Topic: New faq released!

[sedobren]

So the faqs have been updated, addressing most if not all of the latest debates.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/the-old-world-downloads/

Some highlights:

Drilled units can reform before charging when in column formation.

Lance is used when pursuing into fbigo (it always works when charging or counting as charged)

The Helstrum trick does not work anymore. "Q: Can the spell Spectral Doppelganger from the Lore of Illusion be used with a magic weapon that allows the wielder to make only a single attack? A: No. Weapons limited to a single attack can only inflict a single hit.". Damn this hurts.

weapons with strike first do not allow wizards to cast assailments at I 10

The close order bonus is now with unit strength of 5 or more, regardless of composition (so monsters in, small units out).

Mercenaries take magic items from the list they are taken from, not the army that hires them

What do you think?

[Gorim]

The mace combo was stupid, but it was the best dragon counter the army had, so this is bad news:P

[Skyros]

It's overall a good FAQ.

It settles the lance into FBIGO argument once and for all, and to the surprise of absolutely no one who can read, you can use lances when you charge, as the rules said

When can a model use a lance?
A: During any turn in which it charged or counts as
having charged.

Doesn't get much clearer than this. I think it makes clear that the 'in subsequent' turns portion in the lance rules does not override the 'if you charged' rules, as some people were erroneously claiming. Rather, the 'if you charged' turn overrides the 'subsequent turns' part (as intuitively makes sense) so you don't get into a situation where it's both a turn you charged and a turn subsequent to a turn you charged and thus you aren't sure if you can use your lance. And of course, it answers the objection some people might have that you can use your lance only once per game.

They also removed the confusing flavor text from the original FBIGO weapon switching question, which now (as is appropriate) doesn't mention lances at all. Lances aren't treated any differently during a FBIGO than any other weapon, and lances aren't treated differently in FBIGO than they are at any other time. Both of these decisions are correct and consistent with the rest of the rules.

[BeardGamer]

Notably the cannon update could make aiming at things more restrictive if there's a unit behind a dragon for example:

"Q: Can a cannon be shot in such a way as to hit an enemy unit
that is engaged in combat with a friendly unit?
A: No. Page 143 of the rulebook makes it clear that, except in rare
cases, units cannot shoot enemy units that are engaged in combat.
In the case of cannon, this means the target point cannot be placed
in such a way as to risk the cannonball hitting a friendly unit, or an
enemy unit engaged in combat with a friendly unit."



Oh and Steam Tank cannon is front arc only now too.

[Minsc]

Good FAQ overall, answers and clarifies most of the debated rules we've seen in TOW so far, while fixing some broken mechanics:

- Random Movement now following the normal rules for its unit type is good, it was pretty busted with how it worked RAW-wise until now.

- Bedazzling Helm suddenly being infantry or cavalry only is a pretty big blow to my General on Griffon-build tho (only way to accquire a 2+ for him).
I can only guess that this change is due to how busted the Nurgle Lord on Dragon build was. Still a weird change given that some other armies can still obtain a 2+ save for their ridden monsters but meh.

- Drilled being clarified that it now allows a unit to redress their ranks before charging is good I suppose, opens up new ways to play these units.
(I know some people already played it like this but the rules was unclear previously.)
Drilled can now also apparently redress their ranks before Giving Ground, which was a surprise.

- Clarified which models that are eligible to attack in a unit that gets to fight (remove models in fighting rank firstly, and models in "supporting rank" afterwards).

- Split profile models who aren't in base contact during close combat but still in the fighting rank now gets to make a single attack for "each model on that base". This is good and makes sense, but I can already see people arguing "are these separate models?" 

- Close Ordere now requiring a Unit Strength of 5 instead of a certain number of models in order to obtain +1 CR is great - unless you are a monster with US 4 or less that is.

- The messy Q&A about switching weapons during a GG/FBIGO has been updated and clarified, and now simply states (as it always inteded) that you can't switch weapons during a GG/FBIGO. Pointless flavour-text about dropping broken lances/spears and pulling up a sword has been removed, thankfully, as that just sparked pointless discussions...

- Stomp Attacks/Impact Hits has been clarified to hit the other participant in a challenge.

- Rules granted by weapons (mundane or magical) does not apply to attacks from the mount. (This was obvious RAI to me from the start.)
Still unclear if rules granted by a magic item (non-weapon) applies to attacks from the mount, i.e. Laurels of Victory on a Imperial Griffon.

