they made legacy armys bad on purpose.
theres no reason to remove slaves and nerf every weapon from skaven to the ground.
theres also no reason for having to take one clanrat unit per 1k...
they randomly gave blood knights full plate, but nerfed them hard.
compare blood knights with grail knights, they should be very similar for lore resons, its even stated in the pdf,
yet blood knights got -1 init and -1 str, but grail knights got +1 ws, +1 attacks, +1 toughness, +1 leadership...
grail knights are now straight up better for less points than blood knights, they had a slightly worse profile before... thats how legacy is written compared to mainline armys.
everything good in legacy armys is only good by accident. they didnt nerf everything to set a lower baseline for the game or other excuses, they did even buff already good units from main factions and nerfed everything halfway playable or fun from legacy factions.
vampires got nerfed so badly that mortals are now better than them, well lore hurts.
legacy armys are cheap and lazy, they need to fix that mistake for the sake of the game.
they lied that these armys are as fully fletched out as the main ones.
I do agree that Dark Elves could do with a slight boost. But Manticore +1 Toughness is fine IMO. We don't need another "dragon" option. And it's +1 in Warriors Of Chaos as well. It's fine. Elves are just softer.
DE
- Why? It doesn't grant any toughness boost to Warriors of Chaos, meaning a Manticore alone would have T4. +1 for Elves fits.
- could be an oversight, yes, could also be deliberate. Lileath is more powerful than Hekarti
- Sorceress can be mounted on Pegasus.
- What is Rend? Hydra has AP-2
- WE have murderous
Vamp
- Get in line behind Chaos Dwarfs when it comes to FPA
- They are already ridiculously strong, having to chose between armour or magic surely is acceptable
So nice, we listen twice or tres!!
Maybe he is using his executive oversight to provide enhanced ... was this in real time? Well done!
Liked and commenting for the algorithm before watching. I hope you guys discuss the "dead ground" having to do with the lance, because I have no idea how to play it. 😅 Hoping they just remove that text in the next FAQ. I'm glad they are waiting a while to offer any balance changes though. It's better to see how things develop than just starting throwing out nerfs and buffs all the time.
I miss the old Minotaur rage meter of stacking frenzy attacks as they won combats.
Those were the days...
Pretty much, as you guys said, it’s just a really good feeling to get such timely updates.
Kinda missed the point of Slaughterers call. It already did what yall said, they just changed it to where it had to come from the blood greed rule in order to transfer. A straight removal of the combo of giving your bullgor the berserker blade to automatically give his unit frenzy. They think Frenzy is REALLY good.
FBIGO counts as the same combat AND as a charge, without the ability to change weapons.
Yes, but does that include using Lances/Cavalry Spears? Impact Hits are go if the pursuit was more than 3", yes?
@@iJasko - My understanding is...
Lances can be used if the enemy does a FBIGO in the first round, since you never switch to hand weapons. Charge. Use lances. Cause FBIGO. Pursue (re: charge again) = still using lances.
However, if it is a later round that the enemy FBIGO, then lances cannot be used. Charge. Use lances. Switch to hand weapons in round 2. Cause FBIGO. Pursue (but is is a "subsequent turn") = cannot use lances.
Cavalry spears can be used (for the +S/AP, not for the supporting attack), since they count as charging. They also don't have a "subsequent turn" clause, unlike lances.
I want to say Impact Hits can be used as well if the charge is far enough.
What is a bit problematic (re: stupid) is that if my unit pursues yours, but I contact another one of your units instead (because it was just behind your FBIGO unit), I can use my lances since it is a new combat and I count as charging. However, if I had contacted the FBIGO unit, I would not be able to. So... my units ability to use lances is not based on their own charging, but whether they touch a new or old enemy. This is dum.
@@andrewbakescakes9684 Appreciate the insight, but that seems overly complicated, nicely illustrated by your example. I guess it's much easier to say "you get lances again after FBIGO, period".
@@iJasko - I guess the best approach is to clear how it works with your opponent before starting, lol. I still feel there is wiggle room regarding interpretation.
@@andrewbakescakes9684 absolutely! I think just discussing and (hopefully) agreeing on something with your opponent is always the best solution.
Yeah this FAQ is not the same as modern AoS 40k balance / FAQ updates, which I do feel a bit overwhelmed with now, just too much info to keep up with especially since I work full time, have a 4 foot 8 nagging dwarf wife, we have 2 dogs and other hobbies.
It’s nice to have clarifications on things that might pop up in a game.
