Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => Other Fantasy Games ... => Age of Sigmar => Topic started by: ZeroTwentythree on July 04, 2015, 12:25:47 AM
-
I finally gave the rules a first read, and want to make sure I am understanding some things correctly. Some of them seem counterintuitive, but correct according to the rules.
1. Can units shoot missile weapons and charge in the same turn?
2. When alternately choosing units to fight melee combat, can each player freely choose any of their units across the table, in any order? (In other words, you don't need to finish all participating units in a combat, before moving on to a different combat elsewhere on the table.)
3. WTF is the point of this sentence in the Battle shock section: "You must choose which models ‘flee from the units you command." It seems to state that you when you blow a roll and have to remove models, you can remove them from any unit you command -- but I don't think that's the point.
4. The attack section refers to "weapon options" available on your scroll. In the case Karl Franz, for example, he can fight with the Runefang or Ghal Maraz. Simple enough, one or the other. How about Deathclaw -- does he fight with both claw and beak, or it it an "option" to pick one or the other?
-
1. Yes
2. That's what it seems to say, and I guess it wouldn't really matter, except that it's a lot to keep track of.
3. That's what it says, but it surely means you chose them from the effected unit. Depending on which you choose you can effect how far you are from other units (getting outside 3" for example).
4. On this, all I can say is keep it simple. since he can have claws and a beak at the same time I'd say he gets both.
-
Now that's the GW we love and detest -- already ambiguities in their beer and pretzels game.
-
On another note, how in the world is everyone planning on keeping up with the wounds done? With so many multi-wound models and with big models have like 13+ wounds... Does the boxed set happen to include some nifty way to do so? In WFB I found little plastic rings put on the base or on horns, swords, etc.. worked but that was only with a few such cases in a game. I can't imagine having to do that with half your models?!
-
I'm just going to write the multi-wound models on a piece of paper and put a mark by their name when they get hurt.
-
It should only be one model per unit/scroll that you need to track. I've been using small skull beads for a long time. I've also used casualty figures for units with figures on large multi-bases.
As far as #2 above, I do think it has an interesting impact on the gameplay, as long as big battles don't become cumbersome to track.
-
#2 is basically the only strategy.
Note to #1, can also shoot into or out of any combat, and still fight in melee
-
What's this about Triumphs? "After any Sudden Death objectives have been chosen, if your army won a major victory in its previous battle, roll a dice and look up the result on the triumph table..."
Are you fkn kidding me? Who is writing this horseshit? You know what's going to happen--I can see it now when you go to play a pick up game the other guy's going to be: "Well, you know, just so happens I won a major battle last week. Scout's honor."
-
It is an impossibility that these rules have been playtested. Sure, they've been drafted on a scrap of paper, but then I do not believe they were developed into actual rules, and certainly never play tested. It is possible that the design department was given the wrong file and desk-top published the wrong text. And no-one at GW has read it since. They can't have played it as they would have discovered there isn't actually a game to play. It is, as someone said in another thread, just a child's 'game' of toy soldiers - set up whatever then bang bang, look at my moustache, I'm riding a horse, my men kill all your men, no they don't, let go of those they're mine, I'm telling my mum, well I'm not playing any more.
-
Heya,
Haven't read much about AoS, yet - just downloaded the war scroll.
-are there many models with moustches mentioned in the rules?
- I am completely missing points per unit/model. How is army size determined now?
-
- are there many models with moustches mentioned in the rules?
- I am completely missing points per unit/model. How is army size determined now?
- I would assume WYSIWYG. Note, however, that this rule is actually about the moustaches of the players.
- As You Like It.
-
a child's 'game' of toy soldiers - set up whatever then bang bang, look at my moustache, I'm riding a horse, my men kill all your men, no they don't, let go of those they're mine, I'm telling my mum, well I'm not playing any more.
Only if you want to act like a child.
And I mean that in all seriousness. We've all played tabletop RPGs - those things are full of ambiguities and uncertainties. Those are games where the objective isn't to win, it is to have fun - and everyone works together for that.
AoS isn't really a "game" in the way Warhammer is. It is a game in the sense it is fun and diverting, but it doesn't matter who wins. It's not a game about winning and losing, it is a game about having fun.
Now, not everyone is going to have fun - but I think people who try to play this as (or try to make this into) as a game of winners, losers, balance, fairness etc. are going to be disappointed. It is like trying to play a game of D&D "to win".
I am reminded of some cartoons from Penny Arcade where Gabe rails against the tendency for new video games to give bonuses and benefits to the player behind, or to make the end result of the game (the "win / lose") very random. And he doesn't like that ... but his kids do. And his wife, who is a more casual player, also likes it.
And I think that might be where GW is going - GW has decided they can't compete with other companies in terms of the game rules themselves. So they have released the equivalent of a silly little Mario game where the entire game can change with a single random event, where there aren't tactics to win etc. because winning isn't the objective of the game. The objective is just to be entertained and have fun.
I *ABSOLUTELY* understand people don't like that kind of game. They play to win and that is important. But I think GW just decided they are getting out of that kind of game.
Ultimately, trying to make AoS work as anything other than a fun entertainment - a game, frankly, for people unlike the majority of people on this forum - is doomed to failure.
-
"Welcome to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, where epic battles rage across vast realms ...
...but it's not about winning."
-
Note, however, that this rule is actually about the moustaches of the players.
I'm assuming that my moustache is going to win me a lot of games.
-
Darknight,
The comparison to a tabletop rpg is not apt I think. There are two huge differences being a scripted or semi scripted campaign in most RPGs and the huge one is the GM. As I've said elsewhere AoS might be fun if you're playing great scenarios where the armies are pre fabricated and there are objectives beyond destroying every unit in the opposing players forces. besides, d&d, or at least when I played d&d, had a pretty clear balance system. everynadventure and creature was meant to be used in certain ways depending on the level of the pc party.
Beyond that the point IS to win. Even in RPGs you are struggling against obstacles set in your path and the point is to achieve victory usually against a boss-level enemy at the end. Yes you should be having fun and telling a great story along the way but the point is that there are lots of guide rails set up to help ensure that. These don't exist in AoS or are half baked at best.
Not every game has to be like playing in a damn tournament but when you remove the idea of a fair, competitive game it actually takes away from the fun.
-
I started this thread for some rules questions instead of putting it in the other threads full of more general discussion of opinions on AoS, how to keep Warhammer alive, etc. Can we keep this one to rules questions and answers please?
-
Darknight,
The comparison to a tabletop rpg is not apt I think. There are two huge differences being a scripted or semi scripted campaign in most RPGs and the huge one is the GM. As I've said elsewhere AoS might be fun if you're playing great scenarios where the armies are pre fabricated and there are objectives beyond destroying every unit in the opposing players forces. besides, d&d, or at least when I played d&d, had a pretty clear balance system. everynadventure and creature was meant to be used in certain ways depending on the level of the pc party.
Beyond that the point IS to win. Even in RPGs you are struggling against obstacles set in your path and the point is to achieve victory usually against a boss-level enemy at the end. Yes you should be having fun and telling a great story along the way but the point is that there are lots of guide rails set up to help ensure that. These don't exist in AoS or are half baked at best.
Not every game has to be like playing in a damn tournament but when you remove the idea of a fair, competitive game it actually takes away from the fun.
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/tp555f9df2.jpg)
While flippant, I think that is a huge point.
AoS is NOT designed to be a tournament-capable, or even balanced, wargame. It just isn't. You saying it is less-fun to not have balance is very valid - but it's not relevant to Age of Sigmar.
Age of Sigmar is not designed to be the game you want to play. Trying to make it so is doomed to failure.
And the point of RPGs is not - in my view - to "win". Because the players cannot "win" in any meaningful sense; there is no competition there. There is co-operation. One might "win" a fight - but it was a fight the GM specifically designed to be "won". The GM isn't "against" the players. He is working WITH them to have a fun time.
And I think that is what AoS functions best as - friends working together to have fun.
Now, if that isn't what people want ... Age of Sigmar isn't for them.
-
Can I make my own cards and introduce warhammer wielding Afrika Korps troops?
-
Don't see why not. I'd play you ...
... provided I can have "Monty" as a hero and I get a re-roll if I do an impression of him.
-
night goblins: netters get 3 attacks at 4/5 instead of one at 4/4.
they also give enemy -1 to hit if within 2".
Howver, the unit description says "a few" night goblins carry nets, the rest with their main weaponry.
So how many netters can I add to a unit?
-
So how many netters can I add to a unit?
Clearly, "a few" :)
-
ok.
also, fanatics can be any size.
d6 attacks, 4/3, -2 rend and d3 wounds.
yeh, units of 15 fanatics will basically kill any unit if you're skirmishing.
-
@ Darknight: I've been roleplaying (GMing) since before Warhammer 1st edition, and have two WFRP scenarios published in Warpstone magazine, so I am wholly into Warhammer roleplay. Even roleplaying games benefit from structure, whether delivered by the GM &/or the rules/scenario, even if (as I have done many times) the GM isn't using rules but winging it. From all that we have seen so far, AoS has no real structure, just the illusion of such (numbers, stats, several paragraphs of rules) - it is so minimal it is creates a loose and slippy platform on which to recreate a battle. I would liken what I have seen of it so far to dreaming of a Warhammer tabletop battle game, it's logic being as uncertain and fragmented as a dream.
