The US are having their first Masters this year.
The scoring system sounds like a trainwreck - five rounds unbridled Swedish Comp with your comp score counting as sixth game - but I suspect that's what you get with 5 different regions trying to settle on a system.
However they have also developed an "American FAQ" to address grey areas in the game. Again this is probably needed given the different communities.
You can read the FAQ here
I've only given it a brief perusal but it seems a pretty solid document. I've noticed at least one answer that is incorrect so I'll give it a more thorough reading over the next few days.
Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
April Warhammer Fantasy FAQs
Here are the rest of the FAQs
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
New FAQs - Daemons and Empire
Daemons
Empire
As expected Leadership for Daemonic Instability is limited 0-10
Reign of Chaos affects ALL enemy
And in Empire news, Hatred is restricted to Rider only (Guess GW have sold enough Demigryph models)
Edit: lots more coming in as of Tuesday PM
Empire
As expected Leadership for Daemonic Instability is limited 0-10
Reign of Chaos affects ALL enemy
And in Empire news, Hatred is restricted to Rider only (Guess GW have sold enough Demigryph models)
Edit: lots more coming in as of Tuesday PM
Posted by
Pete Dunn
at
9:46 PM
9
comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:
Daemons of Chaos,
Empire,
Fantasy,
FAQ,
Rules
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
New Fantasy FAQs Too
Nothing that I would view as particularly startling.
Nothing much to see here folks....move along
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
New WHFB FAQs
New FAQs out for Fantasy, including Vampires and Empire, as well as BRB. Here are some highlights:
Q: If a unit charges into combat and, on the turn it charges, the last
of the enemy unit it is fighting are removed as casualties due to
Daemonic Instability, the Unstable special rule, Cornered Rats or as
a result of a War Machine failing its Break test, does the charging
unit get to make an Overrun move? (p58).
A: No.
So no Overrun after Crumble
Page 83 – Monstrous Cavalry.
In the second paragraph, replace “All the cavalry rules…with
one exception – monstrous cavalry always use the highest
Wounds characteristic…” with “All the cavalry rules…with
two exceptions – monstrous cavalry always use the highest
Toughness and Wounds characteristics…”
Pegasus and Eagle Riders get a boost as do Demigryphs
Scouts don't count in the who finished deploying first.
BSBs that refuse a challenge can't provide re-rollls (!).
Lone characters can now get look out sir vs impact hits if within 3 inches of another unit.
VC Screamers can do so into a combat they aren't involved in.
Q: If a unit charges into combat and, on the turn it charges, the last
of the enemy unit it is fighting are removed as casualties due to
Daemonic Instability, the Unstable special rule, Cornered Rats or as
a result of a War Machine failing its Break test, does the charging
unit get to make an Overrun move? (p58).
A: No.
So no Overrun after Crumble
Page 83 – Monstrous Cavalry.
In the second paragraph, replace “All the cavalry rules…with
one exception – monstrous cavalry always use the highest
Wounds characteristic…” with “All the cavalry rules…with
two exceptions – monstrous cavalry always use the highest
Toughness and Wounds characteristics…”
Pegasus and Eagle Riders get a boost as do Demigryphs
Scouts don't count in the who finished deploying first.
BSBs that refuse a challenge can't provide re-rollls (!).
Lone characters can now get look out sir vs impact hits if within 3 inches of another unit.
VC Screamers can do so into a combat they aren't involved in.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The Dea(r)th of Fantasy FAQs
One area where Games Workshop improved between 2010 and 2011 was in the release of FAQs. The release of a new Army Book was followed with a comprehensive FAQ three to four months later that addressed all the points not identified in their in-house playtesting.
This was great and certainly addressed one of the previous points of contention that had been aimed at GW. People felt that the Studio had turned over a new – proactive – leaf and that this was their path for the future.
Unfortunately, winter has returned.
The Vampire Count book was released in January 2012 and The Empire book in April 2012 and to date we have had no FAQ for either tome. This isn’t because there aren’t issues, you can check out a summary of the VC ones here and The Empire here.