Old World Questions
- How do modifiers on leadership and replacing leadership work? Does terror impact a unit using Inspiring Presence?
- Move through cover, when charging, still take the lowest roll?
- Do you choose to roll swiftstride after you see the result?
- Does placing the effect of terrain over a fanatic kill it as soon as it moves?
- Travel mystical pathways, is it the unit or the model that moves 12”? how about for a skirmishing unit?
- Does a unit that causes terror suffer the -1 to LD if it is in combat with an enemy terror causer?
- Are stomp and impact hits “weapons” do they use a models Armour Bane?
- Can I choose what armour “is best” for my character on a mount?
- The FAQ’s imply that mounts are different “models” when is this the case?
- Who can buy magic what magic armour?
- How does monster handlers work, if the handlers don’t have a wound characteristic?
- Can zombies “resurrect” before they have taken any casualties?
Hi lads watched a few of your videos now and appreciate the work you’ve put in with the army reviews and this faq. 👍🏻. Just wondered if you have a link to the legacy unit pages you showed at the end.? Good work cheers.
@58:00 the question of character and mounts AS you must use full magic item or not is best shown by Armor of Destiny character on a dragon. 5+/4++ vs 4+ of dragon. You can't use dragons 4+ then proceed to use 4++ ward. you have to use characters weaker save then ward.
Yes this was something I missed - and is actually a very big ramification
Thank you, Rob and Val: the BASSED duo on the internet.
My most frequently asked question: when will GW reprint a physical copy of “Forces of Fantasy”?
As mentioned, SDS is hoping to receive a new order of toner for their printer as a reward for their excellent quarter. So maybe not much longer!
Lol… Yes, I heard what you said about the toner/ink, but did they also remember to order more paper, cardboard for hard covers, etc.? 😄Well, you have given me hope.
Well, the lowly Empire, which did not need any nerfs, has a sniper rifle that is not OP, so couldn’t GW have made the sniper rifle an exception to their simple “No” to the question regarding “Look out sir!” Rolls? For the emperor!!!!!
You guys are so funny! Love the content and analysis, we on our channel are just beginning building our old world armies and we absolutely love it! Thanks guys!
If you guys think JTY would stoop to using a bic/gel pen you are sorely mistaken. He only ever writes using an exquisite Fountain Pen (none of this Parker nonsense either).
Great show as always! I feel like the hit to the slann is a big blow, i'm struggling with Lizardmen as it is! But, nice to see that "Legacy" documents are being updated....
What d’you think about ‘teleporting’ spells like i.e. Mystical Pathway, is the sky’s limit forever and ever 2xM of every single model? Being a movement, I propend for it.
Lances are still really good formations for Bretonnians, I don't understand the doubt. They allow you to manouvre a ton of knights on a 2-base-width basis, close the door on charges with one 1-base-width, I think the lance formation needs to have some sort of drawback. Otherwise, particularly with lances working after FBIGO, the lance formation would be overpowered.
My Orc Warboss on Wyvern has a very big smile on his toothy maw as he pulls on his Trollhide Trousers this morning...
What are his benefits from the FAQ? I'm keen to take one
@@Willabrador Just that they completely avoided any nerfs from the FAQ.
Nice :)
Skaven killed jty's family. It's the only explanation.
Please read page 92 of the rulebook. The FAQ is actually saying you can take back in that situation yes. Because you haven’t rolled any dice and by marking your unit. You have not yet committed to the move. when you pick up your marker you have committed to the move. The rulebook and JTY actually agree with you.
Mate, I am going crazy because almost nobody is getting this. What a convoluted answer jeez
Yes, it’s driving me insane everyone on the Internet is getting it backwards. They’re reading the word take back as something that is illegal when the rulebook is stating when takebacks are legal.
I'm impressed that GW are actually publishing FAQs and army books this quick.
Do they actually care?
They really do bud
Daddy loves me!? He really does!
I think drilled was a decent rule already with many ruling that you cant do it before charging.
Now that it for sure lets you do it before a charge I think its a bit too powerful for 1 point. But who knows.
Talking about internal faction balance.. compare the 49 Great weapon Ushabti to the 53 necropolis knights.. They're not even comparable.
So with lance being clarified that the entire outside of the lance counts as in base contact with the enemy unit, and the entire enemy unit's fighting rank counts as being in contact with the outside od the lance... How does this effect characters, does the entire outside of the lance count as being in b2b (base to base contact) with any characters in the fighting rank and thus able to direct as many of their attacks as they would like into them? Does the entire fighting rank of the enemy unit count as being in b2b with any characters in the outside of the lance?
