[Archive] ForgeWorld FAQ 2.0

[French_noodle]

French_noodle:

Don’t know if you already asked for those, but a french admin of warhammer-forum asked a few things to FW, and obtained some answers :

With the changes to the Hellcannon points you should use the points cost, profile and rules found in the new Warriors of Chaos book. An Iron Daemon may still shoot after it has used it’s Steam boiler. With either type of movement there is no penalty for moving and shooting but all other penalties apply. As stated in the rules for the Steam Cannonade, it may only shoot at targets directly ahead of the Iron Daemon model.

You can see the subject here :

[NDChaos] FAQ Liste Legion Of Azgorh - Battle - Règles - Warhammer Forum

Hope it helps.

[system]

deadlydeceiver:

I’ll make this short, because there’re many comments to answer. Please don’t take it as impoliteness.

No need to ask.

GodHead

Deathshrieker: A marker is not a template.

Flame Pillar: You might be right with this, but that would mean the “target” does not change with scattering what leads to new problems.

I’m inclined to exclude this question, because it’s basically two non-FW rules interacting (Flame Pillar and Fuelled by Fire were not introduced by FW)

Hobgoblin: Actually this question was answered “Yes” in a personal mail.

Hellcannon: Exactly! The first ruling made the new question worth asking…

So yes: There is need to ask!

@ Hashut’s Blessing:

Thanks you mentioned some important points.

Bull Centaurs: And still it might be an oversight (with the book being released after the change of editions) and just feels wrong.

Deathshrieker: The word “template” is never used while refering to the Demolition Rocket, so no it “is” not a template hit by definition.

Taurus Flaming Body: Read the FaQ and then tell me from where you pick the Flaming Body rule for the Great Taurus if not from SoM… as we know, that it was deliberately excluded from the change.

Flame Pillar: I still think it’s a valid question, just not for FW to answer. (see above)

Lammasu: Is already included in the FaQ

Flames of Azgorh: I do not think, that it’s that clear. Basically because we do not know whether you should treat the T-test like the high strength hit of a stonethrower or like a “seperate template” (I tend toward the first option)

Hellcannon, Iron Daemon, Giant Wolf: Sounds reasonable…

Dreadquake: You seem to forget, that the new rules for warmachines imply that the crew members are only markers for the wounds and attacks of the machine and do not “die” like normal RnF-models. But I guess it will turn out as you said.

@ ToM: In that case it would pobably be very helpful if a native speaker reads over the qestions before they’re being send.

@ French_noodle: Two very interesting answers, that should be included in a FaQ

DD

[system]

Da Crusha:

@deadly deceiver: don’t forget to ask my questions from post 10

[HashutsBlessing]

Hashut’s Blessing:

Before I say anything else, firstly - sinceret of apologies, GodHead, a massive oversight there on my part, lol The stupidest part is, we were in agreement that it needed FAQing, just a case of FW or GW answering it I think it should be FW, personally upon that revelation

deadlyeceiver:

Bull Centaurs: It could be, but they’ve had two opportunities, with the question having been asked, to rectify this as errata. they haven’t. It’s intended the way it’s written.

Deathshrieker: No, but it is still a template weapon - it uses a template. The marker is merely the central point of said template and so that it is easier to identify whether or not its readjustment rule comes into effect.

Flaming Body: It’s quite obvious that they have made an oversight with regards to not mentioning the “ordinary” Taurus. There is nothing in it that implies you should check another book on that matter. The alternative to adding in “and the Taurus” is to use the older version of the rule (I.E. minus 1 to Wound). Still ask, by all means, but the question is actually “Should the normal taurus be included in the errata regarding pages 184 and 185 or use the original version of the rule?”. Not to mention, even if it did use the SoM ruling, why would it suddenly have access to the options from there? The options aren’t part of that rule…

Flame Pillar: We’re in complete agreement then

Lammasu: Of course it does ^^ Just, urm, testing… Yeah, they’ll believe that

Flames of Azgorh: Why would it suddenly be an extra template (that could only affect one model?)? There’s nothing giving any reasoning to it being anything other than the central hole of a template, except that it doesn’t say “Takes a hit three times stronger”, but rather “takes a toughness test etc”. It’s the same as the higher strength hit, but a different end result.

Hellcannon and Giant Wolf: I’d still say ask, even though reasonable assumptions can be made. They do need clarifying.