I need rules for my GM'd campaign, which balances wargaming, roleplaying, modelling and story telling all in equal measure, and does so in a way that the six players feel that they are part of something 'real', where their orders and actions connect with a carefully crafted world and the other players actions and orders to form a fair representation of the politics and war of a detailed realm, in which they can try to do their best whether that be to roleplay their character, conquer an empire or just successfully defend their own. It is the result of several decades of writing, wargaming and roleplaying experience. AoS would be, as far as I can see, an utterly useless medium in which to conduct such a campaign. Again, if you want a campaign set in high fantasy dreamlands, then yeah. But AoS fails completely to serve a gritty, pseudo-historical low fantasy campaign, which Warhammer can be so good at.
I am very much allowed to be disappointed by GW creating a play-pit plastic dolls and sand game, as I was hoping they would keep moving forwards, come up wth even better rules than 8th, and thus allow me to lift the campaign to higher levels. AoS is not those rules.
-
AoS has no structure (for armies, scenarios) within the rules as released so far - or, at least, very limited structure.
And I agree; structure is needed.
But I think the structure is intended to come from players and scenarios (not released yet).
As I said some time previously; AoS (despite the simplicity of the rules - although I am not sure just HOW simple they really are in comparison to WHFB - I think the shortness of the rules obfuscates the complexity added by Warscrolls) is NOT an easy game for newbies to play, precisely because of this. It requires a structure, but there isn't an obvious one.
But I do not think the game was designed for a "win / loss" paradigm. It is designed to give fun by virtue of the playing, not the winning and not the designing of armies. It is a VERY different model - one I am not sure works well.
-
night goblins: netters get 3 attacks at 4/5 instead of one at 4/4.
they also give enemy -1 to hit if within 2".
Howver, the unit description says "a few" night goblins carry nets, the rest with their main weaponry.
So how many netters can I add to a unit?
The official definitions would suggest you have to take at least 2 but they should be scarce compared to the normal ones. Scarce implies that you don't have enough to meet the demand, so if it were me I would take as many as I think sufficient and subtract one; making sure you still have at least 2 and they cannot outnumber the normal night goblins.
It's the best answer I've got.
-
Note that enemy units do not have to be in combat with the unit containing the Netters to suffer the malus. It still works in combat with another unit, as long as a Netter is within 2".
-
Best silly special rule I've come across, is Skaven Screaming Bell. If on 2 dice, the result is 13, you win the game. No modifiers can be applied. The main rules also specify, that dice are D6 unless the rules says D3
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
Not so much an Improbable as an Impossible Victory. To be fair, they do say "against all probability and reason" and go on to add that you " are hereafter branded a cheat." It is more tongue in cheese than a real rule.
-
Exactly. There are a lot of fun and silly rules in the Warscrolls.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
WoC.
Sigvald. When rolling an armour save reroll if you ( the player) are looking into a little, but if you roll a 1, you are transfixed
Wulfric. Declare a challenge, you can insult you opponent as much as you dare, if they change their expression in any way, that is an acceptance.
Cockatrice. Stare at your opponent if they blink first plus 1 on the roll to turn a model to stone.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
Best silly special rule I've come across, is Skaven Screaming Bell. If on 2 dice, the result is 13, you win the game.
Local guy came up with the idea of pairing that up with Kairos' ability to change the die roll to any number you want for the instant win on turn one.
-
AoS isn't really a "game" in the way Warhammer is. It is a game in the sense it is fun and diverting, but it doesn't matter who wins. It's not a game about winning and losing, it is a game about having fun.
....
Ultimately, trying to make AoS work as anything other than a fun entertainment - a game, frankly, for people unlike the majority of people on this forum - is doomed to failure.
I like fun.
But I still like tactics. I like positioning and moving and outsmarting people.
-
Best silly special rule I've come across, is Skaven Screaming Bell. If on 2 dice, the result is 13, you win the game.
Local guy came up with the idea of pairing that up with Kairos' ability to change the die roll to any number you want for the instant win on turn one.
Screaming Bell specifically says roll can't be modified, and if you get 13, you're cheating 😂
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
Am I reading this right that a unit can shoot if it's in close combat? Also for sure a unit can shoot at an enemy that's in close combat?
If all true, shooting is freak in powerful.
-
Am I reading this right that a unit can shoot if it's in close combat? Also for sure a unit can shoot at an enemy that's in close combat?
If all true, shooting is freak in powerful.
I've read noting to indicate otherwise. Not that is matters. AoS is only for fun, and it makes no difference to the fun either way. We played a couple times today. It's exactly what it seems to be, and I mean that for the positive and the negative.
-
I'm sure this has been brought up at some point. I read the rules pdf and the army battlescroll pdf. I don't see anything about how an army is created. They got rid of points. How the heck do you come up with an army, and match it against your opponent's (in terms of a points type of balance)?
-
I'm sure this has been brought up at some point. I read the rules pdf and the army battlescroll pdf. I don't see anything about how an army is created. They got rid of points. How the heck do you come up with an army, and match it against your opponent's (in terms of a points type of balance)?
You just take what you want, and try to be evenish about it. And then have fun playing with your toys.
-
I've read secondhand that some lower level GW people (sales reps, etc.) are recommending things like setting a limit on the number of battlescrolls and wounds.
My guess is that an increasing number of future scenarios and campaigns will lay out specific restrictions along those lines. But that's just a guess, or at least hopeful (for GW's sake) wishing. Even without that, I do think that reasonable people can work together and throw down a fun game as a cooperative effort.
-
I played a couple games today, and I think it's going to be great to play with the kids ( who desperately want to play warhammer but aren't quite ready yet).
I can let them pick the "cool things" and they won't even be able to say I'm letting them cheat. And movement is going to be much easier for them to handle.
-
I'm sure this has been brought up at some point. I read the rules pdf and the army battlescroll pdf. I don't see anything about how an army is created. They got rid of points. How the heck do you come up with an army, and match it against your opponent's (in terms of a points type of balance)?
You just take what you want, and try to be evenish about it. And then have fun playing with your toys.
Nice. So I'll take one of my models in my hand, my friend will take his in his hand, and we'll mash them together and go "pshkew tang bkow!!" and whichever model's glue job is better wins.
I think my friends and I will come up with some kind of system, but I'm sincerely hoping that GW does it.
-
I'm sure this has been brought up at some point. I read the rules pdf and the army battlescroll pdf. I don't see anything about how an army is created. They got rid of points. How the heck do you come up with an army, and match it against your opponent's (in terms of a points type of balance)?
You just take what you want, and try to be evenish about it. And then have fun playing with your toys.
Nice. So I'll take one of my models in my hand, my friend will take his in his hand, and we'll mash them together and go "pshkew tang bkow!!" and whichever model's glue job is better wins.
I think my friends and I will come up with some kind of system, but I'm sincerely hoping that GW does it.
Well, you should roll some dice as the same time, but you've pretty much got it.
-
ok.
also, fanatics can be any size.
d6 attacks, 4/3, -2 rend and d3 wounds.
yeh, units of 15 fanatics will basically kill any unit if you're skirmishing.
Yes. But... you can set them up on their own (they have no saves, so any person with any amount of shooting will target them first).
Or you can hide them in a unit, which means you have to take 2 units (just to keep the fanatics safe).
Night goblins are not brave (4). So, if the unit takes a couple of wounds, it's going to start leaking deserters.
So, the unit has to be big (you can then also take shields to give you a 5+ save).
The larger the unit, the more models you have.
The chances of giving your opponent a sudden death option gets higher.
So, your opponent gets to choose one of your wizards to assassinate.
That wizard can't hide in a unit...
-
Very good points, Shavixmir, on the faults of those units but you made a small mistake. In sudden death the overwhelming player chooses the hero/unit for you to kill, not the player who initiates sudden death.
That's why I'd take the hold ground objective. I like the idea of my valiant spearmen and handgunners making a last stand against a enemy horde.
-
I've read secondhand that some lower level GW people (sales reps, etc.) are recommending things like setting a limit on the number of battlescrolls and wounds.
My guess is that an increasing number of future scenarios and campaigns will lay out specific restrictions along those lines. But that's just a guess, or at least hopeful (for GW's sake) wishing. Even without that, I do think that reasonable people can work together and throw down a fun game as a cooperative effort.
If I'm reading it correctly, heroes are stand alone and can't be in units.
If this is correct, then you really don't want your opponent having the option of winning the game by assassinating one of them (sudden death).
So, you're going to try to keep your model count low.
However, many units have bonus abilities if they're larger. For example: 10 goblins suck. 30 goblins are good (especially when taking the battle shock into consideration - two units shooting at the goblins and then charging them will wreck havoc).
I haven't played yet, but I presume that's where the game balance is situated.
As for the rest... well, To hit, to wound & to save is the same.
Movement is simplified (basically 360 degree charge arc).
What I've seen so far, the shooting units aren't very good at close combat, so you'll shoot an opponent with one unit and charge them with another.
Nothing wrong with that.
Spells don't seem over-powered.
Monsters have a lot of wounds, but get weaker the more they're hurt. That's actually quite a cool concept.
I think the greatest problem the game has are those Sigmarines... bloody awful.
-
Talking about those sigmarines... they're not in the Empire PDF...
What the hell are they??? Do they even have rules?
-
Their warscrolls are in the White Dwarf.
-
Exactly. There are a lot of fun and silly rules in the Warscrolls.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
Yea, but these silly rules should be saved for something like April Fools, or a GW birthday bash where people just want to play for fun to celebrate. Having in the actual rules, even as a joke, is a bit silly IMO. Really takes the dark fantasy models, art and story down a huge notch. I don't think it is what fantasy players want. I think they want a game with tactics, a good story and fun to play. Now the rules themselves seem to be pretty quick, which can be a good thing. But that silliness in the rules just really makes in childish.