Good questions here I wanna know too
They still kind of messed up on the vampire counts newly dead rule as it doesn't apply to the zombies that you can play with the spell raise dead as its a different datatsheet and does not have a cap. Might be intended for 40 size limit and its rare it will go over but its possible with a few necromancers. I would like to know your guys thoughts?
Your replies in the comments are on point. Love you guys
Unintended consequence of this video, I realized the second rank does not normally get supporting attacks 🤯
Welcome to the old world baby! WOOO
It'd be great to see a list of all the changes in the Renegade armies, and your thoughts on them! I've seen The Fellblade got changed a lot, but there are a few smaller changes around. No Magenta highlighting made it hard to see what changed..
Replying to myself here with a list that has been compiled: docs.google.com/document/d/1TGKZdVbV7SaRrxRcfIvc-aI1SbJjqZk_P98fKb4STYk/edit#heading=h.vk1aisbk8l12
Replying again now that I'm 1:32:00 into the video 🤦. love your work lads.
WDYM, that’s like the last 30min if the video?!
@@iJasko yeah, I commented before I got to the end haha. See my later comment.
The supporting attacks question might be because the rules say a model that steps up cannot attack, so by some (wrong) interpretation if you kill the front rank, the second rank steps up to the front n the third to the second meaning noone is able to attack.
thats how I thought it would be tbh. even at my disadvantage
thats like everyone was reading the now completely useless step up mechanic.
it was too hard to say that killed models get substracted from the fighting and supporting rank...
they wanted to say that models get killed on the front, but removed from the back because of steping up models, thats all.
It was just explaining why casualties reduced attacks even though they were removed from the back…. But suddenly seemed to be rule that cost models attacks they would have otherwise had….
Thanks guys, appreciate you.
It’s pretty clear a few of the questions answered come from 10th Ed 40K players, the obscuring one, for example
its like getting told in school to write like you want, now you need to do it right you arent able to...
Haha steel
So far I've always played the same opponent, and something we were hoping to see in this FAQ is a clarification on close order, rank bonus, standards, etc, and if you can claim them from multiple units in the same combat, and we haven't seen anything in the rules that would clarify despite spending lots of time going over that big book. We've been playing it as no based purely on previous edition knowledge, but in general we kinda hate relying on that, since obviously so much has changed, and we're not really sure.
Conversely, the biggest gameplay change to our games by far will be the no moving in combat. Specifically, my dwarf opponent has been very regularly maneuvering backwards to be 1.01" away from my beastmen in his front so that he could blast the goats to bits with his cannons and such, and its been the only thing keeping the games even close, as the beast eeee boiiiiiz have just been GOATs otherwise. The fact that this isn't an option any more feels pretty bad honestly; I did feel like the ability to move backwards without me being able to reform after felt super powerful, but also forcing him to not be able to use his shooty pieces feels really bad on the other end of things.
Page 153 for your first paragraph. multiple rank Bonuses and standards from multiple units do not count (standard and battle standard stack however, so essentially max 2 from standards [in addition to bonuses from Magical Banners]). Close Order does stack
@@schlatta-dirtydeeds9351 Thanks you're a savior. I'm not sure why I didn't spot this page for clarification before while trying to resolve a combat. It even calls out Close Order as stacking, despite to my mind they seem like similar bonuses so I don't understand why one would stack and another wouldn't.
Read the takeback rule again.. if you have moved on and starting to do something ELSE, you can not go back and redo your other thing.. its like chess.. when you release your hold on the chess pice youve placed it there.. but they are more generous here, you can move back and forth as much as you cant, but if you move another model AFTER you have moved that unit.. you cant move that unit back or again (without special rules ofc).
so the change to slaughterer's call makes me sad. It's worded this way to prevent you from taking the frenzy blade (which I was doing) and making your unit start with frenzy. It used to be just if the model has frenzy it would pass it on. Now it HAS to be done by rolling the double :( it read "If this model has frenzy"
I'm just drill... I mean, _thrilled_ about the FAQ
So they added Counter-Charge to the Chaos Steed, only to the characters chaos steed or also to the Chaos Knights mounted on chaos steeds?
the character mount.
This faq spelling out that bound spells are cast by the item opens up a bit of a problem, because the dispelling rules state that you can attempt a dispel when an enemy wizard casts a spell. We all know how it is supposed to work, but it would be good if in the next faq they tidied up that wording.