It is really sad that there has been a return to the old ways and I can only hope that GW see that releasing timely FAQs is not only a easy means to keep customers happy but also an integral part of their customer service premise.
This was great and certainly addressed one of the previous points of contention that had been aimed at GW. People felt that the Studio had turned over a new – proactive – leaf and that this was their path for the future.
Unfortunately, winter has returned.
The Vampire Count book was released in January 2012 and The Empire book in April 2012 and to date we have had no FAQ for either tome. This isn’t because there aren’t issues, you can check out a summary of the VC ones here and The Empire here.
It is really sad that there has been a return to the old ways and I can only hope that GW see that releasing timely FAQs is not only a easy means to keep customers happy but also an integral part of their customer service premise.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The GW 6e FAQ
Time for a bouquet.
I am extremely impressed with the GW FAQ for 6th Edition released on the weekend. The response to its release has been almost universally positive - apart from one internet "personality" who sees all sorts of conspiracies in the fact that it's dated July and not released until September (Apparently this was purely to undermine the Nova Open - yep, GW knew Elvis was attending so faked the Moon Landings in Area 51 - Is it a coincidence Neil Armstrong died the weekend the FAQs were released? I think not!).
The FAQ seems to have addressed virtually all the identified "issues" that the first two months play have thrown up. In particular it removed the clunky mechanism around wond allocation - I had seen a spreadsheet to work through - and the ability to abuse it. It also removed one of the more obvious Ally combos by tightening the wording.
The key thing here is that the GW resonse vindicates everything I contend about their playtesting. The Studio/Design Team/Whatever They Call Themselves At The Moment probably play 400-500 games/partial games at best in their playtesting. Release the rules and 100 times this are probably played in the first fortnight - all with a fresh pair of eyes.
It would be arrogant of GW to think that they could foresee every potential eventualitity in their playtesting - especially if they are not looking at the sharp end as a primary focus. Therefore their best course is to do what they have done - watch the net for the first month and then put out a FAQ that addresses the flaws that come out.
Kudos to them for the work. Now where are the Vampire Counts, Empire and Daemon of Chaos FAQs
I am extremely impressed with the GW FAQ for 6th Edition released on the weekend. The response to its release has been almost universally positive - apart from one internet "personality" who sees all sorts of conspiracies in the fact that it's dated July and not released until September (Apparently this was purely to undermine the Nova Open - yep, GW knew Elvis was attending so faked the Moon Landings in Area 51 - Is it a coincidence Neil Armstrong died the weekend the FAQs were released? I think not!).
The FAQ seems to have addressed virtually all the identified "issues" that the first two months play have thrown up. In particular it removed the clunky mechanism around wond allocation - I had seen a spreadsheet to work through - and the ability to abuse it. It also removed one of the more obvious Ally combos by tightening the wording.
The key thing here is that the GW resonse vindicates everything I contend about their playtesting. The Studio/Design Team/Whatever They Call Themselves At The Moment probably play 400-500 games/partial games at best in their playtesting. Release the rules and 100 times this are probably played in the first fortnight - all with a fresh pair of eyes.
It would be arrogant of GW to think that they could foresee every potential eventualitity in their playtesting - especially if they are not looking at the sharp end as a primary focus. Therefore their best course is to do what they have done - watch the net for the first month and then put out a FAQ that addresses the flaws that come out.
Kudos to them for the work. Now where are the Vampire Counts, Empire and Daemon of Chaos FAQs
Posted by
Unknown
at
9:49 AM
2
comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:
40k,
Fantasy,
FAQ,
General Gaming,
Rules
Saturday, September 8, 2012
New 6th Edition 40k FAQs
You can find the v1.1 FAQs here
These address both issues in new rules and interaction with existing codices.
Good on GW for putting out a second update so fast.
These address both issues in new rules and interaction with existing codices.
Good on GW for putting out a second update so fast.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
New 40k FAQs
There are a bunch of new 40k FAQs here
Charlie will be happy that he can have two Crypteks in his units.
As a "hater" of Gav Thorpe's Turd (sorry, Codex: Chaos Space Marines), I'm happy to see that two of the only viable "tactics", Lash and Warptime have been nerfed. Hopefully, it will hasten the clamour for a replacement from the hoi polloi.