Looking forward to painting my army to completion now.
Ambrose
-
I think the greatest problem the game has are those Sigmarines... bloody awful.
I once tried a game of 40k against WHFB. The Brets were entirely obliterated by the space marines....sigmarines are imho nothing more than space marines in the fantasy battle...
-
Exactly. There are a lot of fun and silly rules in the Warscrolls.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
Yea, but these silly rules should be saved for something like April Fools, or a GW birthday bash where people just want to play for fun to celebrate. Having in the actual rules, even as a joke, is a bit silly IMO. Really takes the dark fantasy models, art and story down a huge notch. I don't think it is what fantasy players want. I think they want a game with tactics, a good story and fun to play. Now the rules themselves seem to be pretty quick, which can be a good thing. But that silliness in the rules just really makes in childish.
Looking forward to painting my army to completion now.
Ambrose
This. Exactly this.
I loved the game when it was a dark fantasy, but making the rules this silly just makes the game lighthearted and makes it seem like 'oh it's fine that chaos rules everyone tyrannically, we'll just ride imaginary horses'.
-
4. The attack section refers to "weapon options" available on your scroll. In the case Karl Franz, for example, he can fight with the Runefang or Ghal Maraz. Simple enough, one or the other. How about Deathclaw -- does he fight with both claw and beak, or it it an "option" to pick one or the other?
Yeah the model attacks with all melee weapons, for example if he has 4 different weapons he will attack with all of them simultaneously.
-
4. The attack section refers to "weapon options" available on your scroll. In the case Karl Franz, for example, he can fight with the Runefang or Ghal Maraz. Simple enough, one or the other. How about Deathclaw -- does he fight with both claw and beak, or it it an "option" to pick one or the other?
Yeah the model attacks with all melee weapons, for example if he has 4 different weapons he will attack with all of them simultaneously.
From reading the Karl-Franz Warscroll, he can only use either the Runefang or Ghal-Maraz, but not both. Deathclaw however, can do both of his melee abilities.
The Steam Tank as far as I can tell can now use the cannon and the gun, and the HLR, and grind in melee.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
From reading the Karl-Franz Warscroll, he can only use either the Runefang or Ghal-Maraz, but not both. Deathclaw however, can do both of his melee abilities.
The Steam Tank as far as I can tell can now use the cannon and the gun, and the HLR, and grind in melee.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
So it can be different from hero to hero? Well that is not exactly making it simpler. Oh well, at this point what difference does it make. I need to step back and let it all sink in. People sure are excited and happy about AoS, and if this really saves Warhammer then I guess it was all for the better.
-
Question #1: can Heroes join units??? Are my War Machine-consulting Engineers consigned to their fates?
Question #2:
Say with Empire's State Troop Detachment's Stand Together, Fighter Together ability, Greatswords' Oathsworn Honour Guard ability, & a Hurricanum's Portents of Battle for +1 to hit, then do GS's always hit in this setup?
GS 4+ To Hit
ST, FT: +1 to Hit
OHG: +1 To Hit
PoB: +1 to Hit
so rolling even a 1, +3 = 4.
If we're NOT staying on topic in this thread after all, well then have my non-salty 2 cents;
My particular group of buddies is largely curious/open-minded/possibly optimistic to play-test this after our next 8th Ed. tournament,* which may be our last (if we like AoS enough to skip North Star 8th Ed. in the fall.) Change *can* be a good thing! I'm still trying to wrap my head around setting up games quickly & relatively fairly, other than an eyeball test. Magic & movement phases should be quicker in AoS.
I know how easy it is to be cynical in this day & age, but this might bring more fun people into the game, push out some WAAC try-harders to WarmaHordes/whatever, & hopefully bring in enough new blood to offset whatever schism occurs within the community. It looks like an easier hobby/game to get into now, which is what they're shooting for, rather than trying to endlessly wring blood from old stones.
Me personally; my FW Manaan's Blades might see some action finally, with swords/boards looking decent for State Troops! Freikorps Militia might be worth a damn now, while, sadly, Witch Hunters prolly aren't. Marius looks tougher & less loony, Kurt Helborg looks more viable alongside his Reiksguard, though is still missing a shield, Karl Franz remains solid, Griffons look better, Balthasar slightly less, Markus Wulfhart buffs his Archers better, Grand Master lost his Runefang, while his Inner Circle Knights are only +1 Bravery over Empire Knights, Demigryph knights have viable cavalry halberds, Flagellants look intriguing, Battle Prayers & Light of Banishment/Storms of Shemtek/Searing Beams of Light can't be EZ dispelled/unbinded anymore, the new War Altar deserves its own thread to unpack, & so on, & so forth. Hopefully more *give than *take.*
* Lady of the Lake if anyone listens to LakeSwatt podcast or games in/near Minnesota, USA.
-
Question 1: "A unit can have one or more models, but cannot include models that use di¸fferent warscrolls." However, each Warmachine has a specific bonus, if there is an Engineer within 1".
Question 2: Correct.
-
Well, Tuesday I get to actually play a game!
7 scrolls or less.
I think I'm gonna dust off the Auld Bretonnians!!!
Down with the peasants!
I'll let you know what it's like from a game mechanics POV.
-
From reading the Karl-Franz Warscroll, he can only use either the Runefang or Ghal-Maraz, but not both. Deathclaw however, can do both of his melee abilities.
The Steam Tank as far as I can tell can now use the cannon and the gun, and the HLR, and grind in melee.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
As Oxycutor says. It's very WYSIWYG now. Models come in different outfits, so whatever model you choose or whatever you chose to make with it has its rules. Obvious with the General of the Empire, which clearly states what kind of outfits they come in, and Volkmar the Grim, which clearly states he carries and attacks with both weapons.
-
Chaps - can you do multi-charges?
Can you fire in combat, as in, the bloke using the knife to beat off the chaos chosen whilst shooting his bow off in his left hand?
Can you fire into combat? If so, is it divided randomly?
-
Yes to all questions. The rules do not mention anything about random distribution, or a fixed sequence like R&F before command group.
-
Well, that's slightly horrifiying
-
Well, that's slightly horrifiying
Nah, anything to kill things faster in this game is a good thing. It's only fun if it's over fast.
-
Note the wording for Standard bearers/musicians: "Models in this unit may be X. If the unit includes any X..." Prima facie, this means their function is not automatically taken over by another available model. But you could decide to have a unit completely made out of SB (presumably with the exception of the Preceptor).
-
Note the wording for Standard bearers/musicians: "Models in this unit may be X. If the unit includes any X..." Prima facie, this means their function is not automatically taken over by another available model. But you could decide to have a unit completely made out of SB (presumably with the exception of the Preceptor).
I wonder if the roles exclude eachother... Units of sb's and musicians combined..
-
You choose which models die or flee.
So you don't need to put 30 standard bearers in a unit.
-
Yes, I already forgot about that one [probably an indication of my interest]: "After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit)."
On a side note: probably for the first time, there is no reason not to take Volkmar on the War Altar. He is much better than an Arch Lector, and does not cost anything.
-
Chaps - can you do multi-charges?
Can you fire in combat, as in, the bloke using the knife to beat off the chaos chosen whilst shooting his bow off in his left hand?
Can you fire into combat? If so, is it divided randomly?
Yes, you can do multi-charges. However in the combat phase, the player whose turn it is picks one of their units to attack with, if it's the unit that charged two or more units, then you can hurt two units in one go. However, as the other player then picks one of their units that is in combat, and it doesn't have to be the same combat, they can ignore that fight until later in the phase if there are other combats going on.
Yes, you can fire into combat. And out of combat. Basically shooting and melee attacking work the same way. Any model in range of the target UNIT with the weapion, and visible to the attacking model (they can see through friendly models in the same unit) then roll attack/wound/save and so on.
There is nothing to say you can't shoot into a combat, and by the rules you'll only hit the target unit. Likewise, there is nothing preventing you from shooting while you're already in combat at any visible unit in range, though I'm guessing point blank at the unit you're in combat with would be in your best interest to be the one to shoot at.
-
But still: Why not make your whole unit Hornblowers ? it is free anyway!
There might be some special rules I have missed (on one of the hundreds of warscrolls...), assuming external balance (yes far-fetched) otherwise any discussion is void, what does bravery (>5) do for single models?
-
I suppose you could take all hornblowers, though the ability wouldn't stack. it says "If the unit contains any hornblowers...", rather than "for each hornblower..."
Terrorgheist in the Vampire Counts list does a Death Shriek vs Bravery. it is redundant for battleshock tests though, as single model units would never actually take one.
Though, there might also be a command ability, where a unit can use the Bravery of the single model for battleshock. Though inspiring presence, and most command abilites are better than that anyway.
Oh, regardign command abilities, lots of characters have them, but only the model chosen as the general can use it, though some models have a hero-phse ability, or another command ability, that can enable other models to also use theirs.
-
But still: Why not make your whole unit Hornblowers ?
Brass band!
I'd let it happen - if you converted the models...
-
But still: Why not make your whole unit Hornblowers ?
Brass band!
I'd let it happen - if you converted the models...
What converting? I've enough command models laying around...
-
Well, paint 'em then :)
I'd love to play against it. I would even let you get a re-roll if you played a kazoo in your hero phase.
