AoS NEW *rumor*

[Canas]

Just knowing the priority beforehand is huge. It means that you can play aggressively because you know you have the double turn beforehand, or you can play safely because you know you won't have it, and you have the option to not reveal it and roll for priority normally if you didn't like the result. It's pretty easily one of the best command abilities in the game, since it significantly increases your odds of getting a double turn, and lets you take more advantage of it.

Wait, you get to choose to reveal it or not? That's horrificly powerfull as that gives you a far better chance at getting whatever situation benefits you most. The knowledge of knowing the next turn order is powerfull enough in itself without being able to game the system like that.

You can do multiple things at the start of a phase... If you couldn't, 2 start of phase abilities could never both trigger. There's currently no reason that you couldn't use it twice.

You resolve every ability that triggers at the start for every applicable unit. Once all of those abilities have been resolved you are no longer in the "start". Triggering it a second time would thus be in a second "part" of that phase so to speak. So imho, you can't use the same ability multiple times at the start of a phase as resolving it the first time should indicate the end of the startof the phase. So any consequtive attempts would no longer be at the start of the phase, but in the middle. If that still makes any sense The same of course goes for abilities that trigger at the end.

As far as the cheating thing: making them roll in a cup that they can't move after rolling and covering the die would resolve the issue. They get to look at it once, then leave it in the corner of the table out of the way until it matters again. If they went second that round, it doesn't really matter if the opponent could see it in the first place though, since they aren't required to use it, so they can let the opponent see the result from the start, do their turn, and then have the normal roll for priority.

Even that leaves quite some room for cheating though. The only thing I can think of would be having the non STD-player roll the dice and hold the cup, while the STD player can only look from a distance. The moment he touches it and the non-STD player can't look there's an oppertunity to cheat.

And I just don't like bringing this sleight of hand element to AoS. I didn't like Starseer minigame back there and I don't like hand of dust. I just don't get why not just throw 4+ to see if model is dead if odds are basically the same?

Meh, it isn't a slight of hand minigame though. It's essentially just a diceroll, with the unfortunate sideeffect that it's horrificly easy to cheat on this particular roll. Ultimatly it is just a 4+ though assuming you don't cheat. Maybe just bring an impartial judge to hold the one die with you if you play STD archaon

 

[Seraphandy]

Linked into some of the above conversations regarding 'new WFB' and using models from AoS. How many AoS models would be incompatable with 'new WFB'? I'm talking about models with Stormcast helmets as trophy etc. Add the base issue (square vs round) and I'm thinking non -compatable armies between systems?

With that in mind, smaller scale would make sense?

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Linked into some of the above conversations regarding 'new WFB' and using models from AoS. How many AoS models would be incompatable with 'new WFB'? I'm talking about models with Stormcast helmets as trophy etc. Add the base issue (square vs round) and I'm thinking non -compatable armies between systems?

With that in mind, smaller scale would make sense?

we don't know nothing about the old world is out yet but we can asume all armies that were in the old world are fine

 

[Asamu]

you can only use it once since you can only use it at the start. Once you've used it you're passed the "start" so you can no longer use it again.

Though I'm indeed curious how we're supposed to deal with cheating now that you've pointed that out. Since the entire roll is a secret there's no real way for your opponent to check.

Yeah, it says you "can" reveal it. Which makes it optional, which is crazy, because the old rule from the battalion didn't give you a choice on whether or not to reveal it.

you can only use it once since you can only use it at the start. Once you've used it you're passed the "start" so you can no longer use it again.

Though I'm indeed curious how we're supposed to deal with cheating now that you've pointed that out. Since the entire roll is a secret there's no real way for your opponent to check.

A single unit can have multiple abilities that trigger at the start of the phase, in which case, you trigger them in whatever order you choose to do so, or even trigger something from another unit in between them, before moving to the next part of the phase.
Think of it more like every phase has 3 parts: The start, the "middle" and the end. Until ALL effects that trigger at the start of the phase have been triggered, you do not move on to the next part of the phase. Just like for anything else, unless it specifically says otherwise, you can use a command ability multiple times, regardless of the other conditions they put on using it (though it's often pointless to do so).

There is an argument to be made that you have to use the CP to trigger it multiple times before rolling the first time though; IE: you blow 3 CP, then resolve the effect 3 times, but it all happens in the "start of the phase", so that's debatable.

"Q: If I cast both Death Frenzy and Dreaded Death Frenzy on the
same unit, can the models pile in and attack twice when slain?
A: Yes."
This is an example from the skaven FAQ of something taking place in that manner. This is technically two separate effects, but by your argument here, they wouldn't stack, because after the first triggered, the second could no longer trigger, as its trigger "phase" is over after the first one.

Similarly, until an FAQ/errata otherwise, the OBR cavalry could technically blow 4 command points to pump out a huge number of mortal wounds and then pile in 15" to something else...