Charlie will be happy that he can have two Crypteks in his units.
As a "hater" of Gav Thorpe's Turd (sorry, Codex: Chaos Space Marines), I'm happy to see that two of the only viable "tactics", Lash and Warptime have been nerfed. Hopefully, it will hasten the clamour for a replacement from the hoi polloi.
Posted by
Unknown
at
8:37 AM
5
comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:
40k,
FAQ,
General Gaming
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Skaven FAQ - Headline News
GW released an updated FAQ for the Skaven yesterday. Here are the highlights/lowlights as far as I’m concerned:
Characters in Slave Units
Q: If a character joins a unit of Skavenslaves, can you still shoot at enemy units in combat with the Skavenslave unit? (p36)
A: No.
That’s how I’ve been playing it for the last three months after it was pointed out to me. Nice to have it in black and white now. Makes the naked engineer less of a no-brainer (or alternatively makes the Skaven player think things through).
Template Versus Bell or Furnace
Q: If a template hits a Screaming Bell or Plague Furnace being ridden by a character, how is this resolved? (p42 & p48)
A: It is resolved as per the template rules in the Shooting at Ridden Monsters section on page 105 in the Warhammer rulebook.
For example: a Rock Lobber hits A Screaming Bell ridden by a Grey Seer. The central hole is over the base. As such a D6 is rolled to determine who takes the Strength 9 hit. A 4 is rolled and so the Screaming Bell takes the Strength 9 hit while the Grey Seer takes the Strength 3 hit.
In the past because Bell and Furnace are “Unique” their Army book rules for allocation of hits overruled the Rulebook. This FAQ changes this and means that the model now takes multiple hits.
Crack’s Call
Q: Is the 4D6” line from Crack’s Call a template? (p78)
A: Yes.
This is a mixed bag for Skaven. Characters will now get a “Look Out Sir” (negative) but ridden monsters will now test on every part at their own initiative rather than a single test at high character initiative (positive).
WLC and Multi-Wound Models
Q: If a shot from a Warp Lightning Cannon does not kill a Monstrous Infantry/Beast/Cavalry or Monster model does that shot stop? (p68)
A: No. All models are still hit.
This is a huge clarification that I argued based on wording, and feels good to get after the other changes Always thought this was the case but nice to have confirmation.
Plague Banner
Q. Do the Plague Monk crew on the Plague Furnace benefit from the effect of the Plague Banner? (p110)
A. Yes
Again I always thought they did. Other people had a different view.
So mixed for the Skaven. The biggest negative and positive is Crack’s Call ruling.
Characters in Slave Units
Q: If a character joins a unit of Skavenslaves, can you still shoot at enemy units in combat with the Skavenslave unit? (p36)
A: No.
That’s how I’ve been playing it for the last three months after it was pointed out to me. Nice to have it in black and white now. Makes the naked engineer less of a no-brainer (or alternatively makes the Skaven player think things through).
Template Versus Bell or Furnace
Q: If a template hits a Screaming Bell or Plague Furnace being ridden by a character, how is this resolved? (p42 & p48)
A: It is resolved as per the template rules in the Shooting at Ridden Monsters section on page 105 in the Warhammer rulebook.
For example: a Rock Lobber hits A Screaming Bell ridden by a Grey Seer. The central hole is over the base. As such a D6 is rolled to determine who takes the Strength 9 hit. A 4 is rolled and so the Screaming Bell takes the Strength 9 hit while the Grey Seer takes the Strength 3 hit.
In the past because Bell and Furnace are “Unique” their Army book rules for allocation of hits overruled the Rulebook. This FAQ changes this and means that the model now takes multiple hits.
Crack’s Call
Q: Is the 4D6” line from Crack’s Call a template? (p78)
A: Yes.
This is a mixed bag for Skaven. Characters will now get a “Look Out Sir” (negative) but ridden monsters will now test on every part at their own initiative rather than a single test at high character initiative (positive).
