7th Ed. New Lizardman FAQ is out!

LOL! Honestly? Which is exactly why they need a FAQ to clairify their balanced printing. I'm sorry, but I 100% disagree that the game is balanced. Don't get me wrong, I don't think its 100% lopsided either, but there are many many things that could use tuning. With every 7th edition army book getting a host of tweaks it's clear that they do their best to balance the game but there is no possible way to balance a game around 15+ unique army lists, all with their own rules, special troops and hosts of special characters (which please don't tell me helps in any way, shape or form). If you think the game is balanced, you're welcome to your opinion. But I won't be convinced of any such thing. It's got a decent balance, but there are some sections that are grossly 'imbal'.

On subject:

Donkey makes great points in his post, and I can see both sides of the argument in interpretation. I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment though.

You are correct in saying that the FAQ does not specifically say this:

The biggest problem that I see is this:

This open ended statement makes for the discussion we see right now, which ultimately will have to be either worked out with your opponent or left to a judge to clarify. You could apply that statement to the whole shooting phase including all your other troops, but I think we'd all agree that would be way off the mark. However, Donkey's interpretation is based on the assumption that "No shots are fired" is applied to the single razordon, when in fact it does not specifically say it applies to it. However, the rest of the answer to the question refers to the unit.

the unit is key here to me, as it is used in the same sentence as before. Donkey you propose the answer to read something like: No shots are fired by the single razordon but the unit looses D3 skink handlers.

If the the misfire can effect the skink handlers why would it not affect the other razordons in the unit?


Let's think about in terms of a 'real' battle. A unit of two razordons unleashes its stand and shoot. The first razordon misfires killing 6 skink handlers leaving two for the whole unit (assuming you had an extra). Assuming that some of those handlers where handling and near the other razordon, would it stand to reason that razordon would be 'distracted' enough to be affected by the misfires of the first, thereby not firing its own spines?

Of course, a case could be made that both razordons fire a stand and shoot simultaneously therefore not affecting one another with their respective misfires but definitely killing a ton of skinks in the process.

I can't see how he's making things up when his interpretation of the answer simply reflects the terminology in which the statement is written:

From what I've read Stewart proposed this interpretation of the ruling:
No shots are fired [by the unit] and the unit looses D3 skink handlers.

vs.

No shots are fire [by the misfiring razordon] and the unit looses D3 skink handlers.


Obviously it comes down to interpretation and I don't see how either argument is any less valid in light of all the points presented and in relationship to how GW chose their wording (which I think we all agree was not well thought out).

I can think of a lot of instances where having a smaller unit of <insert troop type here> is much better than having more.


Once again not trying to take sides or pick at your response Donkey or Stewart. Just adding my thoughts and analysis to the discussion. Devil's advocate is usefull at times.

*edit* Grammar

 

"The game is balanced" is highly subjective I admit, but the thing is, darn near everything in this game is optional. In games like starcraft certain units like scouts and ghosts don't see a lot of play in professional games just because their utility is kinda not applicable to the current paradigm of play. (few large air units) In warhammer people tend to not realize that armies like vampire counts and demons can be beaten with some loopy death star strategies, it's just that..... those strategies wouldn't work against anyone else. The primary balancing act to me is that each army book has certain major holes in it's playstyle, that can be exploited, and I and my opponent usually have prior knowledge of the army we will be facing, as is typically true at the shop I play. Further, even in tournaments, most of us pre-test our armies and therefore have foreknowledge. The primary effect of those two armies is that they can come from nowhere with a gillion powa dice that you totally weren't prepared for, which my group would consider just plain rude.

To my knowledge, when originally designing the game, GW never planned for competitive tournament play, and any imbalances in that perversion of the game isn't their fault. Read some of the white dwarf articles and it becomes clear that the designers still consider the game to be largely "for fun" and not a serious game.

As to the unit thing, I propose that a razordon that misfires twice fires no shots, but still kills 2d3 skinks, from his unit (which might include the skinks that come with other handlers). You have to look at these guys like the rat ogres or squig herds, you buy one squig team each 30 odd points, but they all lump together inextricably.

