• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

Tutorial The Old World Lizardmen Army PDF is out and free

RipperDerek said:
Because so many different venues have so many different rules interpretations, I have been working on a comprehensive rules FAQ for our local scene to use. I am posting it here in case it proves useful to anyone else.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ytWajsShGnldwRJvIiCLUFYS26gY6TUfmpB8oLGGAxE/edit?usp=sharing
Click to expand...

it's not a bad document, but i thinks somethink is to be revisioned:

- skink chief and poisoned attacks: this is certanly not an error, as almost every hero gained some ability that they didn't have in 8th edition (see rally cry and furios charge on saurus heroes). probably it can be added "(doesn't work on his mount or the crew)

- skink priest already have a note that explicity says he can cast and dispel with his calloused hide.

- Flying over a column of crystal is possible, because while flying a model can go over an impassible terrain as long as he doesn't end his movement on it. faq is only refering to dangerous terrain to impose a flying model a dangerous terrain test.

- I don't think Lance is clear, your is one of the two possible interpretation: after a FBIGO resolution, while is a subseguent round of combat, it is at the same time a turn in which a model armed with lance has charged, so i think is needed an errata. rewrite lance as other "first round" weapon (A lance's Strength and Armour Piercing modifiers apply only during a turn in which the wielder charged.)

- add Monsoon on the list of correction needed (have a range of 12" or 15"? probably 12, but is better to correct this error
 
I'm not going to argue these rules in this forum, but thank you for the feedback. <3
 
RipperDerek said:
I'm not going to argue these rules in this forum, but thank you for the feedback. <3
Click to expand...
Haha yeah I sometimes wonder if we all need a seperate thread for TOW rules, I really hope a comprehensive FAQ is coming soon.

People seem to become antsy/frustrated in these debates whereas I actually enjoy trying to expand my knowledge and learning about the rules. Well I'm a lawyer in real life so I guess that makes sense.

PS. I agree with fxt on everything except the lance of which I have no opinion as I haven't thought about it.
 
From the new FAQ (v1.1) page 2:

"Q: Can a Wizard with a physical attribute that ‘counts as’ a type of armour (such as a Treeman Ancient’s arboreal armour) make Casting or Dispel rolls? A: Yes. Whilst such attributes are as protective as a suit of armour, such models do not wear armour"

Does this say what I think it does? That Scaly Skin is not actually armour, just an Armour Save value, and therefore wearing Magical Armour will add to the Armour Save? Will an Oldblood ('counts as' heavy armour) with say, Armour of Destiny (Magical heavy armour) end up with a 3+ Armour Save?
 
WithCarbos said:
From the new FAQ (v1.1) page 2:

"Q: Can a Wizard with a physical attribute that ‘counts as’ a type of armour (such as a Treeman Ancient’s arboreal armour) make Casting or Dispel rolls? A: Yes. Whilst such attributes are as protective as a suit of armour, such models do not wear armour"

Does this say what I think it does? That Scaly Skin is not actually armour, just an Armour Save value, and therefore wearing Magical Armour will add to the Armour Save? Will an Oldblood ('counts as' heavy armour) with say, Armour of Destiny (Magical heavy armour) end up with a 3+ Armour Save?
Click to expand...
There is a separate FAQ saying its armour for the purpose of wargear.

Basically this is saying a models skin doesn't prevent it from using magic
 
WithCarbos said:
I can't find that; can you quote it?
Click to expand...
Never mind, I must've been imagining it or thinking of previous discussion hear or something.

But our rules clearly say "Counts as Light/Heavy Armour"

So we have light and heavy armour. Thats what counts as means. IE if something "Counts as being stationary" even if it actually moved, for all rules purposes, it was stationary.

So if we "Counts as light armour" its light armour.

Just apply the FAQ to the question at hand and don't try and extrapolate out from it, because GW does tend to over explain. By the dictionary definition of "wearing"- no we aren't wearing armour. Its scaly skin. Just like above, the model was in reality, not stationary...

But we are wearing armour for rules purposes.

But the rules also say you can't cast if you do that. Obviously a dumb thing for a magic scaly lizard or tree with thick bark. So they made an FAQ for that to say they could cast, even with "Counts as" armour.

But no one is reasonably saying "Lizardmen get NO MAGIC ARMOUR". That's silly.
 