WLC and Multi-Wound Models
Q: If a shot from a Warp Lightning Cannon does not kill a Monstrous Infantry/Beast/Cavalry or Monster model does that shot stop? (p68)
A: No. All models are still hit.
This is a huge clarification that I argued based on wording, and feels good to get after the other changes Always thought this was the case but nice to have confirmation.
Plague Banner
Q. Do the Plague Monk crew on the Plague Furnace benefit from the effect of the Plague Banner? (p110)
A. Yes
Again I always thought they did. Other people had a different view.
So mixed for the Skaven. The biggest negative and positive is Crack’s Call ruling.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
FAQs for Ogres, Skaven and Tomb Kings
Big day for FAQs from GW.
They released the initial Ogre Kingdoms FAQ and then superseded it an hour later. In the amended version Jervois Johnson says that you can take armour on OK Mages but it is not in the spirit of his intentions!!!!!!
Seriously WTF does that mean!!!! What a pathetic answer.
As far as I'm concerned that means that you play by the rules - yes to magic armour - not some weasel words that portray a lack of decision-making. How hard is it? Really?
Lot's of changes in the Skaven FAQ. I'll go through them later but you can read them here
They released the initial Ogre Kingdoms FAQ and then superseded it an hour later. In the amended version Jervois Johnson says that you can take armour on OK Mages but it is not in the spirit of his intentions!!!!!!
Seriously WTF does that mean!!!! What a pathetic answer.
As far as I'm concerned that means that you play by the rules - yes to magic armour - not some weasel words that portray a lack of decision-making. How hard is it? Really?
Lot's of changes in the Skaven FAQ. I'll go through them later but you can read them here
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Power Scroll Nerfed
Wow!
In the latest White Dwarf there is an erratum completely changing the Power Scroll.
The scroll now only halves the casting value of the spell….no mention of doubles causing Irresistible Force.
Time to update Pete-Lite Comp to remove it as a Banned Item.
Well done GW!
In the latest White Dwarf there is an erratum completely changing the Power Scroll.
The scroll now only halves the casting value of the spell….no mention of doubles causing Irresistible Force.
Time to update Pete-Lite Comp to remove it as a Banned Item.
Well done GW!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
New 40k FAQ's out.
Hi guys,
just a quick post. New FAQ's for Rulebook, Orks, SM, GK.
The only major changes for the FAQ concern fliers on large oval bases (read: vendettas). In short, confirmation your wings count as your hull, so no more trying to argue you can move on 6 and fire all weapons, but they also made it so that you just count the base for the purposes of "is the vehicle in difficult terrain/area occupied by other models" so that becomes interesting :)
Virtually nothing of interest in the SM or GK FAQ's, it was all either common sense confirmed, or silly questions.
- GK Purgation squads cant shoot out of vehicles without firepoints with Astral Aim.
- Vehicle LD's can be modified by special rules for psychic tests.
- If a dreadnaught is immobilised by an exploding storm raven, it dies, ahhaha.
- RAD/Psychotroke don't apply multiple times
- SM Ironclads mess vehicles up big time in assault, so don't let them assault you, you big silly goose.
The orks had a few buffs, and one that I think people will still totally fail to understand.
- Waagh was moved to the beginning of the shooting phase. This was no doubt to stop people doing the whole "Dave Cleverly Shidy Incident", where they would roll all their Waaaghs first, and decide after all the run rolls whether they would then grant fleet to the units orn ot.
- Tankbusters got a bit of a nerf, no more running to avoid having to shoot a vehicle in LOS 250000000feet away.
- Some changes/clarification to big bombs, not that anyone ever used them anyway.
- Confirmation you can't destroy a deffrolla with a weapon destroyed result, who even asked this question?
- Confirmation that a walker can't hit back against a boarding plank attack. This was always a very contentious issue, I thought it was reasonably straight forward but people on the receiving end always seemed to find the issue a bit more mirky :)
- A bunch more common sense clarifications (yes, an attack squig adds a powerklaw attack, etc) and special character clarifications of no real consequence.
And lastly, the biggy, confirmation that vehicles are a 4+ save for KFF's, which almost everyone played anyway, but occasionally a few people were pretty desperate to downgrade it. What people will still get wrong, is how this interacts with Kans.