I actually take that to support my claim, since it has to specifically state that it affects "the unit" with it's casualties, but does not explicitly state that the "fires no shots" does, since it's been established that we are talking about "a razordon" and we have a mechanic for describing the entire unit that was knowingly unused, it is still in the tense of the "a razordon".

The reason I accuse Strewart of making things up is the same I have for accusing GW of being fair, because it'll raise eyebrows and start heated debate, which will further the advancement of lizardman thought processes and develop terminological strength to defend against munchkining. More specifically, because he broadcast assumes "the unit" from the answer without using the power of the question.

Of course a razordon can kill more then his own 3 skinks (or 4), because if you have 12 skinks they are all his 12 skinks, as are they completely his neighbor razordons. They share a pool of skinks and even if there's only one skink left for 3 razordons they are totally fine for monster reaction, just like rat ogres or squigs herds, for consistency. To my knowledge, GW has never printed something inconsistent.

 

That was a long post, I read all of it though. You add some very good points. It does seem like equal interpretation either way. I will say that I made my points against the razordon merely for the sake of trying to interprete the rules, my personal stance is that a misfire from one should not effect another but before the FAQ my stance was also that chiefs should be able to fire howdah weapons.

I will point out one final thing, put the FAQ down for a second and refer back to the army book on the razordon page:

They had the wording right in the book, from that line in the army book I would definitely say that razordon doesn't fire on a misfire but the others are still fine. Then the wording changed in the FAQ to mention unit. Why?

 

I don't really are about razordons because i never use them anyway but WHAT THE HELL is this nonsense about the palanquin?
The faq says that the slann has no large-target line of sight when he is not in a unit of TG. Does the guard throw the fat toads palanquin in the air themself? no i don't think so, it clearly states on p. 43 of the LM book: "The Slann Magwe-Priest's palanquin allows it to float up..." etc.
So why would he need to be in a unit to do this? I always liked to play lone slann lists but that is no longer viable now.

They might as well write: "well since we want you all to buy more models you have to buy temple guard to play your slann effectively so he can't do it if he is not in a unit."

 

I've enjoyed reading the discussion on the Razordon subject considering the GW team left so much open for debate in the verbage used to clarify their rules. Turns out, it didn't clarify much but left a lot of unanswered questions.

Donkey you site consistency across all different units (squigs, rat ogres, etc.) as part of the argument for having only the misfiring razordon not fire. This really makes sense when you see other unique rules in army books streamlined in this edition to make the rules less text and more play (Terradon --> Flying Cavalry rule is an example that comes to mind). I think that ultimately this is an effort to help balance the game, give it consistancy and maximize the fun factor.

I'll also agree that GW never intended for the game to be used in 'competitive play' and that having the option does expose a lot of inconsistancies and imbalances in the game that wouldn't otherwise be noticed or truely cared about. Overall, GW has done a good job of making the game better with each edition and while I feel that it never will be balanced overall, having GW continue to balance things that are in need of balancing means that the game will continue to get better and better.

I'd have to say that referencing the orginal army book is probably the best thing to do in this case and when used in conjunction with the FAQ's Question, its answer and the original text we can ultimately come out with a quite clear definition that indicates no matter how many razordons you have in a single unit, misfires from one only affect that one.


As I remember, 6th edition Slanns were large targets, no? We've lost that rule meaning that it IS more dangerous to be out in the open with a Slann with no unit protection. This means that you actually have better protection in a unit of TG and outside a unit. You just can't fire MM's as a large taget if you're not in a unit of TG. In my opinion, I'd gladly give up the large target rule on my slann (in or out of TG) even if it means I have to more carefully position myself to cast MM's on a unit that I really want.

 

Since all the arguments have already been made concerning the Razordons, I'll just toss in a question of my own...