-
The rules say you have to be aboe to see gour enemy to shoot at them, don't they?
Am I correct in supposing that a unit of thunderers in melee can therefore only shoot at the unit(s) they're in close combat with?
Sounds reasonable enough?
-
Yes a unit can do that. among other things it means shooting units are king if you play RAW. A unit of hand gunners would grind down a unit of state troops with little difficulty. It's so powerful An advantage it makes me wonder if it was intentional.
-
But still: Why not make your whole unit Hornblowers ?
Brass band!
I'd let it happen - if you converted the models...
I have kind of always wanted to see a marching band unit...
-
But still: Why not make your whole unit Hornblowers ?
Brass band!
I'd let it happen - if you converted the models...
I have kind of always wanted to see a marching band unit...
SteveB has one.
-
Under state troops Description, "Units of Empire State Troops are either armed with Halberds, Spears, or Swords."
Does this mean the unit must all be armed with one of those weapons, or can they mix and match within the unit? I'm inclined to think the former, since that's how it has always been in WFB, but it's not exactly clear.
Under the determine damage part of the rules in order to roll several dice at once, you need the same to hit, wound and rend, and at the same target, why would it even need to say that?
I suppose it says units are armed, rather than models are armed.
-
Under state troops Description, "Units of Empire State Troops are either armed with Halberds, Spears, or Swords."
Does this mean the unit must all be armed with one of those weapons, or can they mix and match within the unit? I'm inclined to think the former, since that's how it has always been in WFB, but it's not exactly clear.
Under the determine damage part of the rules in order to roll several dice at once, you need the same to hit, wound and rend, and at the same target, why would it even need to say that?
I suppose it says units are armed, rather than models are armed.
I would go with that last... whole unit must be armed with the same.
But would you have a second unit those can be armed otherwise while still having the rules on the same scroll
-
I suppose it says units are armed, rather than models are armed.
That is how I would read it, but if someone turned up with a mixed unit and wanted it to be mixed I wouldn't insist on it.
Might make the actual gameplay a little tricky, though - they have different profiles.
-
It is right under the State Troop warscroll; A unit is armed with either...... That means it has 10 men and is armed with one of the three. What is interesting is that it says any unit can be armed with shields, so I guess they can all have shields!
Ambrose
-
Given that there's no cost for it, there's no reason not to.
-
Unless your models don't have it, I would guess?
-
New Question:
Daemons of Chaos Bloodthirster states; Chaos Wizards know the Summon Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to
any others they know spell...
Does this mean as long as I have a Chaos Wizard (key words along the bottom) I can cast the spell? Some in my group believe that I need to have the daemon on the board first which 'unlocks' the spell so my wizard can get it.
I know it really doesn't make a difference because due to no points, I can simply put the Bloodthirster down at the start, have the warscroll, and go from there...
What do you guys think?
Ambrose
-
New Question:
Daemons of Chaos Bloodthirster states; Chaos Wizards know the Summon Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to
any others they know spell...
Does this mean as long as I have a Chaos Wizard (key words along the bottom) I can cast the spell? Some in my group believe that I need to have the daemon on the board first which 'unlocks' the spell so my wizard can get it.
I know it really doesn't make a difference because due to no points, I can simply put the Bloodthirster down at the start, have the warscroll, and go from there...
What do you guys think?
Ambrose
I've seen a bit of debate on this.
Most seem to agree that you need a unit (in this case the Thirster) on the table before you can summon them, to 'unlock' the summoning spell.
-
Based on what?
-
Yeah, I would say the first page of the AOS rules suggests otherwise. You put down units to build the force that is taking part at the beginning (count THOSE models to determine sudden death) but other models can (and might) join later.
Man, I want a 'Thirster model. Those things are sweet.
-
They covered everything in 4 pages, amazing!
-
Based on what?
Once there was the notion that models have to be on the table in order to unlock any special rules that relate to them.
I don't know what became of it though.
-
Sorry - I misread; I though it was summoning the 'Thirster, not him doing the summoning.
-
Based on what?
Once there was the notion that models have to be on the table in order to unlock any special rules that relate to them.
I don't know what became of it though.
Perhsps no one could find where it actually said that in the rules.
-
I came across this on TWF. The summoning rules are on the Warscroll of the unit being summoned not the summoner's Warscroll. So, the theory is that if a unit is not on the table, then its Warscroll is not "in play" and the summoning rules are not available to the summoner. I don't know, the main rules briefly mention Reinforcements, but do not give any details.
-
This is where the confusion comes from. In the Daemon army warscrolls for the Boodthirster of Insensent Rage:
Under the heading Magic:
Chaos Wizards know the Summon
Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to
any others they know.
So, this leads to the confusion, as the Chaos Wizard is from the Chaos warscrolls. Do they automatically gain this spell (which is RAW) or do you need to have a bloodthirster in play before that battlescroll with the magic rule can be used.
It is enough to make my head hurt.
Ambrose
-
It makes sense to do it the way they have (rules on *summoned* not *summoner*) because then they can add new summoned units without having to revise all of the summoner scrolls.
Where is it stated in the rules that warscrolls have to be "in play" or the figures literally on the table, in use, for their rules to be a part of the game?
-
Where is it stated in the rules that warscrolls have to be "in play" or the figures literally on the table, in use, for their rules to be a part of the game?
The rules don't. From what I've seen on other forums, there are players treating the Warscrolls as if they were cards in a CCG.
-
Where is it stated in the rules that warscrolls have to be "in play" or the figures literally on the table, in use, for their rules to be a part of the game?
The rules don't. From what I've seen on other forums, there are players treating the Warscrolls as if they were cards in a CCG.
That's what I think too. You pull out a warscroll (card) when a unit goes onto the table. HOW it gets on the table can be 1 - put it on at the start as there are no points or restrictions on what you can take. or 2 - summon it onto the table with a spell/ability.
It is the 2 that has me confused on how it works. My understanding with RAW is that any unit on the table that has 'wizard' and 'chaos' both on its warscroll GETS the summon spell in addition to their other spells. Yes, you will need the bloodthirster's warscroll to know that you have the spell, but I can't find anything else to say I can't use it as long as I am a Chaos Wizard.
Ambrose
-
Yes, if you do not have Bloodthirster Warscroll on the table then your wizards don't know the spell. To have Bloodthirster Warscroll on the table you need Bloodthirster on the table. That is how majority of people interpret it. Otherwise the knowledge of this spell would be noted on all wizard Warscrolls but is not, each Wizard (or his Warscroll) has explicit wording of which spells he knows.
I know it really doesn't make a difference because due to no points, I can simply put the Bloodthirster down at the start, have the warscroll, and go from there...
It has great difference since most of comps use "1-4 Hero Warscrolls" for Army composition. If you decide to play Bloodthirster then one Hero slot is taken and no other Hero can take it.
-
That's what I think too. You pull out a warscroll (card) when a unit goes onto the table
Yes, if you do not have Bloodthirster Warscroll on the table then your wizards don't know the spell.
I didn't get that impression from the rules. The rules only state that you have to have a Warscroll for any models you intend to play with. Not place a Warscroll on the table for each unit you place on the table.
As I said, that's how I interpreted the rules. I don't know what GW intended and I accept the fact that if a majority of gamers play one way then that will become the standard.
-
You pull out a warscroll (card) when a unit goes onto the table.
Yes, if you do not have Bloodthirster Warscroll on the table then your wizards don't know the spell. To have Bloodthirster Warscroll on the table you need Bloodthirster on the table.
Where do the rules explain this?
Yes, you will need the bloodthirster's warscroll to know that you have the spell, but I can't find anything else to say I can't use it as long as I am a Chaos Wizard.
Because the rules don't say anything else about it.
It has great difference since most of comps use "1-4 Hero Warscrolls" for Army composition. If you decide to play Bloodthirster then one Hero slot is taken and no other Hero can take it.
This seems to indicate that the confusion or conflict over summoning is because of limits to the number of warscrolls allowed in a game. That's a player created house rule. That's not what GW wrote in the actual game rules.
-
There is nothing I can see in the rules to suggest that you need to have a model on the table (and therefore a warscroll already "in play") in order to summon another one. I think this is predicated on a false assumption about how warscrolls work, probably in part caused by trying to make the AoS rules fit a pre-existing model of gameplay, and the rapid attempts by the community to impose composition rules on a game which explicitly doesn't have any by RAW.
Indeed, the idea that you need a Bloodthirster on the table in order to summon it seems pretty counterintuitive when you take a step back and look at how things should logically work. The keyword system pretty clearly implies that anything with those keywords can cast the summoning spell. If you think of it as another type of unit synergy it might make more sense: bonuses which affect other units in the game with certain keywords aren't listed on the recipient warscrolls either.
I guess the question which might occur is whether you need to make it clear at the start of the game you have a Bloodthirster warscroll (and model) which you might deploy later or whether you can just spring it on your opponent halfway through the game. By RAW, I think so long as you possess the warscroll and have a copy with you, you can choose to deploy it at any time the summoning spell can be used.
The other question is how it interacts with composition, but since everything to do with composition is a house rule anyway I would recommend that a rule for summoned units be agreed at the same time as total warscrolls etc.
-
What I meant to say is that RAW.
I place a Chaos Wizard on the table. I have his/her warscroll on the table to look at when I activate that model.
I have a bloodthirster model and its warscroll in my backpack.