There are other places where the rules reference dispelling bound spells ... but tbh my eyes rolled so far into my head I didn't go too deeply on it.
@@SquareBasedOldWorld I agree, but there’s a whole strategy with dwarves and undispellable anvil of dooms going around, so be warned.
Nawwww. That ain't a thing. Nothing to be worried about
Reading the FAQ about sniping weapons i have a question look out sir: Its a magic missile a shooting attack? Can a character targeted by a sniper magic missile use the Look Out Sir rule?
And other question. Can anyone send questions to GW for being answered or they just do the FAQ they want?
What is the benefit of Tomb Guard Chariot Crew having shields?
They have armour value 4+ being light chariot while skeleton light chariot have 5+
The frenzied marching column is a bit weird. Other answers compells a frenzy unit to go fight not matter what (like not being able to choose their lower movement value if they have several), but this part means these guys are stuck WANTING to charge but somehow magically being unable to because the unit is marching?
Kind of agree that it feels wrong, but I suspect Val is right that the concern about getting stuck unable to move will just mean that you won't see people put frenzied units into marching column anyway. I suppose the exception would be frenzied units that have drilled so can charge out of marching column and have to if necessary. These of course don't make sense (Rob rightly mocked the idea) and surely a unit should only be one or the other at any given time, but that's not how they've ruled it.
I think benefit of lance formation is the opposite of the detriment to linehammer.
As for bot throwers I am not clear on how should they work against skirmishers. From what I read they only hit 1 model?
That sounds right i.e. they should work badly against skirmishers and that's what they do.
Characters and Champions are safe from sniping so I guess target banners and musicians? Less swingy bonuses but still a use for specific targeting right?
Edit: Actually that's dumb cause those get picked up. Yeah that look out sir ruling just kinda sucks.
I'm still confused about the Shaggoth item FAQ. So if I'm using my Shaggoth in my Beastmen army, can he take magic items from either Beastmen or Warriors of Chaos since he's in both army books?
No. The main listing is in the Beastmen list so they cannot take WoC items no matter which of the two armies they are part of. Beastmen or Common only.
Characters on mounts re: Armour Value: Can a Tomb King with the Armour of the Ages on a Necrolith Bone Dragon choose to use the Armour of the Ages instead of the dragon's 4+?
Yes. Point is, you either take all of the rules/effects of the character’s armour OR all of the rules/effects of the mount’s armour, no mix and match.
Shame they didn't FAQ Terrors below If target unit takes int' test equal to their unit strength or the unit strength of the unit with the terror below special rule.
I hope they got a magenta refill they're rinsing through that
I’m really happy about the new FAQ. Shows that the game is being actively supported. I also agree the 4chan rumor is just garbage. As for the rulings… they make sense, although I’m not sure cavalry needed even more boosts this edition.
Another Certified Square Based Moment ™
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if anyone can look me in the eyes and say they had corfectly divined the intent behind every one of these clarifications or adjustments I will eat my BSB.
RAW is the only thing we actually have until these FAQs are released, so these sorts of questions and discussions are important!
+1 for the airhorn for the pepperoni pizza
so here's a question,, if you don't count as charging when a unit FBIGO then you would not also get the initiative bonus for charging?
I think in the FAQ ruling they still count as charging... it's more whether or not there's an impact from it being an "ongoing combat."
@@SquareBasedOldWorld got ya thanks!
8th edition catching strays here! I really liked 8th. Maybe my memories are from after the FAQ's, or maybe it was the welcome changes from 7th. It was better than the bloat of 9th.
10th shipped fundamentally broken as well. They needed to invent an entirely new wound type!
Yar. It was a Golden Age
Comment for the algorithm. Love you guys!
The bow of Loren is absolutely baffling and stupid. It reads on the enchanted arrows really clearly, that the arrows modify the profile of the asrai long bow. Bow of loren says it counts as asrai long bow.
How is it possible that Fantasy was killed due to not selling enough, and now the sales are so much higher than expected? Is that all because of the Total War effect?
Do chaos knights now get counter charge, as they have chaos steeds? I only ask as the faq references the character mount but not the chaos knights page
Only the character mount
Interesting that they didn't restrict the wood elf glade lord and glade captain's Strikes First to the character and not the mount. Unless I missed it.
WDYM, that sentence is on p120 of "Forces of Fantasy": "Note that this special rule does not apply to this model’s mount (should it have one)."