"Why would the FAQ answer a question that nobody in their right mind has ever, or would ever ask? (until now)"

The question has always been about whether a misfire cancels the other artillery die from the same razordon. The "unit" loses skinks, the individual razordon loses its shots. FIN

This rule already makes razordons fairly undesirable, why would anyone want to compound the problem by shutting down the whole unit in the case of a single misfire? Wouldn't the same misfire rule then have to apply to salamanders, considering they are a virtual carbon copy? This rule would also mean that the average stand and shoot reaction of a pack of 3 razordons would produce 0 shots and 2 dead skinks... who would be afraid to charge that? Isn't that the whole point of razordons, to discourage chargers?

Seriously, if someone wants to claim one razordon misfire shuts down the whole unit.. just shut down the whole game and never play that opponent again. Clearly they are not playing for enjoyment, and have either 1) attained mastery of self-deception to the point where they truly are interpreting the rules that way or 2) know full well what the FAQ means to say, but are being intentionally obtuse and obnoxious.

In either case, it is probably in the best interests of your own psychological and intellectual well-being to avoid such miscreants whenever they out themselves, and try to sabotage their attempts at breeding.

For tournaments... just don't take razordons! They're really horribly overpriced.

 

As I see it, GW have done a terrible job with the FAQ and I shall tell you why I think so.

First of all, they have addressed certain issues that, in all honesty, did not require an answer since they are quite clear in the army book. First off is the whole razordon misfire issue. Can't see why they had to include it.

Secondly, and this is a personal qualm but one which literally disgusted me whilst reading and which had me roll my eyes at times, is the colloquial language used and uncertainty in the FAQ.

1. Who are you??
2. To what degree of certainty would you say that this is in fact the case?
3. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

1. What the ....??? Is this the way to give a straight answer? A person not fluent in english might misinterpret this to mean the exact opposite.
2. Just a yesor no would be much better.

1. What if I decide to play the game in a way that is not definitely best?
2. Can I then use the weapons as warmachines?
3. As is, it seems that they are advising us on how we should play this rule, rather on how we must.

This FAQ needs an FAQ for itself! Crappy stuff this and whoever made it or gave the go ahead for the print should change profession.

There are other such "answers" but I don't feel like reading them again. Won't waste my time on something that they did not bother spend their time on.

 

Aranigej

i think that these questions were answered according to the way the game is meant to be played if you read any of their books (army books, rules, etc.) with in the first few pages they will tell you the entire point of the game is to have fun not to study their rules with a passion usually reserved for religion they also tell people to use their own house rules on a regular basis following the same logic so therefore they did answer their questions properly in my view

 

Agreed, this isn't chess people... Or well it is... But just on steroids. (Expensive steroids...)
It's a hobby, it's for fun... But the way they worded razordons takes away that fun from me... I'd rather use the book where it refers to the single razordon instead...

Cheers!

 

I'm sorry guys, but from my standpoint, Aran has a lot of great points.

I agree with the fact that there are a lot of questions presented in the FAQ that really didn't need to be there if the rules were explored. A great example of this was the Kroxigor upgrade to a unit of skinks and how the fear mechanics of this unit work. Unless I'm gravely mistaken (I don't have my books here at the office), you should be able to figure out from the basic psychology rules (in regards to fear) how to handle this unit.

The wording that they chose in a lot of areas also confounded me as well. This document is meant to be a clarification of the rules, not an interview with a local movie star. Some of the answers left a lot to be desired in terms of wording, clarity and verbage. A great example of this has already been explored in this thread. The razordon misfire issue, did need clarification in my mind, and the FAQ seemed to really struggle to set things straight. In fact, a legitimate case could be made for either side of the issue depending on the interpretation. The fact that several different rules discussions had to be sighted and all reviewed in context of each other, along with further interpretation should be clear evidence that the FAQ didn't do its job (at least very well).