During my turn, I activate my Chaos Wizard, go into my backpack, pull out the bloodthirster model and its warscroll. I read the summoning spell from the bloodthirster warsrcroll. Poof, my chaos wizard that is currently on the table now has this new summoning spell. I cast the spell and poof, summon my bloodthirster. I place my bloodthirster model on the table following the summon rules. I place the bloodthirster warscroll next to my other warscrolls.
That is how I read it. Because my Wizard has the 'keywords' of Chaos and Wizard, I can go to a rule where it states that ALL CHAOS WIZARDS have this summon spell. That is all it says. That is RAW.
Ambrose
-
That's a player created house rule. That's not what GW wrote in the actual game rules.
GW wants us to use it as we please. It is just like Wizards released all the alpha cards for MTG and did not tell players how big a deck should be or anything. We have the same situation here. We got some weird alpha cards (backwards compatible Warscrolls) and the game isn't even out yet.
There is nothing I can see in the rules to suggest that you need to have a model on the table (and therefore a warscroll already "in play") in order to summon another one. I think this is predicated on a false assumption about how warscrolls work, probably in part caused by trying to make the AoS rules fit a pre-existing model of gameplay, and the rapid attempts by the community to impose composition rules on a game which explicitly doesn't have any by RAW.
No, I believe this assumption comes from being aware what is overpowered and will make the game stupid. But yes, by raw you could go both sides. But so could Kairos-Bell 13 combo. :)
-
The rules do feel like a Public Beta Test.
-
Correct. I'm just pointing out that the "in play" warscroll requiring a model to already be on the table is just a house rule, not how it's actually written. The previous comments didn't make that clear, and simply stated that requirement as a matter of fact.
I think this...
The other question is how it interacts with composition, but since everything to do with composition is a house rule anyway I would recommend that a rule for summoned units be agreed at the same time as total warscrolls etc.
...makes a great deal of sense.
:::cheers:::
-
But so could Kairos-Bell 13 combo. :)
And as it says in the Bell rules, you will be branded a cheat.
-
I would even say (like with the flying unit from the lizzies in the Skink patrol)
Strike from the Skies: Instead of setting up the flying unit from this battalion on
the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is hidden amid the clouds.
In any of your movement phases, the unit can plummet from the skies to assail the
foe. When it does so, you can set it up anywhere more than 3" from the enemy. In
the following combat phase, add 1 to the result of any wound rolls for models from
that unit.
That your blood thirster is in the game set aside waiting to be summoned. That way seems most fair to keep things "balanced" as you have agreed upon together.
-
So now my question..
I got the starter box, and was putting together the models for the first scenario (which you can play solo if you want).
Now the Lord Celestant has this command ability:
Lord of the Host: If this model is your general and uses this ability, until your next hero phase you do not have to take battleshock tests for this model or any friendly unit with the Stormcast Eternal keyword that is within 24" of this model at the start of the battleshock phase.
In his description it states that he is a single model.
Now the rules with in the Battleshock phase says:
In the battleshock phase, both players must take battleshock tests for units from their army that have had models slain during the turn.
So why has a single model wording to keep him self save from battleshock? He is either still there and not eligible for this phase or is slain and then it doesn't matter anymore..
I ran into this already with the first scenario.. and just skipped that phase..
-
Look at chapter 3, column 2, para 3 in volume 2 of the errata for the answer. Although you'll have to refer to the third print appendix section 12b for the clarification of said errata. I'd write out the full rule for you here but I think the post-character limit would be exceeded.
-
Yes single models aren't affected by battleshock anyway so that is confusing.
Regarding the summoning there is indeed no restriction if you're playing without house rules. If you have the models and the rules you can summon whatever it says, there is certainly no need to have that particular model on the table already. Somehow this has already become a widely assumed rule for no particular reason that I can see, more so in that it doesn't really help balance it anyway.
A far better house rule for those concerned about it being OP would be that summoned units cannot in turn summon anything on the turn they arrive, and no summoner can summon more than 1 unit per hero phase, period. Still powerful and useful, but without the ridiculous scenarios mentioned in raging threads on the internets. Who has 15 Bloodthirster models anyway?
-
Who has 15 Bloodthirster models anyway?
Depends on which version of the bloodthirster. The old ones were just another unit of rank and file troops.
-
Look at chapter 3, column 2, para 3 in volume 2 of the errata for the answer. Although you'll have to refer to the third print appendix section 12b for the clarification of said errata. I'd write out the full rule for you here but I think the post-character limit would be exceeded.
Please refrain from sacastic replies here. And I have high regards for you Padre, but this is too low for you.
Don't like WAoS that is fine but keep the threads that are serious about certain aspects of WAoS clean.
-
Padre's comment wouldn't have upset anyone when made about WFB - on the contrary, I daresay. I cannot see why it should upset anyone, when made about AoS.
-
Padre's comment wouldn't have upset anyone when made about WFB - on the contrary, I daresay. I cannot see why it should upset anyone, when made about AoS.
I even would have commented on it in regards of WHFB.. I was looking for an answer, not to be made fun off with some half smart ass comment.
-
Look at chapter 3, column 2, para 3 in volume 2 of the errata for the answer. Although you'll have to refer to the third print appendix section 12b for the clarification of said errata. I'd write out the full rule for you here but I think the post-character limit would be exceeded.
They did such a good job covering ALL THE RULES in just 4 pages!!???
-
I was looking for an answer, not to be made fun off with some half smart ass comment.
I was certainly not making fun of you. I was being silly, yes, like one does from time to time on these forums, and would in conversation during a game. I think the internet has a lot to answer for if you believed my comment was in any way offensive. Unless ... I am myself failing to see some humour in your comments. That would be ironic.
-
@ SkS: You gave the answer yourself:"He is either still there and not eligible for this phase or is slain and then it doesn't matter anymore."
The more basic answer is the same as regarding WFB rules: GW does not really care about clear, concise and consistent rules. With the 8th edition, they did make an effort, but, in the end, they lacked the stamina to see it through. No doubt helped by the fact that many players do not seem to read the rules anyway.
-
No doubt helped by the fact that many players do not seem to read the rules anyway.
Yep. I still get asked for every piece of shit even dough rules are only on four pages and crystal clear (talking about starter armies, played two games with them and there was zero problems with rules).
With new rules everything is allowed which is not explicitly written to be forbidden, which is the other way from 8th edition, where only things you are allowed to do were written. That is why it was unwieldy.
-
It doesn't specifically say single models don't take Battleshock tests, as far as I can see - it says Battleshock tests are taken for units which have lost models.
Now, obviously, a single model can't lose models and be around to take a Battleshock test (unless there was some special ability which put the model back after it was removed?) but those around him can.
It's a minor oversight - or it is a generic rule which might also be given to other units in the future, which CAN take Battleshock for casualties.
But also; it might be there are other units which cause units to take a Battleshock test? Some kind of magic power or terrifying appearance etc. Those could appear on future warscrolls.
-
It doesn't specifically say single models don't take Battleshock tests, as far as I can see - it says Battleshock tests are taken for units which have lost models.
Now, obviously, a single model can't lose models and be around to take a Battleshock test (unless there was some special ability which put the model back after it was removed?) but those around him can.
It's a minor oversight - or it is a generic rule which might also be given to other units in the future, which CAN take Battleshock for casualties.
But also; it might be there are other units which cause units to take a Battleshock test? Some kind of magic power or terrifying appearance etc. Those could appear on future warscrolls.
I think it will be the last one, as we clearly haven't seen it all yet.
-
Sorry - back to the bloodthirster...
I don't see how wizards can benefit from that special rule if he's not on the table. As far as I understand it, there is no distinction between "army composition" and "deployment" in the game. If you haven't deployed a bloodthirster, he isn't in your army. To me, saying that you benefit from his rule despite him being in your backpack is a bit like claiming a bunch of shooting from a unit you haven't deployed.
The rules don't specifically say that you need to be on the table for your special rules to be applicable because, well, it actually seems pretty self-evident...
Am I completely bananas here?
-
Sorry - back to the bloodthirster...
I don't see how wizards can benefit from that special rule if he's not on the table. As far as I understand it, there is no distinction between "army composition" and "deployment" in the game. If you haven't deployed a bloodthirster, he isn't in your army. To me, saying that you benefit from his rule despite him being in your backpack is a bit like claiming a bunch of shooting from a unit you haven't deployed.
The rules don't specifically say that you need to be on the table for your special rules to be applicable because, well, it actually seems pretty self-evident...
Am I completely bananas here?
That is where the confusion comes in. Did GW add the spell to the bloodthirster warscroll to prevent having to update the WoC wizard warscroll? I don't know. The fact is RAW states that Chaos Wizards get this spell. It does not say when, or how, just that they know this spell in addition to any other spell. I read it as a way to get miniatures into your army without having to put them on at the beginning so you might get the chance to pick a sudden death rule (for example, I take 7 chaos wizard models, my opponent takes an entire army of empire. Because I have 2/3 less than my opponent, I get sudden death. Now I summon in 7 bloodthirsters and eat my enemies army up). This will be a problem but why have a rule that allows you to summon something you can simply put on the table at the beginning?
Confusing
Ambrose
-
But because it's on the bloodthirster's warscroll, it's a passive ability conferred when you have a bloodthirster. You only have a bloodthirster when you actually HAVE a bloodthirster. i.e., it needs to be already on the table.
Yeah, you can summon 7 bloodthirsters, but you need to already have one before you can do that.
EDIT: put another way, this is a special rule that belongs to the army. But it can only be a part of the army once a bloodthirster is part of your army. Which means he needs to be "in play" in some way.
