• 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.

AoS GHB 2020 Predictions & Desires

No its still placed before, read the little Box of my pic, its only placed after terrain is setup when terrain is setup by the TO
 
Flo said:
No its still placed before, read the little Box of my pic, its only placed after terrain is setup when terrain is setup by the TO
Click to expand...

Nope, the box refers exclusively to tournaments. The general part under the title "Faction Terrain" tells that faction terrains are set up in addition to the terrain features already placed.
Terrains are already placed, faction terrains are placed after them. this is the new rule.
 
Flo said:
Not true, faction terrain has restrictions in the battletome too, for the RSE it is 6" from objectives and 6" from all 4 edges

So with the GHB it is 6 from objectives, 6 from borders and 1 from other terrain
Click to expand...
Which is literally just a random bit off to the side repeating what was already in the GHB 19. Not part of the warscroll. It's also something that's only present in tomes that came out after GHB 19 (if it's present at all) as a reminder of said rule in GHB 19...
 
There is no need for the Box at all if thats the case

Faction terrain is additional, not afterwards and the "place it befor other terrain" is an restriction so, its additional to the Ranges

Bear in mind with this wording GW put (additional) rules on All faction terrain, not only ours
 
Canas said:
Which is literally just a random bit off to the side repeating what was already in the GHB 19. Not part of the warscroll. It's also something that's only present in tomes that came out after GHB 19 (if it's present at all) as a reminder of said rule in GHB 19...
Click to expand...

Still its a rule, not only warscrolls count, battletomes rules count too, saying "only the newest GHB and warscrolls count" would make all subfactions irrelevant as they are not in the GHB and not on a warscroll, the newer rules only overrite older rules when they collide, but here is no collision, just additional restrictions
 
It is really just a case of GW's poorly written rules, as both interpretations are correct the way it is written. When I first read the terrain setup rules I had this very debate with myself and came to the conclusion we'll have to wait for them to FAQ it. I lean towards RSE needs to be setup first and still more then 6 inches from objectives is what they mean, but honostly I think as written that's not what it says.
 
Flo said:
We still need to place 6" away

The New GHB just has additional restrictions for All faction objectives (even for those who dont have a restriction on their warscroll or a smaller restriction)
Click to expand...
Upon reading the GHB20 rules a couple of times it seems very clear. @Flo is correct that the restrictions for our RSE is now 6” from boardedge, 6” from objectives (as it always has been) but now also 3” from other terrain pieces. The rules in the GHB20 are rules in addition, so 1” from objectives is irrelevant when our value is already greater.

This will make the RSE super difficult to place on a number of scenarios if you do wish to have it within the deploymentzone.
 
Killer Angel said:
The point is: new rules override the ones already there. so, that rule should simply replace the "old" restriction of the terrain warscroll, and the "other restrictions" apply to something else.
Click to expand...

Most rules discussions like this (does specific or GHB override battletome/core rules) the specific or new rule only invalidates the old when they are completely incompatible.

By placing the RSE 6'' from board edges, 3'' from other terrain pieces AND 6'' from objectives you are checking off the requirements for both, so theres no conflict.

Still needs to be 6'' from objectives is the way i would read that.
 
Grotpunter said:
Upon reading the GHB20 rules a couple of times it seems very clear. @Flo is correct that the restrictions for our RSE is now 6” from boardedge, 6” from objectives (as it always has been) but now also 3” from other terrain pieces. The rules in the GHB20 are rules in addition, so 1” from objectives is irrelevant when our value is already greater.

This will make the RSE super difficult to place on a number of scenarios if you do wish to have it within the deploymentzone.
Click to expand...

Why? Read this way it still would be setup before other terrain.
 
xoid said:
Why? Read this way it still would be setup before other terrain.
Click to expand...
I thought player A sorted terrain first and then you placed faction terrain afterwards? I dont remember but I havent read too much into it as it wont ever be relevant in my games. IMO the GHB terrain rules are hot garbage as always and we will always play with randomized terrain + effects to imitate tournaments.
 
Last edited:
Grotpunter said:
I thought player A sorted terrain first and then you placed faction terrain afterwards? I dont remember but I havent read too much into it as it wont ever be relevant in my games. IMO the GHB terrain rules are hot garbage as always and we will always play with randomized terrain + effects to imitate tournaments.
Click to expand...

It never says normal terrain is placed before
 
Flo said:
Where does it say that? Not in the GHB 2020, it just says faction terrain is addition to the 10 pieces, it NEVER says it is placed afterwards
Click to expand...

In the page you posted in the previous page it says:
(Faction terrains) "are set up in addition to the features that have been setup as previously described"

"Have been setup" means that the basic ones are already placed.

Edit: english is not my first language, but i don't see room for a different reading
 
hmm you got a point there, its not my first language as well and i dont have my other copy at hand, if thats the case, the little Box is indeed a bit Irritating and useless

We need to wait for the faq
 
Random Lizard said:
Indeed it seems like everything that games-workshop releases requires FAQ to have clear rulings.
Click to expand...
Honestly I dont really envy GW. They have thousands of players sitting and trying to twist and turn every little sentence they write.
 
Grotpunter said:
Honestly I dont really envy GW. They have thousands of players sitting and trying to twist and turn every little sentence they write.
Click to expand...

Quoting from another thread...

GW encourages players to exploit rules at time, especially if you look at some of the example lists they show when announcing a new battletome or other major release.
The possibility to build powerful combos has always been one of their selling points, and they show it with pride. No wonder players are able to go further than that.
 
I suspect that GW doesn't have people whose job is to read the rules that don't already know what the intention is, that is why things are so often unclear. If you know what the intention is and then read something it is much harder to see that the rules can easily be read in a different way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top