[Archive] Forgeworld FAQ Updated

Discoking:

Good morning troops.

Here Is an interview by Ben Curry of Neil Peckett, with the reason for the recent k’daai rule update.

Some of this made me laugh…

http://traffic.libsyn.com/baddice/daily_19.mp3

Thommy H:

Could you summarise? They don’t like it when I listen to podcasts at work.

deadlydeceiver:

Could you summarise? They don't like it when I listen to podcasts at work.

Thommy H
;P

Basically this guy "Neil Peckett" has a friend at FW and told him that CD weren't accepted at many tournaments because of "Blazing Body".

What Discoking probably chuckled about is, that the guy hinted, that FW probably used the old "to wound-chart" when thinking about the rule and didn't realize, that in the new edition every S can wound every T.

Additioally the guy is under the impression, that the Great Taurus still has the old BB-rule, as FW may not change game rules from GW.

My opinion: I hate to have a totally rewritten rule in the FAQ. I hate it even more to have two rules with the same name in the same army book that work differently...

BTW: Great find and thanks for sharing Disco!

DD

Discoking:

Cheers for summarising, DD :slight_smile:

He also mentioned that “always wound on a 6” was discussed.

Thommy H:

The Great Taurus does indeed have the old version, as in Storm of Magic. The thing is, it’s not such a big deal in that environment because of powerful cataclysm spells, abundant magic (which Blazing Body doesn’t work against) and every wizard having a 3+ spell that can effectively insta-kill bound monsters. It’s just in normal games that it begins to get a bit mental.

deadlydeceiver:

I still think it’s incredibly stupid not to change their GT.
I mean it is already different to the SoM incarnation as it may not buy the upgrades.
IMHO they should then change the GT to “as per Storm of Magic” like the Lammasu to avoid misunderstandings… but hey, they won’t.
If I didn’t know that the GT is part of the SoM-book I’d be totally puzzled. ('Cause there’s no hint at SoM in it’s entry and the BB-rule got changed everywhere in Tamurkhan)

DD

Far2Casual:

A rewrite by allowing 6s to wound would have been infinitely better imo. They really just made it better than before with this new rule. People who try to take down T6 monster with bows do it wrong anyway …

Baggronor:

People who try to take down T6 monster with bows do it wrong anyway ...
Not really. Peppering a Ghorgon with Str 3 shooting will generally do a wound or two, it's only monsters with good saves that are resistant to this (so all the good monsters, basically). Not all armies have alternatives to str 3 shooting either.
But yes, just saying 6s wound would have made a lot more sense.

Ender SpiteSworn:

That’s pretty funny. I think a good way to look at it is that FW wants the CD list to be widely accepted and is willing to eat some crow to do it.

I’m thinking of using a Great taurus for a monster mash list. I would just let me opponent choose whcih way to play the blazing body rule. Its not a big deal either way.

Veshnakar:

A rewrite by allowing 6s to wound would have been infinitely better imo. They really just made it better than before with this new rule. People who try to take down T6 monster with bows do it wrong anyway ...
I definitely agree. If it kept the old wording of -1 to Wound, but 6s always wound, would have been perfect.

Perhaps we could influence them to change this eventually?

Thommy H:

A better solution would be for hits to be resolved at -1 Strength, down to a minimum of 1. This is mechanically identical and easier to explain - plus it has precedent, as lots of things that modify characteristics have that limitation.

cornixt:

I think they are learning why you should use self-contained rules in each army book. Pointing to a unit in another “army” book is one thing, using rules from that book for units in another book starts to make everything unravel.

GodHead:

Just make it -1 to wound, but 6’s still wound it.

Destroyer (army) fixed. Job’s a good’un.

This new rule change is idiotic.

Veshnakar:

We should go ahead and try and push for them to just make it -1S instead of -1 to wound or reroll wound. I say we start a little initiative? I’ll spearhead it if you guys like.

burock:

i really cant understand why we are so keen on getting our destroyers killed. :slight_smile: i dont see any DE player begging for a nerf for their hydras, or a skaven for their blasted monstas…

as someone said on this forum, it is now our turn to have DA BIG BEASTIE and we should enjoy it; because there will be something better than that in the next ABs soon.

If you re really worried that you gaming group/fellas are annoyed at destroyer choice, try to explain them first but if they dont budge, just dont bring the destroyer against them. But please do not try to ruin other people’s chances in competitive environments by means of requesting a change in the form of a FAQ.

Da Crusha:

@veshnakar: BOOOOOO! if you want the rules changed you should house rule it. Im sure your friends will agree to whatever handicap you want to give them.

wait a second, I get it! he’s a bot sent over from another forum trying to destroy our best troops! not a believer in Hashut! May Hashut curse you DOWN!

Veshnakar:

:~

It’s more that the unit has become a crutch for the list. Even without reroll/-1 to wound its still crazy powerful as all heck!

And how DARE you. I was praising Hashut when you were in diapers and you only had whiskers on your chin beardlings! :s

PS: If you doubt my conviction why don’t you head on over to the army blogs section and check out my glass cabinet. Chaos Dwarfs are my only army. Furthermore I am just trying to ensure they are accepted the world over. Having an overpowered unit is going to ruin our chances for that, and the Destroyer is 90% of people’s hold-back. I personally don’t give a damn about “competitive environments” if it means not being able to use the army I love.

I want to be sure I am able to use the army that I sold my collection of very dear painted armies just to be able to afford. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, and I am not going to compromise my opinions just because select players enjoy being able to win with the help of overpowered units. We didn’t have anything like the Destroyer in Ravening Hordes, and I never had many problems in the tournament scene. If they flat out removed the Destroyer our list would still be perfectly competitive.

I mean I get that unit choices like the Infernal Guard w/Fireglaive/Blunderbuss and Infernal Ironsworn and the Chaos Siege Giant are overpriced, but a list isn’t “balanced” when it has one insanely good unit just to counterbalance a bunch of bad ones.

Bitterman:

We should go ahead and try and push for them to just make it -1S instead of -1 to wound or reroll wound. I say we start a little initiative? I'll spearhead it if you guys like.

Veshnakar
I don't agree with this personally. I think that players could get upset when most of their army couldn't hurt it, but they've changed it now so that's no longer a problem. I think they're unlikely to keep changing the same rule over and over again on a weekly basis, and furthermore I don't think there's any benefit in doing so - they've fixed the problem, job done.

Veshnakar:

I don't agree with this personally. I think that players could get upset when most of their army couldn't hurt it, but they've changed it now so that's no longer a problem. I think they're unlikely to keep changing the same rule over and over again on a weekly basis, and furthermore I don't think there's any benefit in doing so - they've fixed the problem, job done.

Bitterman
Fair enough.

Sherlocko:



Veshnakar
- they've fixed the problem, job done.


Bitterman
Problem is, they didn´t fix the problem. I think the main gripe is that it was hard as nails to hurt AND that str below 5 couldn´t hurt it. Now, they fixed the part about low str but also made it even harder to kill.

I´m all for a petition about a better fix.

Not that I don´t want to face off against a destroyer or so, but I´m in the planning process of my second Chaos Dwarf army and as it stands right now I´m not even sure I will bother to build a destroyer since it would just feel like playing with a crutch. Even if it is a really nice hobby opportunity.