-
The rules don't say anything about Warscrolls being "in play":
"All models are described by warscrolls, which provide all of the rules for using them in the game. You will need warscrolls for the models you want to use."
Models you want to use. Not models on the table.
And before someone says that you have to talk to your opponent before hand, this is not something that should need to be discussed.
-
Like I said with the lizardmen thing.
You "deploy" the bloodthirster on the side of the table with the comment: I can summon it later on the battlefield.
That way you are including it in your "armylist" and the scroll of the thirster is "active" and your opponent won't go WTF on you.. well maybe he will, but then at least he could of prepared himself.
-
Both of you: NO.
Because AoS actually HAS NO ARMY LIST.
Equally I could say "I want to 800000000000 thunderers and therefore I get, like, a billion shots, even though they're not deployed".
It is completely effing self-evident that you don't get to use the rules from a model that isn't (yet) part of your army.
I don't think this is a RAW vs RAI matter, either. The rules don't specifically "require" your "wanted" units to be on the table. But the things that you don't deploy don't come into play. A wizard that you don't deploy can't cast spells, for example.
Again - I might be being completely stupid here, but I honestly don't even see how this is a question.
-
Their attempt to craft rules so you can play your WHFB armies just seems ill-conceived and half-baked and is just an attempt to placate you after destroying the Old World and killing our game system. I dunno, I'd just stick with an actual edition of WHFB and if you want to play AoS, go with the new AoS specific units (even if you just proxy figs).
-
"It is completely effing self-evident that you don't get to use the rules from a model that isn't (yet) part of your army."
Why is it self-evident? I don't think it is and that's a problem for a week-old ruleset. We have at least three different interpretations in this thread of how to handle Summon/Reserves/Raise.
If we had a pickup game, we'd be arguing about this. How is that fun?
-
All models are described by warscrolls,
which provide all of the rules for using
them in the game. You will need warscrolls
for the models you want to use.
Check, I have the warscrolls and the models I want to use.
You can continue setting up units until you
have set up all the units you want to ght in
this battle, or have run out of space. is is
your army. Count the number of models in
your army – this may come in useful later.
Any remaining units are held in reserve,
playing no part unless fate lends a hand.
Ok, so I have a whole bunch of demons in reserve. Now, the assumption here is that units held in reserve can later be summoned and so forth. It uses this cryptic thing about fate, which I guess could mean anything. But, HA! You say, so any units in reserve are not in your army!. True, I guess? Fortunately, there isn't anything later on that even requires that to be the case. As for summoning, that's entirely the point, these models are indeed NOT yet part of your army, but through summoning they can be.
Ma gic
Chaos Wizards know the Summon
Bloodthirster of Rage spell, in addition to
any others they know.
Summon Bloodthirster of Ra ge
Summon Bloodthirster of Rage has a
casting value of 10. If successfully cast,
you can set up a Bloodthirster of Insensate
Rage within 16" of the caster and more
than 9" from any enemy models. The unit
is added to your army but cannot move in
the following movement phase.
There is nothing in here that requires this demon to be on the table at the beginning, within x inches of a wizard, there is nothing in here to even say that it has to be part of your army, etc... absolutely nothing. I have a model, a warscroll that says any chaos wizards know this spell, and a wizard on the table.
Your examples are not the same. The thunderers can't actually shoot of course, since there are rules governing how that works. And you could, if you had the models, show that you have 209459034590345 of them in reserve. If there was some mechanic in the game that allowed you to later bring them on, say as reinforcements or something, you could as the rules and space allowed.
I may very well be wrong of course, but if anything this arguing here and elsewhere on the interwebs shows that at least it's not completely clear depending on how you are interpreting these rules. What they should have done is created a tiny little summoning section in the main rules apparently.
-
What Dosiere says. :::cheers:::
-
I would simply say that the Warscrolls contain information about models. The 'Thirster one contains information about both the 'Thirster and the Chaos Sorcerer.
That, in my view, is the simpler interpretation - the Sorcerer can summon the 'Thirster even if the 'Thirster isn't on the table, because the 'Thirster Warscroll contains info about the Sorcerer.
It is a simple solution, it seems reasonable, it seems to fit the fluff (Sorcerers summon Daemons!) and it allows for simple play.
AoS is not, I think, a game of lots of cross-referencing and complexity etc. It is a game designed to be relatively simple and fun.
-
It would seem to be rather odd that there are no limits on the models you can put on the table (how unbalanced it might be), but that there would be a limit on summoning models.
-
Summoning seems incredibly powerful when reading the warscrolls, but the fact of the matter is that they are the least powerful spells in the game right now: because all summoned model might as well have been placed on the battlefield right from the start, without spending bind attempts on them.
-
AoS is not, I think, a game of lots of cross-referencing and complexity etc. It is a game designed to be relatively simple and fun.
Exactly. I'm not thrilled with it, but it does ok at that. But people won't let it be. They'll make it all complex to try to make it "balanced". Heck, we'd miss the fun of arguing about rules if they didn't. But the game that's left will still be to simple to be great, and now it'll be to complex to be fun.
-
Summoning seems incredibly powerful when reading the warscrolls, but the fact of the matter is that they are the least powerful spells in the game right now: because all summoned model might as well have been placed on the battlefield right from the start, without spending bind attempts on them.
Exactly.
Also, since everything is model-dependent (use it if you have a model) you can essentially keep summoning back 'Thirsters and other daemons each time they are killed, as long as you can make the summoning rolls.
-
My trick questions:
1. Can you charge through friendly and/or enemy units?
2. Can I pile in so that I jump over an enemy model?
Summoning seems incredibly powerful when reading the warscrolls, but the fact of the matter is that they are the least powerful spells in the game right now: because all summoned model might as well have been placed on the battlefield right from the start, without spending bind attempts on them.
No. You can deploy less units to be eligible for Sudden death. Then bring them in with summon.
On the other hand "Models added to your army during the game (for example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties." So you can overkill yourself by loosing summoned models.
-
My trick questions:
1. Can you charge through friendly and/or enemy units?
2. Can I pile in so that I jump over an enemy model?
1. No, but as long as you can see the taget you can charge it with moving around.. if you have enough charge movement.
2. not sure, but I would say no, unless flying. Seems you can go ound with models already in and move them to the side for 3" and then move in the stragglers in the openings.. dunno if that is in the spirit of the game..
-
3" pile-in is toward the nearest enemy.
Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit
-
It is more a "pile of...", to be honest.
-
It is more a "pile of...", to be honest.
Careful there Fidelis. Best not make jokes in this forum.
(Typed and retyped several times by fingers with more wine circulating in them than is far, far beyond strictly necessary.)
-
Better whine than bitter, I guess...
-
Better whine than bitter, I guess...
:-D
Re the former: Red only, preferably Rioja. Re the latter: real ale, currently Doombar or Hobgoblin being my favourites.
Edited due to aforementioned wine. Why are my finger so rebellious?
-
My question revolves around Marius Lietdorf's description that says that he attacks with both the runefang and stiletto. His profile shows 2 lines, 1 for each weapon with 3 attacks each. I'm inclined to believe he gets 6 attacks then. Is this how others interpret this? Does the Empire now have their own blender lord?!
-
My question revolves around Marius Lietdorf's description that says that he attacks with both the runefang and stiletto. His profile shows 2 lines, 1 for each weapon with 3 attacks each. I'm inclined to believe he gets 6 attacks then. Is this how others interpret this? Does the Empire now have their own blender lord?!
Yes! 6 attacks but getting something done with the stilleto needs luck (4+ to hit, 5+ to wound)
-
Question about terrain features.
The rules state "...a model can be moved across scenery but not through it (so you can't move through a solid wall, or pass through a tree but you can choose to to have a model climb over them)."
And later under the movement phase rules they state that models can expend movement vertically to climb over obstacles.
I would take this to mean that when moving through a "forest" one needs to measure the height of the trees & subtract that amount from the movement value of the unit to simulate the cost the soldiers "climbing over" the trees in the woods?
Is that right? Terrain slows you down b/c models must now climb over it?
:?
-
around the trees works also in my book..
-
Any thoughts on if you are using multiple general type war scrolls, like grandmaster and general for example, can you use the command ability on both of them? Or does the rule where you must select one model to be your general at the beginning mean that they are the only one who can use a command.
-
Any thoughts on if you are using multiple general type war scrolls, like grandmaster and general for example, can you use the command ability on both of them? Or does the rule where you must select one model to be your general at the beginning mean that they are the only one who can use a command.
No only your selected hero to be general can use one command ability, but any other abilities designed for the hero phase are good to go.
-
Shooting:
Since there does not appear to be any rule regarding line of sight, units are free to shoot at anything in range? That is, they can shoot in any direction, through any terrain, and through any other models (friend and foe alike) correct?
EDIT: Also, what is the point of the melee weapon ranges? In the comat phase does that range limit which models can attack?
-
I'm spamming the questions today I know! Another thing that I've questioned and wonder how others perceive it is that in the list of replacements at the end of the Empire Compendium, it says replace warrior priest on horseback with Luthor Huss. So if you ran Luthor himself and 2 more WP on war horse, would you really get 3 Luthors with all of his Prophet of Sigmar ability?
Another while I'm at it. How would you all take it with Karl Franz using Ghal Maraz on the field at the same time with Valten wielding Ghal Maraz?
-
Shooting:
Since there does not appear to be any rule regarding line of sight, units are free to shoot at anything in range? That is, they can shoot in any direction, through any terrain, and through any other models (friend and foe alike) correct?