Dreadquake: Not forgetting it in the slightest, just applying a bit of logic to the ogre being a wound counter for 3 wounds. Definitely needs asking (because they didn’t answer it last time) and I’d hope they do it the way I’ve suggested, but might say do it in any order you choose or the last wound MUST be a CD (because he’s actually the one able to aim an use it) etc…

[system]

deadlydeceiver:

@ Hashut’s Blessing:
We’re coming closer…
Bull Centaurs: No answer is no answer IMO
Demolition Rocket: IMHO you can’t just say “it’s a template weapon”, because it doesn’t use the term. There’s no reference to a template or stonethrower in it’s rule unless you fire Deathshrieker Rockets. The Demolition Rocket simply states “These rockets inflict their damage on a single model on which they land,…” which could very well be interpreted as one single hit.
I think it’s very well worth asking.
Taurus Flaming Body: Alright, I’ll reword the question, but still include the “options if taken from SoM” part.
Flame Pillar: :hat off
Flames of Azgorh: That still leaves the question whether the model under the hole needs to take 2 LoS-rolls. I still think it’s no perferct match to follow the rules for the higher strength hit of the stonethrower, as it is an additional effect and not a "replace effect 1 (low strength) with effect 2 (high strength)"
Hellcannon, Iron Daemon, Giant Wolf: Yep, that’s what I meant. I’ll include hellcannon and giant wolf and exclude the ID.
Dreadquake: Agreed! :cheers

@ Da Crusha: I personally was quite sure to treat it like killing blow (remove full models first, remaining W for CR) but will include it nevertheless if it’s discussed in your gaming group :hat off

DD

[system]

Da Crusha:

@ Da Crusha: I personally was quite sure to treat it like killing blow (remove full models first, remaining W for CR) but will include it nevertheless if it's discussed in your gaming group :hat off

DD

deadlydeceiver

personally I haven't found anything in the rulebook about how to treat killing blow against multiple wound models and how that translates to combat resolution. If you know a page please tell me.

and the fact of the matter is it doesn't say to treat it as killing blow, just like the deathshrieker rocket doesnt say to treat the point as a template. its logical to treat it as killing blow but that is not the same.

[system]

Ugly Green Trog:

I’m glad someone is asking the ogre loader question because our war machines are different from most others in the fact that the crew are modelled to be attached to the war machine more like a chariot rather than a cannon. This makes model removal a bit suspect.

[system]

deadlydeceiver:

personally I haven't found anything in the rulebook about how to treat killing blow against multiple wound models and how that translates to combat resolution. If you know a page please tell me.

Da Crusha

:o Seems like I'm still remembering a ruling from 7th
Only indication I found is on pg 45 in the small RB. Left column under "models with more than one wound" it states "you must always try to remove full models" (freely translated from German)

and the fact of the matter is it doesn't say to treat it as killing blow, just like the deathshrieker rocket doesnt say to treat the point as a template. its logical to treat it as killing blow but that is not the same.

Da Crusha

DC:1 DD:0 ...defeated by my own arguments.

But as I said before: Question will be included ^^

DD

[system]

Jossy:

There is no need to include anything with regards to the dreadquake

There is no “removal order” or “wound allocation” for removing crew. They are simply markers and do not count for any game purposes.

The Dreadquake has x wounds and is removed as a whole once its reduced to 0. You dont loose any Orge bonus on the way, nopr do you loose any hellbound bonus. The Ogre simply adds 3 wounds to the profile.

EDIT:

personally I haven’t found anything in the rulebook about how to treat killing blow against multiple wound models and how that translates to combat resolution. If you know a page please tell me.

Da Crusha

:o Seems like I’m still remembering a ruling from 7th

Only indication I found is on pg 45 in the small RB. Left column under “models with more than one wound” it states “you must always try to remove full models” (freely translated from German)



deadlydeceiver

If you inflict killing blow on a multiple wound model, you count the remaining wounds for the purposes of combat resolution.

IE if a 3 wound model had 2 wounds left, and died to a killing blow in close combat, you would count 2 towards the combat resolution.

[Bolg]

Bolg:

There is no need to include anything with regards to the dreadquake

Jossy

yes there is...

[system]

Geist:

All right yah damn gobbos dont make me turn this thread around. Everyone calm down.

What I want to see from this thread on out, is a cleared up new batch of questions for Forge World to address. No personal comments no snipes no getting all haughty. Just a cleaned up list of new questions.

Flames of Azergoth

Look out sire for tough test yes or no.

Dread Quake

What is removal of wounds order for case of hell bound/slave orge.

Hell Cannon

We still use the warriors one, but do we use the warriors cost or our listed cost?