- A model with adhw can now opt to only use one hand weapon. Might be a minor point but it allows some units that come with adhw by default (like Skaven Assassins) to actually benefit from Warpstone Weapons.

- Lances clarified to be able to be used when a model charges or counts as charging, no other requirements or restrictions. We can finally leave this discussion behind us...!

- Cannons are not allowed to be shot in a way that they hit enemy units in combat with a friendly unit. I know some people who played it this way despite it feeling very gamey, so I'm glad the FAQ prevents this now.

- Spectral Doppelganger now working with single-attack weapons like Mace of Helsturm is probably good for the game, but I'd like Spectral Doppelganger to simply have a restriction when it comes to magic weapons in general.


A question that I'd still like to get answers to is;
- Does special rules granted by magic items that benefit the "wearer/bearer/character/etc" affect the entire model with if it has a split profile (i.e. Ridden Monster)? Does for instance my Imperial Griffon benefit from the Laurels of Victory?

- I'd also like for some restriction to Line Hammer to be implemented in the FAQ/Errata, but I'm not sure myself on how that restriction would best be implemented. Maybe a "Regular Infantry can only be X wide, Heavy Infantry can only be Y wide"-etc sort of dreal?

All in all, two thumbs up to GW for this FAQ, but it should've been released a full month ago at the latest.

[Skyros]

Aside from lance stuff, some other big things in here :

1) Drilled specifically allowed before charging. As empire has decent access to drilled, I think this is a small minor benefit compared to other factions

2) Only get close order combat bonus if you are US 5+. This won't hurt monsters, but greatly hurts our small detachments. I'd say this is a big nerf for the empire, except that detachments were already garbage and not using anyway. I believe you already had to be US 5+ to disrupt flanks (except against heavy infantry, which is 10+)

3) Bedazzling helm only protects infantry or cavalry (notably - not on ridden monsters). As the empire does take ridden monsters, I'd say this is pretty much neutral for us. Sure it can help us against other ridden monsters, but makes our own weaker too. I suppose, by comparison, it makes a GM on demigryph better?

4) A surprising one to me : if you can reroll failed casting rolls (I think all varieties of elf get this), you can't use to re-roll a miscast, which would seem like the most useful and powerful use of that ability. Doesn't hurt us though, I think.

5) They specifically refute the erroneous way to play where models directly behind the slain models are the ones 'stepping up', and thus also lose their attacks if armed with spears. Models stepping up are coming from the rear now, and can notionally be considered to make way through the other ranks, who continue fighting with spears/supporting attacks if able.

6) Question regarding using the mount armor save value, but the rider's magic armor special rules (specifically I imagine the TK armor of ages while riding a dragon). Says you must either use the mounts armor, or the riders armor, can't use 'part' of each. This doesn't hurt us, but might hurt some other powerful ridden monsters I think.

7) An answer confirming that weapons like the hochland long rifle that can target specific characters in units, do NOT get to ignore the LOS role. This makes the hochland long rifle completely useless, IMO.

8) Confirmation that cannons can NOT shoot into combat. This was the only possible sensible ruling to make IMO, but I did see some people arguing otherwise.

9) Cannot use the mace of hellstrum with spectral doppleganger

10) The Forces of Fantasy specific FAQ has two further nerfs for Empire : reduction of the steamtank cannon firing arc (front arc only now, not 360), and laurels of victory don't apply to the mount, only the rider.

-----

Summary : I think this is a good FAQ, I'm heartened to see new FAQ answers being put out so rapidly. I think this is overall a  noticeable reduction in the empire's power (primarily due to the US5+ required for detachments to claim +1 close order combat bonus) and the hellstrum/doppleganger power which was our previous most reliable way to deal with enemy dragons.

The drilled before charging being set in stone I think encourages us to start looking at more knights and greatswords, and say good bye to state troopers, terrible detachments, and mediocre BS shooting with hochland long rifles.

Did you know greatswords are not 'heavy infantry'? WHY? They are wearing plate armor! (I know, I know, they aren't on 30mm bases, but still)

[Minsc]

Did you know greatswords are not 'heavy infantry'? WHY? They are wearing plate armor! (I know, I know, they aren't on 30mm bases, but still)

I haven't really thought about it and my first instinct would be to say that it makes sense that they're not since they're a) not on 30x30 bases and b) "only humans" and iirc there are no human heavy infantry units in the game.

