Topic: New faq released!

[Warlord]

Did they at least FAQ 'Suffer Not' to be before the battle, rather than when writing the armylist?

[Zygmund]

Did they at least FAQ 'Suffer Not' to be before the battle, rather than when writing the armylist?

No comment on the 'Suffer Not...' rule.

So they didn't think it needs to be clarified or changed, and it wasn't asked frequently enough.

I guess the rule is worded as intended, and well understood.

-Zyg

[commandant]

Remember that in 99% or so of games you know when you are writing the list who you are playing against.   Therefore this suffer not rule is not a problem.

[Minsc]

Remember that in 99% or so of games you know when you are writing the list who you are playing against.   Therefore this suffer not rule is not a problem.

Yeah outside of tournaments its not an issue, and while I generally dont like tailoring, a bit of tailoring in friendly games is fine.

[Warlord]

It doesn’t prevent it from tailoring. It just also allows all comer options.

[commandant]

True but it seriously changes what a witch hunter is. If you have to decide at army comp what your witch hunter is then you need some idea of what your army is, even if it is very small.

[Skyros]

I don't think the steam gun has 360 vision. It's a breath weapon and breath weapons need to be fired from the front edge of the model.

Note that you could technically have both 360 degrees vision, and still fire from the front edge of the model.
I don't know what the right answer is, but since the steam gun is mounted in a turret, I'll be irritated if it's treated as hull mounted and can only fire frontally.

[The Peacemaker]

So does Empire have any competitive builds now? No bedazling helm, no mace of helstrom.
The mace kept those dragons at bay, but now....
Ogre blade don't work against that 2+/5+/5++ Elf Dragon.
Bedazling helm made the general on griffin viable.

Captains BSB on griffin took a hit with the close order gone after taking 1 wound.

Taking more cannons means less Demigryphs. And cannons are only good against monsters and Bret knights.

An army that should rely on stacking combat res can't. And it also can't bring the damage in combat. Starting to feel like a dead armybook.

[Minsc]

Captains BSB on griffin took a hit with the close order gone after taking 1 wound.

US is based on starting wounds. It doesn't get reduced when the monster is wounded.

[commandant]

Taking more cannons means less Demigryphs. And cannons are only good against monsters and Bret knights.

And anything that comes in ranks and other artillery

Also monsters and heavy knights and chariots are enough for canons to be getting on with.

An army that should rely on stacking combat res can't. And it also can't bring the damage in combat. Starting to feel like a dead armybook.

The empire is fairly good at stacking combat res if you want to.

Greatswords, griffon banner, bsb, warbanner, closed order x3 and flank = a starting combat res of 10. It seems unlikely that there is any army out there that can do that. Admittedly your opponent is likely to commit resources to stopping that sort of nonsense.

Also the Empire is at least reasonable at bring damage.
State troops with halberds can dis out 17 WS3 S4 attacks (deployed conservatively with a parent block 6 wide and detachments 5 wide).
Demi griffons, inner circle knights, greatswords et al are also fairly hefty on the damage front.

Finally we have cheap magic. A few level 4 wizards can do interesting things to your fighting ability, as can the priests

[Clymer]

So does Empire have any competitive builds now? No bedazling helm, no mace of helstrom.
The mace kept those dragons at bay, but now....
Ogre blade don't work against that 2+/5+/5++ Elf Dragon.
Bedazling helm made the general on griffin viable.

I mean, did we ever have a build as competitive as what High Elves can bring? No. The FAQ doesn't change that. That was also the same situation in 7th and 8th though. Empire was always solid middle, never a top-tier army.

I don't think it's too hard for an individual player with a well-designed army to outperform the tournament stats that have been posted though, even if we shouldn't expect too many podium finishes. But that was the case before "losing" the Mace and Helmet, right?

[sedobren]

I think the main issue is the lack of significant staying power, since it becomes difficult stacking bonuses and saves on units. We have no source of regeneration and obviously very few "tough" units.

One thing i've noticed, many (if not all) of the arcane journal alternative army lists have higher than usual percentages for rare and cores. Potentially with one of the upcoming lists (likely the nuln one if you want to believe the rumors) you could be able to take two steam tanks, maybe one of the supposed new variant.

The Middenheim list might have better and more resilient infantry, more stubborn thrown around. Let's see. I won't hold my breath but at least if the nuln list allows us to maybe use cannons as troops we might be able to skip over the lackluster core section.

[Warlord]

The 6th ed Nuln variant I believe required 1 unit of infantry per Cannon or Mortar.
Also where are these ‘rumours’?

[Hoffa]

Too bad that Flagellant flails won't get the +2 bonus since it will be an ongoing fight. 

That's one of the things that could still use an FAQ IMO. The only definition for 'first round of combat' we are given in the book is that 'first round of combat' is short for 'first round of combat fought following a charge'.

Now, if you are counting as charging when pursuing a FBIGO foe, I could see someone arguing they do get the bonus.
I kind of don't think that is intended, but I sure can't find anything stating that for sure in the rule book.

Let's not start another long thread on this but even the new FAQ leaves one contradiction.  The same rule (p213) that states that the first round of combat is the round fought following a charge also states that you have to use the weapon chosen in the first round for the rest of the combat.

The rules state:
1) The first round of combat is the round fought following a charge
2) A model with multiple weapons must select one of them in the first round of combat and must use it for the reminder of the combat. This implies that  if you can choose weapon it's the first round of combat)
3) Pursuits into FBIGO enemy counts as a charge
4) You can't change weapons in a combat continuing after FBIGO

This creates a contradiction that only GW can clear up

The fourth bullet point in the selecting weapons rule (p213) need to be changed so that

*The round fought following a charge is not always the first round of combat
OR
*You can't always choose weapons in the first round.