There is the lead of what should be listed and e-mailed off, with all posters digital siggys. So forge-world knows this comes from more than 1 person or some nerd rage fan.

[system]

Grimbold Blackhammer:

I don’t see any relevance to the cost of the Hellcannon in our book versus theirs. It’s been common throughout Warhammer for two armies to pay different amounts for exactly the same troop.

[HashutsBlessing]

Hashut’s Blessing:

Geist: We’re refining the list to get the best response possible from Forge World and to get the important matters answered is all also, you turn this thread round and my modly powers can be abused to turn it back again*

Bull Centaurs: No answer is no answer IMO

deadlydeceiver

Indeed. It’s not an utterly stupid question to ask, I just doubt anything will come of it, lol

Demolition Rocket: IMHO you can’t just say “it’s a template weapon”, because it doesn’t use the term. There’s no reference to a template or stonethrower in it’s rule unless you fire Deathshrieker Rockets. The Demolition Rocket simply states “These rockets inflict their damage on a single model on which they land,…” which could very well be interpreted as one single hit.

I think it’s very well worth asking.

deadlydeceiver

All very true and clarification is key here. May as well keep it in - as a heads up, my reason for having argued everything is that the most concise list of questions with appropriate reasoning is the most surefire way of getting them to answer us and solve the actual problems we often face. Not because I’m a hobgoblin bully

Taurus Flaming Body: Alright, I’ll reword the question, but still include the “options if taken from SoM” part.

deadlydeceiver

Still not sure we should mention the options - the Bale Taurus has two stat advantages and nothing else over the Taurus: give him access to the options and he’s suddenly the better of the two, IMO.

Flame Pillar: :hat off

deadlydeceiver

Gotta admit when I’m wrong - it’s only fair

Flames of Azgorh: That still leaves the question whether the model under the hole needs to take 2 LoS-rolls. I still think it’s no perferct match to follow the rules for the higher strength hit of the stonethrower, as it is an additional effect and not a “replace effect 1 (low strength) with effect 2 (high strength)”

deadlydeceiver

I’d say it’s one LoS test for both effects on that model (I.E. roll one LoS, if successful, nothing happens to that model at all), but definitely ask. Maybe ask if the Look Out Sir! roll is made once for the special effect and wound or if it’s two rolls or no LoS for the special effect. Again, it’s more about how we ask the important questions as to how well they’ll answer.

Hellcannon, Iron Daemon, Giant Wolf: Yep, that’s what I meant. I’ll include hellcannon and giant wolf and exclude the ID.

deadlydeceiver

Sounds good to me. The Iron Demon was just removing the chaff from the wheat to make Forge World give us some tasty bread

*(I wouldn’t abuse my modly powers )

[Kamphre]

Kamphre:

I’ve got a funny question (already asked but never get an answer):

Does the chaos dwarfs considered as “dwarfs” for rules purposes?

For example, Skaven (including Queek) or Orcs (with magic weapon) deals more damages against dwarfs. Is it including Chaos dwarfs?

[system]

Thommy H:

There is no need to include anything with regards to the dreadquake

There is no "removal order" or "wound allocation" for removing crew. They are simply markers and do not count for any game purposes.

The Dreadquake has x wounds and is removed as a whole once its reduced to 0. You dont loose any Orge bonus on the way, nopr do you loose any hellbound bonus. The Ogre simply adds 3 wounds to the profile.

Jossy

Oh awesome. Could you give me the page reference for where this rule is explained? I assume the method used for allocating the Ogre's Attacks, which armour save to use and whose Attacks you lose when the unit takes Wounds is explained there too?

[system]

Jossy:

There is no need to include anything with regards to the dreadquake

There is no "removal order" or "wound allocation" for removing crew. They are simply markers and do not count for any game purposes.

The Dreadquake has x wounds and is removed as a whole once its reduced to 0. You dont loose any Orge bonus on the way, nopr do you loose any hellbound bonus. The Ogre simply adds 3 wounds to the profile.

Jossy

Oh awesome. Could you give me the page reference for where this rule is explained? I assume the method used for allocating the Ogre's Attacks, which armour save to use and whose Attacks you lose when the unit takes Wounds is explained there too?


Thommy H

Nice, I am the subject of internet sarcasm :D

pg 108 'The crew' ...crew are ignored for most purposes... ...the war machine suffers a wound, remove a crew member...

pg 108 'split profile' ...you always use the movement, weapon skill... ... of the crew.

pg 110 'war machines in close combat' ...When it comes time to fight, the war machine makes a number of attacks equal to the number of surviving crew models, using their WS, St, and In...