@@iJaskohuh, I guess I must have missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm glad that they are trying to clarify things, but a part of me can't help but think, if they were less sloppy in their rules wording, most of these things wouldn't even need a FAQ to address.. ha..
I might of missed it but has GW ruled whether or not dwarf runic items are ‘magic items’ for the purpose of rule infraction such as the high elf spell that allows you to destroy magic weapons. Also if they do rule as such would it destroy the whole ‘weapon’ or just one of runes on the weapon.
I would love this to be clarified as other factions ability such as elven honours can’t be destroyed so it stands to reason dwarf runes wouldn’t either.
This is clearly stated in "Forces of Fantasy" p33 in the top paragraph: "A weapon with one or more runes inscribed upon it is a magic weapon (as described in the Warhammer: the Old World rulebook) [...]", so everything which applies to regular Magic Weapons also applies to Runic Weapons. It also applies to Armour or Talismans etc. as per p32: "Instead, Dwarfs may be equipped with runic items. These are effectively magic items [...]"
@@iJasko alright but is each rune a separate form of magic item or is the 3 runes together a magic item? Let’s say I have a Demon Slayer with two hand weapons with two runes of swiftness and one of fire. Rules state you can only have 3 weapon runes what doesn’t state wether this only applies to one, both or a split between weapons.
@@Zabzim All runes together form one (1) magic item with all the properties of the individual runes together. If they were all separate magic weapons, you could only ever use one of the runes at a time, as you can only use one magic weapon at any given time. Also please be aware that your Demon Slayer cannot use an additional hand weapon together with his runic weapon.
@@iJasko did doesn’t state that in the rules, on a page 17 of forces of fantasy is say a slayer of legend can take either an additional hand weapon or great weapon for 3 and 4 points respectively. It doesn’t say anything in the rules or on the pages devoted to runes that runic weapons are exclusive.
@@Zabzim you can BUY him an additional hand weapon, but you’ll never be able to use it (unless your magic weapon is destroyed). That is not a rule specific to dwarfs or slayers but a general rule for magic weapons. Rulebook page 338, first bullet point
I gat scrowed over too meny times by 40krules changing tostop my army working =(
I'm hopeful that Old World is a much more slow pace. I think we've got enough to be confident that the rules will be consistent for a while. And three Arcane Journals without a broken interaction has gotta be some sort of GW record!
Is there a downloadable document of the legacy army chnages?
But can the kights in the la ce formation claim rank bonuses tho? 🤔 I thought they couldn't
You have to have four in the rank I think so for Lance formation that means 10 knights in four ranks to get +1. You'd maybe expect 10 knights to be in two ranks of five otherwise and getting their +1, but more of the Lance are in the fighting rank. On the other hand the lance loses that rank bonus with one casualty while two ranks of five have to lose two to not get it.
@@ClydeMillerWynant So far it looks like the benefit of the lance is maneuverability.
Because even if the side is considered to be in base contact with the fron row for attacks, it still can receive flank charges.
@@jpf338 Yes. The smaller frontage allowing you more scope for multiple charges against the same target is potentially very useful too.
Empire knights will be an interesting contrast now with them having drilled while the Brets have their lance formation. It's good that there's a significant difference between the factions' knights, each with their positives. It is a shame they haven't fully sorted out the base contact thing for the lance though.
@@ClydeMillerWynant Oh nice point with the drilled formation, I def. digg the distinct distinction between the two factions. We all knew the lance would be difficult to define, but hey we will see what happens
Love that Drilled was clarified. I wonder what your takes are on Dawi Anvil not being able to ve dispelled b/c not a wizard. Just doesn't feel right, yet some players are taking that stance. I play Dwarfs myself, but can't bring myself to accept it. If that is the case, then all bound spells cannot be dispelled. Doesn't track for me. Thoughts?
I think everyone should learn what JTY looks like. And then imagine asking him this question. I doubt he'd even look up.
@@SquareBasedOldWorldHaha, but what do YOU think about it? I think it is ridiculous, but again, it appears to be gaining steam and would therefore need to be addressed. How would you rule at your event?😊
We'd rule it that clearly anything that took two months for thousands of players to notice was not an intended interaction and, yes, you can wizardly dispel the anvil and bound items, obviously. This sounds like the type of person who doesn't understand how to pick a random direction, and likely, spends most of their time not going to events.