There is no way to clear up this by RAW so lets not have another endless discussion. I think that the best resolution is to delete '(i.e the round fought following a charge)' from p213 Then we can go back to the intuitive definition of first round that we have been using for 25years:  The first round of combat is the first round a units fights in a combat.

[Hoffa]

Too bad that Flagellant flails won't get the +2 bonus since it will be an ongoing fight. 

That's one of the things that could still use an FAQ IMO. The only definition for 'first round of combat' we are given in the book is that 'first round of combat' is short for 'first round of combat fought following a charge'.

Now, if you are counting as charging when pursuing a FBIGO foe, I could see someone arguing they do get the bonus.
I kind of don't think that is intended, but I sure can't find anything stating that for sure in the rule book.

Let's not start another long thread on this but even the new FAQ leaves one contradiction.  The same rule (p213) that states that the first round of combat is the round fought following a charge also states that you have to use the weapon chosen in the first round for the rest of the combat.

The rules state:
1) The first round of combat is the round fought following a charge
2) A model with multiple weapons must select one of them in the first round of combat and must use it for the reminder of the combat. This implies that  if you can choose weapon; it's the first round of combat)
3) Pursuits into FBIGO enemy counts as a charge
4) You can't change weapons in a combat continuing after FBIGO

This creates a contradiction that only GW can clear up

The fourth bullet point in the selecting weapons rule (p213) need to be changed so that

*The round fought following a charge is not always the first round of combat
OR
*You can't always choose weapons in the first round.

There is no way to clear up this by RAW so lets not have another endless discussion. I think that the best resolution is to delete '(i.e the round fought following a charge)' from p213 Then we can go back to the intuitive definition of first round that we have been using for 25years:  The first round of combat is the first round a units fights in a combat.

[Mike Stockin]

2) A model with multiple weapons must select one of them in the first round of combat and must use it for the reminder of the combat. This implies that  if you can choose weapon it's the first round of combat)

No it doesn't, just as all fish live in water, therefore all things that live in water are fish does not follow.

[The Peacemaker]

Question since I got alot of rules in my head and I really want to take my greatsword knights:

If my knights have greatswords and shield, can puck the hand weapon/shield? They aren't forced to use greatweapon?
And of course they can switch weapons sometimes depending on that convoluted faq right?

Lances are great and all, but there are alot of situations against certain opponents where I would tactically prefer the option. Like against elves where they will usually have high initiative.

Losing 1 armour on the swing back is harsh but there are situations where that isn't an issue due to no step up, or against no AP units. Or against stayic combat res where you probably losing anyway.

[commandant]

They can choose but they have to do it at the start of the combat and they are stuck with that choice I think

[PowerSeries]

Yeah, I think the only time you can switch weapons is when you

a) Decline to followup, or all enemy units decline to follow up, or they are all dead and you choose not to persue, so you end the turn not in combat. 
b) Kill everything, or break them fully, and overrun / persue into a different enemy unit???  That would definitely reset challenges, and I would say hatred, but perhaps doesn't give you time to switch??? 
c) Get you magic weapon deleted by elf magic.
d) Lances -> Hand Weapons in a non charging round.

GG and FBIGO with followups are clarified as the same combat for sure.  Anyone know how the b) case ought to be handled?

[commandant]

I think you don't get to change weapons after FBIGO

[Hoffa]

It is very clear that you don't get to change weapons after FBIGO and that also makes the reading that a round fought after FBIGO count's as the first round for things like flails dubious. (There is a contradiction in the wording forcing us to guess intent.)

[Dazgrim]

It is very clear that you don't get to change weapons after FBIGO and that also makes the reading that a round fought after FBIGO count's as the first round for things like flails dubious. (There is a contradiction in the wording forcing us to guess intent.)

The intent seems fairly clear - the combat is ongoing, challenges persist.

It does feel like they decided to add GG and FBIGO late in the development and didn't have time to assess the rulebook for jankiness.

[Hoffa]

It is very clear that you don't get to change weapons after FBIGO and that also makes the reading that a round fought after FBIGO count's as the first round for things like flails dubious. (There is a contradiction in the wording forcing us to guess intent.)

The intent seems fairly clear - the combat is ongoing, challenges persist.

It does feel like they decided to add GG and FBIGO late in the development and didn't have time to assess the rulebook for jankiness.

My thought as well. Rules are copy-paste or borrowed with small rewrites from Warhammer and therefore are written under the assumption that charges only happen when a unit moves into combat. The odd thing is that the rule creating the contradiction,the infamous fourth bulletpoint on p213, is not copy-paste from any previous game. I guess this is typically GW. With an unneeded "clarification" for the most common case they create confusion about a less common case. A confusion that could easily be resolved by deleting the unneeded clarification.

GW are like some teachers I had, they manage to get the entire class to understand something in 5 minutes but then just can't stop talking leading to everyone getting confused by the unneeded extra information and examples.

[TexasYankee71]

Great reads so far, well done, gentlemen. My Empire army (along with 90% of everything else I own) is stuck in Florida, so I just have my Nurgle Daemons with me, and am having a blast with TOW. Did anyone notice that the FAQs they put out for all the Legacy armies had no changes? Or did I just not see them? Seems weird that they would just repost them with no changes.

[The Peacemaker]

They have changes but they don't announce it or highlight or anything. They really skimp on the labour for the game. Kind of annoys me since in my culture's work ethic you either do something correct or leave it to someone who can.