It's also why they added the "you can only use this command ability once per phase" through an errata to the Heaving Masses command ability for Morgaunt FEC - which is only usable when a unit is destroyed, and why it is clarified that a unit can only benefit from the the Call to War command ability for Gristlegore once per phase (same restriction of only being usable when a unit is slain, while also having a restriction that the unit cannot have already fought in that phase. IMO, either one of these restrictions would have been enough, but I guess they thought the first wasn't?).

 

[Dan32234234234324]

Agreed that the Archaon rule is too powerful. I think they will FAQ it to once per round. I feel like they need a rules lawyer on staff to stop things like this slipping through.

Or, maybe it’s their intention to introduce this sort of mechanic, and this is the new version of activation wars.

Also, what do you do if two opposing Archaons each use this ability?

 

[Seraphandy]

we don't know nothing about the old world is out yet but we can asume all armies that were in the old world are fine

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought that most of GW WFB model lines had/is being slowly 'AoS'ed'; so unless you have an old army you would have to buy 2? Again, I know there is little to go on at the moment, but I imagine GW are not going to create a game for people to play their retro armies in. Where is the money in that?

 

[Lizerd]

I really do wonder if they proof read some of the stuff they write. With Ossiarchs and now this it really does make me question if they are even trying to create balanced rules. Atleast errata helps

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought that most of GW WFB model lines had/is being slowly 'AoS'ed'; so unless you have an old army you would have to buy 2?

Some of it can be ported over perfectly (for example the new Slaves to Darkness), while others cannot. Some of the ones that cannot might still make for great conversion fodder.

Again, I know there is little to go on at the moment, but I imagine GW are not going to create a game for people to play their retro armies in. Where is the money in that?

I think it is a fine balance. If people can exclusively play their old armies there is less money in it (I say less because people will always expand their armies, buy newly released models for their armies and start new armies). However, on the flip side, if GW makes it that none of the old models can be played, then a lot of players simply won't play it. Under WFB I had couple of armies, but I was always adding to it. Since AoS came out I've only bought a single model directly from GW (the rest has been from Ebay or other second hand sources... including my beloved Tomb Kings!).

 

[Canas]

Linked into some of the above conversations regarding 'new WFB' and using models from AoS. How many AoS models would be incompatable with 'new WFB'? I'm talking about models with Stormcast helmets as trophy etc. Add the base issue (square vs round) and I'm thinking non -compatable armies between systems?

With that in mind, smaller scale would make sense?

meh, trophies are largely fine. It'd be a bit odd, but ultimatly they don't matter and you can always make up some fluffy reason for it. Just pretend they killed a random empire general who happenend to be into weird helmets.

snip...

Meh I disagree, though it might just be how I interpert certain rules/phrases. Wouldn't be the first time GW goes for an interpretation I find nonsensical. And it wouldn't be the first time they did it on purpose either..

I really do wonder if they proof read some of the stuff they write. With Ossiarchs and now this it really does make me question if they are even trying to create balanced rules. Atleast errata helps

It's indeed rather weird at times...

 

[ChapterAquila92]

Just pretend they killed a random empire general who happenend to be into weird helmets.

Or a wizard of the Golden Order. That'd work too.

 

[Lizerd]

Or a wizard of the Golden Order. That'd work too.

or skeletons with weird hats

 

[Asamu]

Meh I disagree, though it might just be how I interpert certain rules/phrases. Wouldn't be the first time GW goes for an interpretation I find nonsensical. And it wouldn't be the first time they did it on purpose either..

GW has never had sensible interpretations of rules; they've always gone by RAW - if it doesn't say you can't, you can. I'm not saying it makes sense or is a good way of doing things (though it is easier on them I guess, because it's easier for them to be consistent), just that they're consistent, and there are numerous examples of them ruling in that way (and sometimes they later errata to change the ruling).

They've always ruled that unless something specifies otherwise, it works (IE: If a command ability does not specify a limit, it can be used repeatedly, even if there is another restriction/condition, like "start of phase" or "when a unit would be/is destroyed")... Archaon's rule will probably see an errata/FAQ relatively soon to prevent using it multiple times.

IMO, they should write the rules more clearly to avoid the issues with unclear writing in the first place, and command abilities should never have been usable multiple times; the clarification should have been the other way around to avoid all the issues that have come up with command ability stacking in the first place. IE: Core rules should state that no unit can benefit from any command ability more than once per phase, and a command abilities that do not affect units cannot be used more than once (or just no command ability can be used more than once per phase). It's GW though, so they went the other direction and made everything require clarifications to once per phase (and have been adding that clarification to pretty much every command ability since 2.0 dropped anyway, because command ability stacking is awful).

 

[Canas]

GW has never had sensible interpretations of rules; they've always gone by RAW - if it doesn't say you can't, you can. I'm not saying it makes sense or is a good way of doing things (though it is easier on them I guess, because it's easier for them to be consistent), just that they're consistent, and there are numerous examples of them ruling in that way (and sometimes they later errata to change the ruling).