I've never seen this printed in any of GW's material and is clearly an extrapolation of the original statements which are meant to say that the rules are there to help you and your opponent have fun without slowing the game down. Part of the issue that I see is that not all players are the same. I've played with people who would rather you charge their unit even though you're clearly out of range simply for the fact that it makes a good story and they're able to roleplay it (a 'hang the rules' mentality). I've played against others who won't let you charge over 1/16th inch (follow the rules to the letter mentailty). Everyone's definition of fun is different.

My point is that every player has fun with the game in different ways. To some the rules are very important and need clarification. Those folks enjoy discussing those rules and theorycrafting about the game for the sake of it making it just as much part of the hobby as putting your models down on the table for a game. Others aren't so concerned about the rules and are more interested in the story or how the battle unfolds. There's nothing wrong with this mentality either, each are just different. I also know that there's a host of others who are somewhere in between and enjoy multiple aspects of the game at many different levels.

Part of the fun for some is discussing the rules and following them to the letter. Let those people have their fun and have fun with what you have fun with. It's also a two way street as well. People who want to play 'by the letter' or 'hammer craft' shouldn't be trying to force those who don't see it like that to do so.

If joining the discussion about rules and how clear they are, or are not is not fun to you, why bother posting?

*edit* Grammar

 

I agree, the FAQ is meant to clear things up not sound like some guy is just going hmmmm I think this is what might happen, who seems to have only glanced over the army book and definitely not given many of the questions any real thought or any thought to the consequences of the answers. Yes you roll on enemy miscast tables, but you still ignore 5-6 when they only go up to 6 (not 12) and you roll on the miscast table before transfering?? What the hell?

Yes, the idea of the game is to have fun. But even scissors, paper, rock is played in tournament settings in some places, it is a given that serious play also exists, and in the case of warhammer is very strong, GW know this and shouldn't ignore large parts of the market. Now I don't play tournaments, and play mostly for fun, and sometimes find it hilarious when things go incredibly badly for me, but that doesn't mean I don't like to win and in basically every setting, when you come up with a rules question, talking it over as GW suggest is impractical because inevitably, one outcome greatly favours one player while the other outcome greatly favours the other player. How is an agreement meant to be reached there?? Dice off is basically the only way, but it certainly doesn't resolve the question.

 

With all due respect, I do not agree with you in the least. First off, I have read most of games workshop's books since 1997 so I do have a slight idea on how the game is meant to be played. I have also participated in numerous tournaments, both friendly and official, and I can tell you with all conviction that in order to enjoy playing the game, arguments regarding rules should be avoided.

With unclear rules and FAQs that create confusion, such arguments are bound to happen. It is true that the aim of the game is to have fun, and I am sure that all who play do, but having a proper functioning structure within which toplay makes playing that much enjoyable.

Here in Malta, not everyone is fluent in english so unclear and ambiguous language lead to frustrating and annoying arguments that could have been easily avoided if the wording had been simple. My issue with the FAQ is that it is made in a manner that is not conclusive. GW, being the powers that be in the world of warhammer, should have taken a stronger stance on their answers and given more precise and helpful answers. I am not talking about the actual content of the FAQ, which is a whole other matter, but rather the way it has been presented.

A final comment I would like to add is that I strongly disagree with all those who say that in order to play for fun you need to allow the odd inch here and there. In a purely friendly and non-competitive environment I would consider allowing it, but in a competition of any sorts I would not, and do not expect to be allowed it myself. If the charge has been misjudged... hard luck.

That being said, one must always respect his opponent.

 

To clarify, I feel the same way. My point was to say that everyone wants to use the rules differently, especially outside of competitive play, and there is nothing wrong with this. You obviously shouldn't be doing this in competitive play.

Perhaps a good summary of the FAQ would be to say that it has been presented in 'too casual' of terms? Would this result in multiple interpretations when a more official format would have been clearer?

 

The biggest problem I see, is a FAQ ISNT for fun and friendly games. In fun and friendly games, anyone who isnt a d-bag talks it over with his opponent and agrees to something mutually. a FAQ IS for tournament play, and this FAQ feels rushed and incomplete, especialy when compared to the other FAQs listed.