EDIT: Also, what is the point of the melee weapon ranges? In the comat phase does that range limit which models can attack?
The rules simply say that your shooters can shoot at any enemy, in range, they can see. This might require you and your opponent to come to some type of understanding beforehand. In my games we play with the rule that if another unit of the same height is in between the shooter and target then they can't shoot. But for example if my Greatswords are fighting ogres then the handgunners behind the greatswords can shoot due to the height difference.
Melee range is important in the pile in phase. You can position your unit in ways that models that aren't up against the target can still attack if they are within their range of attack. For example spearmen can attack things 2 inches away so most likely your entire unit is going to get attacks. Remember you aren't aligning Tetris shapes anymore you are literally surrounding, or trying to, the enemy.
-
Shooting:
Since there does not appear to be any rule regarding line of sight, units are free to shoot at anything in range? That is, they can shoot in any direction, through any terrain, and through any other models (friend and foe alike) correct?
EDIT: Also, what is the point of the melee weapon ranges? In the comat phase does that range limit which models can attack?
The rules simply say that your shooters can shoot at any enemy, in range, they can see. This might require you and your opponent to come to some type of understanding beforehand. In my games we play with the rule that if another unit of the same height is in between the shooter and target then they can't shoot. But for example if my Greatswords are fighting ogres then the handgunners behind the greatswords can shoot due to the height difference.
Melee range is important in the pile in phase. You can position your unit in ways that models that aren't up against the target can still attack if they are within their range of attack. For example spearmen can attack things 2 inches away so most likely your entire unit is going to get attacks. Remember you aren't aligning Tetris shapes anymore you are literally surrounding, or trying to, the enemy.
So spearmen measure their range from the tip of their spear (which can be some distance away from their body, depending on modelling) and also get additional range because they're carrying a spear. Makes sense!
Every now and again this ruleset really does throw up something that strongly suggests it was written in a lunch break (the legacy warscrolls have "Friday afternoon" written all over them). I do think the whole hangs together better than is sometimes suggested - though it's still not to my taste - but there's also a lot of evidence of a lack of joined-up-thinking throughout.
-
Shooting:
Since there does not appear to be any rule regarding line of sight, units are free to shoot at anything in range? That is, they can shoot in any direction, through any terrain, and through any other models (friend and foe alike) correct?
EDIT: Also, what is the point of the melee weapon ranges? In the comat phase does that range limit which models can attack?
It does say you have to able to see them. So TLoS basically. That means just like in 8th and 40k it is going to be nigh impossible to block LoS with models alone. The only mention of cover is with terrain, where a u it has to be in or on top of terrain to benefit from cover. Remember this works in close combat as well!
Melee range is literally the range in close combat a model has to be in order to use its melted attacks. It's measured from the model, so like deuce says if you have a spear men with a spear sticking out an inch you can cram the models together with the spears sticking between the models in front to get about as many attacks as you want. It works with small units just fine, it's where you have WFB sized units it gets dumb real fast.
-
Summoning seems incredibly powerful when reading the warscrolls, but the fact of the matter is that they are the least powerful spells in the game right now: because all summoned model might as well have been placed on the battlefield right from the start, without spending bind attempts on them.
If you can summon units, you can keep your initial force smaller, reducing the chance of giving the opponent a sudden death scenario.
However, I am quite baffled by the whole summoning thing.
-
Shooting:
Since there does not appear to be any rule regarding line of sight, units are free to shoot at anything in range? That is, they can shoot in any direction, through any terrain, and through any other models (friend and foe alike) correct?
EDIT: Also, what is the point of the melee weapon ranges? In the comat phase does that range limit which models can attack?
The rules simply say that your shooters can shoot at any enemy, in range, they can see. This might require you and your opponent to come to some type of understanding beforehand. In my games we play with the rule that if another unit of the same height is in between the shooter and target then they can't shoot. But for example if my Greatswords are fighting ogres then the handgunners behind the greatswords can shoot due to the height difference.
Melee range is important in the pile in phase. You can position your unit in ways that models that aren't up against the target can still attack if they are within their range of attack. For example spearmen can attack things 2 inches away so most likely your entire unit is going to get attacks. Remember you aren't aligning Tetris shapes anymore you are literally surrounding, or trying to, the enemy.
So spearmen measure their range from the tip of their spear (which can be some distance away from their body, depending on modelling) and also get additional range because they're carrying a spear. Makes sense!
Every now and again this ruleset really does throw up something that strongly suggests it was written in a lunch break (the legacy warscrolls have "Friday afternoon" written all over them). I do think the whole hangs together better than is sometimes suggested - though it's still not to my taste - but there's also a lot of evidence of a lack of joined-up-thinking throughout.
To be honest, I would like to get in an older rule about TLOS... I know start booing etc.. but everything that isn't a bodypart doesn't count towards the model.. so weapons, plumes, standards etc do not count towards measuring range.. This seems most fair when taking melee range into consideration.
-
Summoning seems incredibly powerful when reading the warscrolls, but the fact of the matter is that they are the least powerful spells in the game right now: because all summoned model might as well have been placed on the battlefield right from the start, without spending bind attempts on them.
If you can summon units, you can keep your initial force smaller, reducing the chance of giving the opponent a sudden death scenario.
However, I am quite baffled by the whole summoning thing.
This provides an interesting perspective on summoning.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655504.page
-
i guess some of you read all available war scrolls. So where do I find rules or "rule templates" for my classic empire troops who are not in the empire Warscroll, yet:
-all DoW esp. RoR
-or at least pikes
-empirial Giants
-empirial ogres
-halfling archers/spearmen
-empirial dwarfs
-skaw the falconer (oops, wrong lore :engel: )
- the whole empirial zoo as in 4th ed
For the dwarfs the "count as state troops" may be still a valid choice (esp 'coz I mixed them with my halberders)
Also: do I understand this right? As Woodelf I now field my own pieces of terrain using a war scroll?
-
It's only 8th editions stuff. So unless someone comes up with something on his own, you're probably out of luck.
-
i guess some of you read all available war scrolls. So where do I find rules or "rule templates" for my classic empire troops who are not in the empire Warscroll, yet:
-all DoW esp. RoR
-or at least pikes
-empirial Giants
-empirial ogres
-halfling archers/spearmen
-empirial dwarfs
-skaw the falconer (oops, wrong lore :engel: )
- the whole empirial zoo as in 4th ed
For the dwarfs the "count as state troops" may be still a valid choice (esp 'coz I mixed them with my halberders)
Also: do I understand this right? As Woodelf I now field my own pieces of terrain using a war scroll?
With no limits on army composition, you can mix and match warscrolls from different lists with impunity. So just borrow whichever warscroll you think most appropriate from the Ogre/Dwarf list for those units: most likely Maneaters and Dwarf Warriors. For Giants just take the Ogre or Orc and Goblin Giant (the rules are, I think, identical). Likewise for the Imperial Zoo: take the Hydra from the Dark Elf list, and the Chimera and Cockatrice from the Warriors of Chaos list. Hippogriffs and Manticores might require a slight fudge as I think they're only included as mounts, but it should be simple to separate out the mount profile from the rider in the Bretonnian and Warriors of Chaos warscrolls.
Dogs of War and Halflings are more of a problem, as they don't have any 8th ed Studio rules and so haven't got Warscrolls. Sadly your best bet is probably finding the appropriate State Troops unit and doing a counts-as for them. It is possible Forge World might do Warscrolls for their stuff if they haven't already, which might prove an option for some DoW at least.
-
Look at chapter 3, column 2, para 3 in volume 2 of the errata for the answer. Although you'll have to refer to the third print appendix section 12b for the clarification of said errata. I'd write out the full rule for you here but I think the post-character limit would be exceeded.
:icon_lol: :::cheers:::
- - -
In actuality, since the rules are only 4 pages long, the rest is all houe rules. :icon_wink: :icon_cool:
-
Who determines if when shooting at a war machine the attacks are made against the machine or the crew? Does the attacking player choose either the crew or machine to shoot at or is it one unit and therefore the defender can allocate wounds to the machine if they want to?
-
Who determines if when shooting at a war machine the attacks are made against the machine or the crew? Does the attacking player choose either the crew or machine to shoot at or is it one unit and therefore the defender can allocate wounds to the machine if they want to?
I think you can nominate which of the 2 you are shooting at, the warmachine or it's crew.
Though the (taking the empire cannon as an example) cannon has 4 wounds and the crew only 3 together, the cannon has a 4+ save and the crew a 6+ Save but a cover bonus if within 1" of the warmachine.
-
i understand this differently. In the Crew's Abilities of the Empire Cannon writes: "The Crew are in cover while they are within 1" of their war machine." That clearly indicates that they use the cannon as a protective barrier. Isn't this what their 4+ save represents?
-
I think i couldn't be more wrong about this. The rulebook says that 'by cover, it means you add 1 to all save rolls. StealthKnightSteg is right. sorry
-
I wonder why they separated crew and Warmachine profiles while combining profiles for riders and mounts (ie Franz and DC). It is a bit frustrating that people can just shoot the crew.
-
Here is a question that came up in my games this past weekend. Is there anything in the rules which prevents the stacking of multiple Mystic Shield spells on a single unit. We could not find anything that would indicate that each subsequent Mystic Shield would not lower the Save roll by one point.