... and then I realized that Bretonnian KotR on Foot are *drumroll* Heavy infantry.
One more reason to play Bret Exiles over Empire Infantry I guess, like we needed any more...

[Ulmo]

A question that I'd still like to get answers to is;
- Does special rules granted by magic items that benefit the "wearer/bearer/character/etc" affect the entire model with if it has a split profile (i.e. Ridden Monster)? Does for instance my Imperial Griffon benefit from the Laurels of Victory?

All in all, two thumbs up to GW for this FAQ, but it should've been released a full month ago at the latest.

For Laurels of victory, it doesn't. Go check the Forces of Fantasy errata/FAQ. It says :
 "Page 76 – Laurels of Victory
Change the second paragraph of ‘Laurels of Victory’ as follows:
‘When determining your combat result, each unsaved
wound caused by an attack made by the bearer of the Laurels
of Victory (but not their mount) is worth 2 combat result
points, rather than the usual 1."

For other items, i think they tried to reduce it but it still depends on the items rules

[Minsc]

A question that I'd still like to get answers to is;
- Does special rules granted by magic items that benefit the "wearer/bearer/character/etc" affect the entire model with if it has a split profile (i.e. Ridden Monster)? Does for instance my Imperial Griffon benefit from the Laurels of Victory?

All in all, two thumbs up to GW for this FAQ, but it should've been released a full month ago at the latest.

For Laurels of victory, it doesn't. Go check the Forces of Fantasy errata/FAQ. It says :
 "Page 76 – Laurels of Victory
Change the second paragraph of ‘Laurels of Victory’ as follows:
‘When determining your combat result, each unsaved
wound caused by an attack made by the bearer of the Laurels
of Victory (but not their mount) is worth 2 combat result
points, rather than the usual 1."

For other items, i think they tried to reduce it but it still depends on the items rules

Ahh gotcha, haven't read the RH/FoF-FAQs yet. But yeah, the question still stands in general, unless they decide to FAQ every item in question that  is or becomes an issue.

[PowerSeries]

In particular, Paymaster's Coin is important to know.

[Gankom]

Shout out to actually getting a FAQ within 2 months, instead of some time after 2 years like it used to be.

[Skyros]

A question that I'd still like to get answers to is;
- Does special rules granted by magic items that benefit the "wearer/bearer/character/etc" affect the entire model with if it has a split profile (i.e. Ridden Monster)? Does for instance my Imperial Griffon benefit from the Laurels of Victory?

So in general, yes, this is an important question that is not answered, and needs to be.

However in your specific case, there is a separate 'Forces of Fantasy' FAQ that answers this. The mount is specifically excluded from the laurels.

Same thing for Bretonnian virtues, so I think we can extend this rule generally to the intent that 'the bearer' is the dude with the thing, and not the dude with the dude with the thing on his back.

[Skyros]

Did you know greatswords are not 'heavy infantry'? WHY? They are wearing plate armor! (I know, I know, they aren't on 30mm bases, but still)

I haven't really thought about it and my first instinct would be to say that it makes sense that they're not since they're a) not on 30x30 bases and b) "only humans" and iirc there are no human heavy infantry units in the game.

... and then I realized that Bretonnian KotR on Foot are *drumroll* Heavy infantry.
One more reason to play Bret Exiles over Empire Infantry I guess, like we needed any more...

Oh wow, you are right! Now I feel bad greatswords aren't, just after I reconciled myself that it made sense.

It's like they are determined to make empire as bad as possible for no reason. (And KOTR on foot ALSO get furious charge!) (And of course a ward save)

[Minsc]

A question that I'd still like to get answers to is;
- Does special rules granted by magic items that benefit the "wearer/bearer/character/etc" affect the entire model with if it has a split profile (i.e. Ridden Monster)? Does for instance my Imperial Griffon benefit from the Laurels of Victory?

All in all, two thumbs up to GW for this FAQ, but it should've been released a full month ago at the latest.

For Laurels of victory, it doesn't. Go check the Forces of Fantasy errata/FAQ. It says :
 "Page 76 – Laurels of Victory
Change the second paragraph of ‘Laurels of Victory’ as follows:
‘When determining your combat result, each unsaved
wound caused by an attack made by the bearer of the Laurels
of Victory (but not their mount) is worth 2 combat result
points, rather than the usual 1."