Tomb Kings FAQ v1.3 Q: Can the controlling player choose the order in which to remove
crew from the Casket of Souls? (p40)
A: Yes.

Q: When attacking the Casket of Souls in close combat, can you
direct attacks against a particular crew member? (p40)
A: No.

-The Casket of Souls is a war machine-

Orc and Goblin Rule Book
Pg 47 Orc Bullys. Establishes unit gaining additional benefits from model rules.

I can't remember where I read it but I recall as long as the bully was alive the war machine was T4 in combat. Its not in the current FAQ (maybe it was an old FAQ?) so sorry cannot quote this at this time

So, my logical conclusion is we can choose what dies in what order, and armour saves are made as for any mixed unit, ie the majority. Attacks etc are done as per individual crew member remaining and the enemy cannot target an individual crew, as all the precedence's/FAQs have been set by other armies.

My original post was a bit to generalised as an answer, and I hope this one is clearer

[system]

Thommy H:

pg 108 'The crew' ...crew are ignored for most purposes... ...the war machine suffers a wound, remove a crew member...

Jossy

One of the crew in this instance contributes 3 Wounds to the unit though. At what point is this model removed?

pg 108 'split profile' ...you always use the movement, weapon skill... ... of the crew.

The crew in this instance have different M and WS values. Which do you use?

pg 110 'war machines in close combat' ...When it comes time to fight, the war machine makes a number of attacks equal to the number of surviving crew models, using their WS, St, and In...

So the Ogre contributes only a single Attack? Presumably resolved at his own WS, S and I?

Tomb Kings FAQ v1.3 Q: Can the controlling player choose the order in which to remove
crew from the Casket of Souls? (p40)
A: Yes.

Q: When attacking the Casket of Souls in close combat, can you
direct attacks against a particular crew member? (p40)
A: No.

-The Casket of Souls is a war machine-

Orc and Goblin Rule Book
Pg  47 Orc Bullys. Establishes unit gaining additional benefits from model rules.

I can't remember where I read it but I recall as long as the bully was alive the war machine was T4 in combat. Its not in the current FAQ (maybe it was an old FAQ?) so sorry cannot quote this at this time

Yes, all very interesting, but kind of irrelevant for a completely different book.

So, my logical conclusion is we can choose what dies in what order, and armour saves are made as for any mixed unit, ie the majority. Attacks etc are done as per individual crew member remaining and the enemy cannot target an individual crew, as all the precedence's/FAQs have been set by other armies.

And that would be my logical conclusion too, but that doesn't mean it's addressed anywhere in the rules for the Dreadquake Mortar. If you need to pull in material from FAQs for two different Armies books just to figure out how it might work, it probably needs a bit more explanation.

We can all figure something out ourselves. That's not really the point though, is it?

[French_noodle]

French_noodle:

A few days before the new WoC was out, i sent an email to FW asking whether we should use its new profile/cost or keep the tamurkhan cost.

i received an answer today :

We will be updating our errata for the Tamurkhan book shortly but until that time please use the points cost and profile/rules for the Hell Cannon from the new Warriors of Chaos army book.

So it seems that something is coming. Guess time is running out to send your questions, better hurry IMO.

Good luck and thank you for compelling all these unclear rules.

++

[system]

Geist:

French noodle

Can you please post a date of when you sent that e-mail to ForgeWorld and a date on which you got that reply e-mail.

Since it seems we are running out of time (IE Forgeworld seems to be working on a new FAQ soonish(depends on the dates I asked French noodle for), we need to get a master list made thought out and smoothed over ASAP. So that we dont miss the buss on ForgeWorld sending us a FAQ with fresh answers in it. Also I am glad to see a more lets work together tude in this thread now. Infighting will just make us appear weak and foolish. Rember the shining example we need to follow for GW/ForgeWorld taking us serious is Druchii.net, GW actually read and liked their info so much they made an entire FAQ based almost 100% on their questions comments and suggestions. Sure this was a while back but a precedent was set. So lets take that example and do the same thing with Chaos Dwarfs.

[system]

Thommy H:

Chill out. The Tamurkhan list is pretty crap anyway, with or without the patches necessary to make it functional. It’s what comes of FW existing outside of the main GW studio - their rules are designed in isolation and rarely end up being “future proof”. You’ll need to keep house-ruling it to hell for a long while yet, whatever they put out.