What it now says in the FAQ, is that only those within 6" of the KFF will be obscured.
When shooting at a squadron of walkers, to determine whether the squad has cover or not, you ignore that they are a squadron, and assess each kan individually. Is that one obscured? What about that one? And that one? You then work out whether you have a majority cover or not, and apply that effect to the unit. 1/3 obscured? No one gets cover. 2/3 obscured? Whole unit gets cover.
This confuses people as it's different to non vehicle units who only need a single model to get the 5+.
I can see now, people playing this 1 of 3 ways.
The first way: The right way, as described above. Majority to be in, or nothing.
The second way: People sticking one in for the 4+, and claiming the other 2 get a 5+. No buddy, none of them get a save at all in this scenario.
The third way: People taking a coversave for those that are within 6, and not taking one for those that are in. This just isn't how shooting at squadrons works.
Do go check them out though, rather than just my quick summaries. There's a bunch of common sense stuff in there that will surprise you that anyone ever played it any differently. HEAPPPPPPS of stuff in the ork one though.
just a quick post. New FAQ's for Rulebook, Orks, SM, GK.
The only major changes for the FAQ concern fliers on large oval bases (read: vendettas). In short, confirmation your wings count as your hull, so no more trying to argue you can move on 6 and fire all weapons, but they also made it so that you just count the base for the purposes of "is the vehicle in difficult terrain/area occupied by other models" so that becomes interesting :)
Virtually nothing of interest in the SM or GK FAQ's, it was all either common sense confirmed, or silly questions.
- GK Purgation squads cant shoot out of vehicles without firepoints with Astral Aim.
- Vehicle LD's can be modified by special rules for psychic tests.
- If a dreadnaught is immobilised by an exploding storm raven, it dies, ahhaha.
- RAD/Psychotroke don't apply multiple times
- SM Ironclads mess vehicles up big time in assault, so don't let them assault you, you big silly goose.
The orks had a few buffs, and one that I think people will still totally fail to understand.
- Waagh was moved to the beginning of the shooting phase. This was no doubt to stop people doing the whole "Dave Cleverly Shidy Incident", where they would roll all their Waaaghs first, and decide after all the run rolls whether they would then grant fleet to the units orn ot.
- Tankbusters got a bit of a nerf, no more running to avoid having to shoot a vehicle in LOS 250000000feet away.
- Some changes/clarification to big bombs, not that anyone ever used them anyway.
- Confirmation you can't destroy a deffrolla with a weapon destroyed result, who even asked this question?
- Confirmation that a walker can't hit back against a boarding plank attack. This was always a very contentious issue, I thought it was reasonably straight forward but people on the receiving end always seemed to find the issue a bit more mirky :)
- A bunch more common sense clarifications (yes, an attack squig adds a powerklaw attack, etc) and special character clarifications of no real consequence.
And lastly, the biggy, confirmation that vehicles are a 4+ save for KFF's, which almost everyone played anyway, but occasionally a few people were pretty desperate to downgrade it. What people will still get wrong, is how this interacts with Kans.
What it now says in the FAQ, is that only those within 6" of the KFF will be obscured.
When shooting at a squadron of walkers, to determine whether the squad has cover or not, you ignore that they are a squadron, and assess each kan individually. Is that one obscured? What about that one? And that one? You then work out whether you have a majority cover or not, and apply that effect to the unit. 1/3 obscured? No one gets cover. 2/3 obscured? Whole unit gets cover.
This confuses people as it's different to non vehicle units who only need a single model to get the 5+.
I can see now, people playing this 1 of 3 ways.
The first way: The right way, as described above. Majority to be in, or nothing.
The second way: People sticking one in for the 4+, and claiming the other 2 get a 5+. No buddy, none of them get a save at all in this scenario.
The third way: People taking a coversave for those that are within 6, and not taking one for those that are in. This just isn't how shooting at squadrons works.
Do go check them out though, rather than just my quick summaries. There's a bunch of common sense stuff in there that will surprise you that anyone ever played it any differently. HEAPPPPPPS of stuff in the ork one though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)