I'm disagreeing in this case with the notion that it it doesn't say you can't. But that's how I read the limitation "at the start of". As far as I'm concerned abilities with that restriction can't trigger multiple times for the same unit. Also using his command ability twice could lead to conflicting results, which would be stupid.

IMO, they should write the rules more clearly to avoid the issues with unclear writing in the first place, and command abilities should never have been usable multiple times; the clarification should have been the other way around to avoid all the issues that have come up with command ability stacking in the first place.

Meh using them multiple times is fine, idem with spells. In fact I despise the rule of 1 as it severly limits what you can do with wizards and the like. Plus, without the rule of 1 we wouldn't have so much clutter as we wouldn't need 50 different spells that are essentially just some variant of "deal D3 mortal wounds". They should've just specified what can and what can't stack. Just saying a unit cannot benefit from the same effect multiple times would already have solved 99% of these issues.

 

[Killer Angel]

Meh using them multiple times is fine, idem with spells. In fact I despise the rule of 1 as it severly limits what you can do with wizards and the like. Plus, without the rule of 1 we wouldn't have so much clutter as we wouldn't need 50 different spells that are essentially just some variant of "deal D3 mortal wounds".

so much this.
with so many different spells that basically do almost the same things, the amount of bookeeping required to play a heavy-magic oriented army, is... unfriendly.

 

[Canas]

so much this.
with so many different spells that basically do almost the same things, the amount of bookeeping required to play a heavy-magic oriented army, is... unfriendly.

it also makes a proper strategy based on magic impossible as the cool effects tend to be limited to one spell. So making a list where for example you rely on dropping -1 to hit on his entire army using spells is impossible. Which is such a shame. The only thing that really works with spells is just using them as artillery with 50 different D3 mortal wounds spell, or to buff up 1 specific deathstar unit. But there's no options to buff your entire army..

 

[Erta Wanderer]

hmm GW seems very hesitant to release STD rules yesterday was a dice game and today is lore. me thinks they are hiding something

 

[Canas]

the pre-orders go up this weekend, so I guess there'l only be another teaser at that point. There's only so many rules you can tease without just releasing the entire book

 

[Erta Wanderer]

fare bit in comparison to what we got for orks OBR and MT it's not much to go on

 

[Canas]

Some lore just for you

 

[Asamu]

I'm disagreeing in this case with the notion that it it doesn't say you can't. But that's how I read the limitation "at the start of". As far as I'm concerned abilities with that restriction can't trigger multiple times for the same unit. Also using his command ability twice could lead to conflicting results, which would be stupid.

I've already given examples of abilities with similar activation restrictions that were ruled on in this way, or were given an errata to limit them to a single use, and explained why your reasoning doesn't actually make any sense, because "start of phase" command abilities can be used multiple times (even some unique command abilities on characters that you cannot have more than 1 of, have a clarification to prevent units from benefiting from them more than once, like Gordrak's Voice of Gork command ability - which makes the idea that you couldn't use them multiple times a bit silly), hence why an FAQ/errata would be needed for such a limitation in this case. The first use of something doesn't change what part of the phase you're in.

GW has consistently ruled that unless specified otherwise, you can use a command ability multiple times. This particular case will likely see an errata, but until it gets that, all we really have is past GW rulings on similar cases, which have almost universally been the other way around, even in some cases where it didn't make sense, and the current "at start of the X phase" restriction has never prevented multiple uses of an ability - which is why most command abilities with such a condition are given a restriction to prevent multiple uses (or units from benefiting from them more than once).

Meh using them multiple times is fine, idem with spells. In fact I despise the rule of 1 as it severly limits what you can do with wizards and the like. Plus, without the rule of 1 we wouldn't have so much clutter as we wouldn't need 50 different spells that are essentially just some variant of "deal D3 mortal wounds". They should've just specified what can and what can't stack. Just saying a unit cannot benefit from the same effect multiple times would already have solved 99% of these issues.

I was specifying benefiting/being affected by the same thing multiple times. I don't really care if an ability can be used multiple times so long as it doesn't stack; there's just too much potential for abuse when you can stack the same ability, like with the original +1 to save rolls mystic shield stacking.
Clarifying "one use unless stated otherwise" in the main rules would just avoid most of the potential problems with unclear writing of command abilities on the warscrolls, or conflicts with prior rulings, and mean they don't have to put that restriction onto 90% of command abilities. It'd cut a sentence or two of text off of a huge number of warscrolls, and ensure that even if they overlook something, it doesn't become a problem or cause confusion like in this case, where the ability has a restriction that doesn't prevent multiple uses, but doesn't make much sense if used multiple times, and as written, they cannot rule that it cannot be used multiple times without conflicting with prior rulings unless it receives an errata.