For other items, i think they tried to reduce it but it still depends on the items rules

Ahh gotcha, haven't read the RH/FoF-FAQs yet. But yeah, the question still stands in general, unless they decide to FAQ every item in question that  is or becomes an issue.

Hmm, come to think of it, the FAQ does mention that a model with split profile consists of "several (models), all sharing the same base", so maybe maybe it doesn't need further clarification (well it probably does)...

Q: How many attacks can a model with a split profile make if it is in the fighting rank but not in base contact with the enemy?
A: A model with split profile consists of not one model, but several, all sharing the same base. Therefore, each model on that base could make a single attack. In the case of a cavalry model, for example, this would be one attack from the rider and one from their mount."

I can see this becoming the new Lance&FBIGO-debate, but at least for now, there is some merit to claim that a magic item that affects the "bearer" or "model" only works for the actual bearer (character) unless otherwise mentioned because they are their own model.
On the other hand, them specifically clarifying that weapons (mundane and magical), Laurels of Victory, Bret Vows, etc don't affect the mount points to the opposite unless otherwise specified...

God damn it GW...

[Skyros]

I feel like it's more like the new 'counts as charging doesn't mean you count as charging' debate.

[Ulmo]

I think GW responded it, indirectly, in the faq.

Concerning the Laurel of Victory, they said:
"Q: Are unsaved wounds caused by the mount of a model
bearing the Laurels of Victory worth 2 combat result points?
A: No, only unsaved wounds caused by the bearer (the rider) count"

They stated that the bearer is the rider which, for me, always was the obvious answer as the mount doesn't bear any magic items.

[Skyros]

Sure, but, a ward save you give the rider applies to the mount too, so it's not totally obvious.

[Ulmo]

Well maybe there is not need to ask question that dont really need an answer.
You take a wardsave with you character and not really with your mount (or with both if you want).

That's why i stated that it depends on the item, maybe some of them need more explanation but with the FAQ clarifying armor items, and that clarification i mentioned, i think it solves a lot of problems.

[PowerSeries]

So, one more interesting point, the Armour of Tarnus and Griffon's heavy armour don't stack, and you can't even get the ward save from the armour if you are using the mount's armour value instead.  So that's another thing to pay attention to.

[Rodman49]

Sure, but, a ward save you give the rider applies to the mount too, so it's not totally obvious.

IMHO they should remove the ability for large targets to take magic armor/talismans/enchanted item (defensive items).  That would permit more choices for players (either take a large flying mount for terror and mobility OR take a durable lord on foot or cav).

[PowerSeries]

Really they should go back to having the ability to kill the rider or the dragon separately and keep that fun little chart for what happens when the rider dies from 6e. That would solve this issue as you only need to do half the wounds before the unit gets less effective.  I learned to play in 6e, which makes it the best edition, right?

[Minsc]

I disagree with the above statements. Ridden monsters used to be trash in earlier editions, especially the unarmoured ones  like griffons and manticores. Going back to that system will just mean they get shelved again. And I fail to see how removing options (equipment) would somehow give us more options...

Split (shared) profile and saves is needed but it became too good in some instances.
Limiting the amount of ridden monsters who have access to multiple layers of saves or a 2+ is a step in the right direction. Give it time and ridden monsters wil probably be in the sweetspot of "good but not too good".

[commandant]

Are dragons US5?   If not it will be really hard for a ridden dragon to win against a ranked close order infantry unit that starts with a combat res of 4. Empire infantry with detachments can start with a combat res of 6 (if 1 detachment).   If you use the warbanner than you start at combat res of 5.

Remember that 6 is the maximum amount of CR that a ridden monster can get. So if you can get your static combat res to 6 (not that hard with detachments, warbanner and something like the griffon banner and a BSB) your combat blocks become unchargeable by the dragon.

Now the dragon could charge the flank but that requires set up and defeats one of the points if a dragon. Long range charges.
Because warhammer uses 45° angles your front arc gets massive as you go out across the battlefield

[PowerSeries]

I don't disagree.  I was being a bit tounge-in-cheek with my statements.  I'm not playing 6e I'm playing TOW.

[Clymer]

Monstrous creatures (mounts) have the unit strength of their starting wounds, so dragons and griffons are US 5+