*Edit: I actually see the limitation now after re-reading the spell. It adds one to your dice roll. It doesn't actually modify the save value. It's just odd to think of a spell modifying dice rolls instead of a profile stat in a "role playing" sense. I think it's intent is that no matter how many mystic shields are on the unit, they still just add one to the roll.
-
You're talking about having more than one wizard cast mystic shield on the same unit in the same hero phase?
-
I wonder why they separated crew and Warmachine profiles while combining profiles for riders and mounts (ie Franz and DC). It is a bit frustrating that people can just shoot the crew.
If a Warmachine is destroyed and the crew lives it can aid another warmachine that lacks crew.
-
You're talking about having more than one wizard cast mystic shield on the same unit in the same hero phase?
Yes. For example, a WP with shield has a save of 3+. 2 wizards successfully cast mystic shield on the WP. There has been interpretation that when you roll for the save this would add 2 to the roll.
-
I don't see why it wouldn't be cumulative. You could with this create a unit that essentially auto-saves. Mortal wounds would still get through though. I've looked at the rules again and RAW I would say it stacks, I can't see anything that prevents it from doing so.
-
I don't see why it wouldn't be cumulative. You could with this create a unit that essentially auto-saves. Mortal wounds would still get through though. I've looked at the rules again and RAW I would say it stacks, I can't see anything that prevents it from doing so.
That being the case, I wonder if they intended for it to be stacked. I'm actually looking forward to their first rules revisions. I'd also like to see the sylvaneth tree lord ancient tags removed from Karl Franz in the AoS app! I wonder how that got through quality control.
-
I would be tempted to say they know that it could stack, although of course RAI is always a dark and terrible path to tread. It's like the summoning debate about having to take a unit on the table to be able to summon it. Many feel it's RAI to require it, yet there is no RAW support for this interpretation. I know many people (myself included) have managed to get confused by AoS rules because we're trying too hard and overthinking it, and unknowingly applying our own logic about how we assume certain things should work based on precious war gaming experience. In the case of mystic shield there is no hidden mechanic somewhere that further explains it, it simply does exactly what it says.
It's an aspect of AoS that is both refreshing and frustrating all at the same time.
-
I would be ok with it stacking, what is missing in the 4 page rule set though is a little note about that a 1 is always a miss/failure, that would atleast make things not invincible.
-
The celestial hurricanum states that a wizard tending it can cast 1 spell during the hero phase. It proceeds to list the 2 standard wizard spells and adds comet of Cassandora as a third. Do people interpret this to be in addition to the spells a wizard already knows and can cast? For example, could a life wizard on the hurricanum cast 2 spells in the hero phase with access to Mage bolt, mystic shield, comet and lifebloom?
-
No I don't think so. While a wizard can know how to cast more and more spells, it's still limited by the fact he can only cast x number per turn.
I would be ok with it stacking, what is missing in the 4 page rule set though is a little note about that a 1 is always a miss/failure, that would atleast make things not invincible.
There are no natural rolls in AoS unless specifically stated in a special rule. For example, you'll notice it's possible to roll a 7 on a d6, and conceivably a negative number or 0 as well. Another example, casting mystic shield on a unit of liberators makes it impossible to actually roll a 1, so you don't get to re roll your ones because they are now 2s. I saw this other day In a game and the guy trying to re roll his 1s had a really hard time grasping the concept. The spell doesn't make your save a 3 instead of 4, it means you literally add 1 to your save rolls, simple as that.
I wouldn't says he idea of a natural roll mechanic ismissing ie it should be there but they forgot, it's not there because the system is assuming you literally add or subtract from a roll exactly as the rules describe. Again, overthinking it.
-
The celestial hurricanum states that a wizard tending it can cast 1 spell during the hero phase. It proceeds to list the 2 standard wizard spells and adds comet of Cassandora as a third. Do people interpret this to be in addition to the spells a wizard already knows and can cast? For example, could a life wizard on the hurricanum cast 2 spells in the hero phase with access to Mage bolt, mystic shield, comet and lifebloom?
Ah I think I misunderstood you in my previous post. No because the wizard does not get his own Warscroll. when you add a wizard to hurricanum you aren't adding the empire battle wizard Warscroll onto the unit, you dont ever use the empire battle wizard Warscroll. A wizard on a hurricanum does not know lifebloom for instance. To get a life wizard with lifebloom you have to take an empire battle wizard, it's different than putting a wizard on top of the hurricaum. I hope that makes sense.
-
No I don't think so. While a wizard can know how to cast more and more spells, it's still limited by the fact he can only cast x number per turn.
I would be ok with it stacking, what is missing in the 4 page rule set though is a little note about that a 1 is always a miss/failure, that would atleast make things not invincible.
There are no natural rolls in AoS unless specifically stated in a special rule. For example, you'll notice it's possible to roll a 7 on a d6, and conceivably a negative number or 0 as well. Another example, casting mystic shield on a unit of liberators makes it impossible to actually roll a 1, so you don't get to re roll your ones because they are now 2s. I saw this other day In a game and the guy trying to re roll his 1s had a really hard time grasping the concept. The spell doesn't make your save a 3 instead of 4, it means you literally add 1 to your save rolls, simple as that.
I wouldn't says he idea of a natural roll mechanic ismissing ie it should be there but they forgot, it's not there because the system is assuming you literally add or subtract from a roll exactly as the rules describe. Again, overthinking it.
Ah indeed, that makes more sense, leaving certain mechanics in tact and invalidating others.
The celestial hurricanum states that a wizard tending it can cast 1 spell during the hero phase. It proceeds to list the 2 standard wizard spells and adds comet of Cassandora as a third. Do people interpret this to be in addition to the spells a wizard already knows and can cast? For example, could a life wizard on the hurricanum cast 2 spells in the hero phase with access to Mage bolt, mystic shield, comet and lifebloom?
Ah I think I misunderstood you in my previous post. No because the wizard does not get his own Warscroll. when you add a wizard to hurricanum you aren't adding the empire battle wizard Warscroll onto the unit, you dont ever use the empire battle wizard Warscroll. A wizard on a hurricanum does not know lifebloom for instance. To get a life wizard with lifebloom you have to take an empire battle wizard, it's different than putting a wizard on top of the hurricaum. I hope that makes sense.
Indeed, it's just another warscroll named "hurricanum with wizard"
-
Yes I was thinking of it in terms of a battle wizard war scroll using the hurricanum like a mount. So does that also infer that if the hurricanum is destroyed, the wizard doesn't continue on foot? Would this be the same with Volkmar on the War Altar?
-
indeed, single model, poof gone!
-
I would like to correct myself on something - Re-rolls actually happen before modifiers.
-
The celestial hurricanum states that a wizard tending it can cast 1 spell during the hero phase. It proceeds to list the 2 standard wizard spells and adds comet of Cassandora as a third. Do people interpret this to be in addition to the spells a wizard already knows and can cast? For example, could a life wizard on the hurricanum cast 2 spells in the hero phase with access to Mage bolt, mystic shield, comet and lifebloom?
On the warscroll it's clear that a wizard on hurricanum only knows 3 spells
"A wizard tending a Celestial Hurricanum
can attempt to cast one spell in each of
your hero phases, and attempt to unbind
one spell in each enemy hero phase. He
knows the Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield and
Comet of Casandora spells."
Also on the warscroll, it's obvious that a life wizard would not be flufyf, or I'd say valid to put a life wizard on the hurricanum
"Some Celestial Hurricanums are tended by
Celestial Wizards."
-
Flagellants do not have an armor save. Do others interpret this to mean that mystic shield and other abilities that buff or reroll the save would have no effect on them?
-
Flagellants do not have an armor save. Do others interpret this to mean that mystic shield and other abilities that buff or reroll the save would have no effect on them?
Indeed, no save is no need to roll, so no modifiers can be applied as they would have no effect anyway
-
Flagellants do not have an armor save. Do others interpret this to mean that mystic shield and other abilities that buff or reroll the save would have no effect on them?
Indeed, no save is no need to roll, so no modifiers can be applied as they would have no effect anyway
Does it mean that even when they are in cover, they still got no save? :icon_confused:
-
Yes, as far as I can tell. Unlike similar rules like say, Stealth in 40K, it has no stipulation for what happens if a model has no save. Since you don't have a save roll to modify you don't get one. I guess.
-
When you pile in, you may move
each model in the unit up to 3" towards
the closest enemy model. This is will allow
the models in the unit to get closer to the
enemy in order to attack them.
So I have seen this used in SO many different ways now in battle report vids. And most if not all bending the rules in my opinion.
I see lots and lots of sliding around models that are already in contact to get other models in. But my take on it is: If already in contact you can't use the Pile-in move for those. Any attackers behind can move those 3" around friendly models to try and get into contact (or you remove casualties from the first rank to open up a window).
What is your take on it?
-
Yeah it's a mess. The only interpretation that truly makes sense to me is the most simple. Move towards the closest enemy model. If you are already in base contact then you can't move. Moving around friendly models is fine, but all these weird things going on are really stupid. My favorite is the one where people claim that as long as they end their move closer to the nearest enemy model than before it's a legal move. It's all rather shady. Too bad GW is never going to rewrite these rules or give us a visual example of what they really meant.
-
I would agree - you cannot move closer if you are in contact (presuming you don't allow base-overlap).
-
We play if you are touching you can't move. My Empire models are on 30mm bases and I don't do base overlap so it hurts but I've managed to win a third of the games I've played which is much better than my Warhammer fantasy battle ratio. Like has been said by others, the simplest interpretation is usually the best.