It is silly, I agree, and I don't think most anyone will play it that way. RAW though I think this does mean that lizardmen cannot take magic armor, and that if they somehow got armor, it would stack with their scaly skin. I'm pretty sure that was never the intent of the FAQ section, though.
 
RipperDerek said:
It is silly, I agree, and I don't think most anyone will play it that way. RAW though I think this does mean that lizardmen cannot take magic armor, and that if they somehow got armor, it would stack with their scaly skin. I'm pretty sure that was never the intent of the FAQ section, though.
Click to expand...

But that's not RAW.

The Magic Armour section doesn't say "only models that are wearing"

It says "Only models that are equipped with". We are equipped with armour that "Counts As" light/heavy. We may not be wearing it, but we are equipped with it.
 
I agree, pre-FAQ that was RAW. But now the FAQ says those models don't count as being equipped with armor. It doesn't say, "...when it comes to casting spells only...".

Changing this almost certainly wasn't the intent of this section. But it does appear to be what it says.
 
RipperDerek said:
I agree, pre-FAQ that was RAW. But now the FAQ says those models don't count as being equipped with armor. It doesn't say, "...when it comes to casting spells only...".

Changing this almost certainly wasn't the intent of this section. But it does appear to be what it says.
Click to expand...
No.

It says they aren't wearing armour

It doesn't say they aren't equipped with it.

Two different verbs with different context for different rules.

You can't cast magic while wearing armour

Separately, under magic armour, You have to be equipped with armour to purchase magic armour

You are conflating wearing and equipped, and they are separate things and the FAQ does not mention equipped
 
You can't be equipped with armor while not wearing armor. That's at least as silly as the FAQ itself.
 
RipperDerek said:
You can't be equipped with armor while not wearing armor. That's at least as silly as the FAQ itself.
Click to expand...

Except we are, because we have scales that "counts as". We are equipped with wargear, in our army list, that counts as armour

We aren't wearing scales though, and that's the point of the new FAQ.

You as a human are equipped with skin.

I sure as hell hope you aren't wearing skin though...
 
Ok then, Lizardmen heroes aren't "wearing" any armor, so they count as models that "Wear No Armor" for that rule, and have a 7+ armor save.

Or how about this one

"A model's armour value is determined by the armour it wears." <- page 141

The book uses "wear" and "equipped with" interchangeably, in literally dozens of sections. I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone that it is possible, within the meaning of the rules, to be equipped with armor without also being considered to be wearing it. The entire book would break.

The sensible thing to do, IMO, is to admit that it is dumb and community FAQ it. I don't think anyone is going to seriously try and take away your magic armor.
 
I posted this in the other thread, but are you guys catching on that our slann just got a massive nerf? They are Monsterous creatures now, not monstrous infantry, meaning they can now be targeted regardless of how close they are to a unit of Sauruses, for example (previously if within 3 they couldn't be targeted unless they were the closer to targeting unit).

That's a huge nerf to an already mediocre caster :/
 
Herpin_Along said:
I posted this in the other thread, but are you guys catching on that our slann just got a massive nerf? They are Monsterous creatures now, not monstrous infantry, meaning they can now be targeted regardless of how close they are to a unit of Sauruses, for example (previously if within 3 they couldn't be targeted unless they were the closer to targeting unit).

That's a huge nerf to an already mediocre caster :/
Click to expand...

Wow, it did change to a monstrous creature. I totally didn't notice that. I'm not even sure yet what all the ramifications are, but you're right that's a big change!
 
RipperDerek said:
Wow, it did change to a monstrous creature. I totally didn't notice that. I'm not even sure yet what all the ramifications are, but you're right that's a big change!
Click to expand...

It's pretty much all downside, honestly. Lose 360 degree Line of Sight, can now be targeted by any and every shooting unit, charged even when close to units, vulnerable to monster slayer (means all of the dragon assassinating characters are now all really good at killing the slann too).
 
Slynt said:
He loses 360 deg LoS because he is no longer infantry or calvary and is not a lone character correct?

Huge bummer. Those were both valuable traits for him as a caster. With that and fly it made him really easy to position.
Click to expand...
Bad this was the hugest breakdown. On the other hand i played temple guards anyway near the Slann to accept challenges and move catapults hits upon him.

And bastiladon lose also close combat bonus since is not 5 in unit strength
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top