 

I'll agree with Bearded for the assumed implied meaning of his post. I would go as far to say that the FAQ is intended for friendly games where both players want to use the correct rules, but seems primarily designed for competitive play. The only reason I make this point is because I belong to a group who plays 'friendly games' but takes pride in following the rules.

Another question that jumped out at me as I was reading the FAQ at work today. This one is an excellent example of what some of us have already iterated.

Wait, did they just use the word reckon? This isn't the old west guys, it's a warhammer FAQ. The situation that the question refers to is rare overall (unless you play a DoC list frequently). Would this not be what two players who did not have this answer potentially agree on? Sure they could agree that the lowest/highest casting value of the spell was chosen or they could also randomize it.

The main thing to me is that "they reckon" that's the way you handle it. This doesn't imply an authoritative stance at all, but more of an assumption of how things should be played or more of a 'suggestion'. Great example as to why some of the FAQ's questions/answers are disappointing.

 

Exactly right, it is too informal for an FAQ. Sure they can design the books with friendly battles in mind, but in an FAQ you would think it should formalise some of the more common questions where two interpretations are possible, and give a clear answer for what the studio (ie. author) was thinking when writing the rule in question. Clearly he knows best what the interpretation was meant to be, and should be able to say 'oh yes I see the misunderstanding, this is how it is meant to be played.' I don't see how it could have been rushed, GW would have gotten a lot of emails from people with rules questions including a large document from us not only with questions, but our thoughts on the matter, all it takes is one guy to sit down for a day or two and read through them, then write definitive answers. Maybe discuss a few of the more dubious ones over lunch with the others, maybe email the draft around for the staff to have a quick look at. Remember this thing took 4-5 months to appear.

I would like to point people to this paragraph on the GW website opening FAQ page though:

Seems clear from this that they don't or won't give real definitive answers to questions, and even in a well written FAQ it is just meant to be a guide or set of ways it could be played, and still open to interpretation or modification. I don't see why they don't admit the book(s) have a few holes and fix them. This is like a software developer releasing a document of glitches in their game and saying here are a few possible ways of getting around it, rather than a patch that fixes it.

Edit: Woops, forgot something. And an already long post gets longer. 'Reckon' is pretty commonly used in Australia as a slang term, and I imagine (don't quote me) in the UK as well, it is not just an old western term. It is still slang and certainly you wouldn't say it if you were sure about something. Actually it doesn't even literally translate to a suggestion with some doubt, like saying 'I think', though it can be used as such. I reckon its about lunch time, mate!

 

Great points from all around there stewart. As a WoW player I can especially identify with the 'game' example. I had not read the paragraph on the website that you quoted from and certainly does enlighten a little bit about what the FAQ is 'intended' to do. With as many typos that come up in the books (the 7th edition LM version is riddled with gross typos) it doesn't give me an indication that a signficant amount of time was invested in their creation.

Going back to the software example, this right here equates to a statement by a software company who says something like, "We like having the bug in there because it adds a random and unpredictable element to the game."

On the term 'reckon' you'll have to forgive me. After thinking about it a bit, I'm sure the old west used the word primarily because it was used in old english. I don't know why I find it interesting that it is used 'down under' given the cultural similarities (and I'll be the first to admit, I'm grossly uninformed so if this statement is out of line, feel free to correct) and language similarities. It is good that the meaning is similar across all national boundaries so I guess their choice of words, in this case, is at least uniformly udnerstandable.

 

My question is do you have to roll to hit with a terradon's drop rocks ability? I wanted to drop rocks on my opponent's poison wind globadiers last week and he wanted me to roll with the minus one to hit for moving and shooting and minus one because they were skirmishers.
I mean, it does say "D3 hits" in the army book so those should be D3 automatic hits correct?

 

Don't think there is a roll to hit as it isn't shooting. So roll the D3 per model and then roll with those to wound.

 

D3 hits does indeed mean the hits are automatic. A Skaven player should know that well; they have several items/weapons that provide Dx hits and even Dx wounds.