@SquareBasedOldWorld Agreed! I wish it was just one misguided bufoon. There's a few threads out there on this. Sigh.....some people I wonder how they were the fastest sperm in the mob. Thx for indulging the q though lol
@@SquareBasedOldWorld "This sounds like the type of person who doesn't understand how to pick a random direction"
There are people 'over there' wondering why this wasn't addressed in the FAQ. Perhaps they haven't realised that it's actually giving them a hard stare...
Plague of Rust is such nonsense: If you read it like this (that it also reduces the armour value of Regen and Ward), a shield and barding (that improve armour value by 1) would then improve Regeneration and Ward saves. Bretonnians knights and Chaos Armour wearers would be OP AF.
Obvious ruling in my opinion. Anyone that tries to cast Plague of Rust with this ruling can face my loads of knights with 4++ ward save (improved to 3++ ward vs STR 5 and higher).
Man i loved 8th edition of 40k
You can snipe but if the character being sniped is eligible for a “look out sir!” Then he can use it. I don’t see the problem here
It means that sniping is for all intents and purposes reduced to hitting lone characters within 3" of units. Still nice, but not nearly as effective anymore.
Honestly, every one of these that I saw arguments about was something that (in my opinion) could have been understood using either common sense, or a reasonably assumption of RAI to avoid things being overpowered. Anyone who was perpetuating them was just trying to game an advantage. Necrosphinx multiple KB attacks? Obviously not. Lance formation getting the privelege of touching a single enemy model? Obviously not. Mounts getting the benefits of their riders? Obviously not. I hand around a lot in the WHFB discord and the vast majority had come to a common sense conclusion on these issues. Of course, I sometimes make the mistake of reading discussions on Facebook which is seemingly filled with eejits and rule-bending power gamers.
"Lance formation getting the privelege of touching a single enemy model? Obviously not."
Agreed. However, that didn't mean the entire fighting rank of a wider unit they're in contact with could automatically have been assumed to be in base contact. A lot of reasonable people will have treated it as each model being in contact with the one(s) directly in front of it and the remainder beyond the width of the lance getting the 'supporting attacks' that aren't called supporting attacks. And even now they haven't definitively stated that this means every model on the outside of the lance is considered to be in base contact with every model in the fighting rank of their opponents. I can't see how else to read it, but it has big (and pretty silly) implications for characters getting killed by models that are a long way away from them. It feels like they haven't understood part of the issue to be honest.
Yes, I agree they could have employed the "draw an invisible line forward" method from previous editions, but the most egregious reading of the rule (entire lance formation only in contact with one enemy model) has thankfully been squashed.
The idea that the lance should unfairly punish units with multiple attacks (usually elite troops!) but not regular infantry was absurd.
@@ThisIsMonkeyy Absolutely, but it needed FAQ'd (and still possibly needs a further one) and it's good that they've done one. Out of curiosity do you read it that everyone in both units can now target any model they wish and that's how you're going to play it? Or am I missing something?
That's a good question, I hadn't considered the implications of characters. It definitely does require some more clarification. Personally I would probably try and judge by eye, which models look like they would be in contact if they were lined up. Realistically only one or two models are likely to be in contact with a particular member of the lance formation. And in terms of fairness, that is the best read to prevent Knight Heroes getting unfairly whalloped.
@@ThisIsMonkeyy I agree that's fairer, but I'm not aware of anything in the rules about it. Something to discuss prior to a game I guess to agree a sensible way of doing it. I would worry more about the heroes the knights will be walloping to be honest as the knights will be going first for the most part, but it obviously is an issue for both sides.
Downloading this to listen later, I’m 9,000% more excited for The Old World than Age of Bloat 4.0!!
I never complain about bloat... when it's a game I love lol. Fatten me up GeeDubbs.
@@SquareBasedOldWorld But you have been such a bad influence that I'm converting my black orcs back to square bases, just bought a ton of Night Goblins, and I'm building all of my new AoS Chaos warriors to square bases. I blame you.
Why can’t tomb kings Ally with Vampire Counts but not the other way round? Just curious.
Because VC are a legacy faction and they are not featured at all in the core faction books.
Good stuff! But GW didn't answer my question ... probably coz they think it's dumb? Can anyone here answer it? 🤞
Do swarms lose an attack for each wound they suffer, i.e have as many attacks as they have wounds remaining? It would seem logical but I can’t see it mentioned anywhere in the rule book.
No, they stay at starting attacks. Like monsters.
@@iJasko Thanks. Thought so - just doesn't seem very intuitive for a swarm.