• 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 We have the attention of GW regarding the toad nerf

Nicely done Darren! Could you now let the exclude the Ripper from the rule of 1? Pretty please
 
Aginor said:
:D
If you consider that Rippers were probably one of the main reasons to invent that rule of one in the first place.... I'd say it is rather unlikely. :D
Click to expand...

To be honest.. that's dumb... the rippers ability is specificly designed with the intention of being used multiple times. It makes virtually no sense for the rule of one to pop up from something like that... Thought frankly the entire rule of 1 is :p
 
Yeah it is a band aid, and a bad one. But that is still the reason why it exists. Preventing infinite numbers of attacks like Rippers and a few other units are capable of.
Sure they are unlikely but apparently that wasn't taken into consideration.
Meanwhile there are other abilities that can still cause infinite wounds at a low probability and still won't break the game (Foot of Gork spell) So...talk about double standards.
 
the whole rule of one is a terrible bandaid and mostly just seems to break the "cool" stuff as opposed to actually targetting the problematic stuff... Not to mention the inconsistencies. really wish they'd thought that one a bit more through..
 
Why is the ability of the Rippers nerfed and Foot of gork not? Both have a roll condition to move on and rules cleary state thats how it is intended. Sorry if this was asked a milion of times
 
IggyStarhost said:
Why is the ability of the Rippers nerfed and Foot of gork not? Both have a roll condition to move on and rules cleary state thats how it is intended. Sorry if this was asked a milion of times
Click to expand...
Most likely cuz they just didn't pay a whole lot of attention and phrased it in such a way that Foot of gork wasn't included and since foot of gork never was seen as problematic noone bothered to chang it...

Or if you want to give it a positie spin; Foot of gork has a fairly high casting value, and to get it off again it needs a 4+ and an available target. With those kind of requirements you'l rarely get more than maybe 2-3 extra hits in. Rippers have re-rolls on their to hit rolls with swoping dive, giving them a 75% chance for every attack to generate another. They'l generate a hell of lot more extra hits like that. Though that ignores the fact that they also still need to wound & get passed the opponents save... Basicly; rippers look scarier on paper as they can annihilate a single unit completly whereas Foot of gork will only severly wound multiple units. And when optimizing people tend to prefer to abuse mechanics that entirely destroy an opponent as opposed to "merely" crippling him so rippers probably saw more "abusive" cases.
 
Canas said:
Most likely cuz they just didn't pay a whole lot of attention and phrased it in such a way that Foot of gork wasn't included and since foot of gork never was seen as problematic noone bothered to chang it...

Or if you want to give it a positie spin; Foot of gork has a fairly high casting value, and to get it off again it needs a 4+ and an available target. With those kind of requirements you'l rarely get more than maybe 2-3 extra hits in. Rippers have re-rolls on their to hit rolls with swoping dive, giving them a 75% chance for every attack to generate another. They'l generate a hell of lot more extra hits like that. Though that ignores the fact that they also still need to wound & get passed the opponents save... Basicly; rippers look scarier on paper as they can annihilate a single unit completly whereas Foot of gork will only severly wound multiple units. And when optimizing people tend to prefer to abuse mechanics that entirely destroy an opponent as opposed to "merely" crippling him so rippers probably saw more "abusive" cases.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Foot of gork is a spell and it's cast once therefore the rule of 1 won't apply, rippers are attacking again therefore it is affected, that's how I always thought it worked,same with Arkhan and curse of years he casts it once but has multiple wound possibilities, does that make sense or have I got it totally wrong?
 
Crowsfoot said:
Hmmm, Foot of gork is a spell and it's cast once therefore the rule of 1 won't apply, rippers are attacking again therefore it is affected, that's how I always thought it worked,same with Arkhan and curse of years he casts it once but has multiple wound possibilities, does that make sense or have I got it totally wrong?
Click to expand...
yup, that's the basic "logic" behind it. Though it's an arbitrary distinction as the end-result is the same and the mechanic involved doesn't really differ in any aspect other than it's phrasing.
 
Canas said:
yup, that's the basic "logic" behind it. Though it's an arbitrary distinction as the end-result is the same and the mechanic involved doesn't really differ in any aspect other than it's phrasing.
Click to expand...

I agree and if the rippers are affected so should the spell results.
 
Crowsfoot said:
Hmmm, Foot of gork is a spell and it's cast once therefore the rule of 1 won't apply, rippers are attacking again therefore it is affected, that's how I always thought it worked,same with Arkhan and curse of years he casts it once but has multiple wound possibilities, does that make sense or have I got it totally wrong?
Click to expand...

Ghm,.. the wording doesnt say it makes another attack but another ‘hit roll’. Arent those two different things?

I looks like you are here staying ‘within’ the ability. Where as with Kroaks CD you have to cast again.
 
IggyStarhost said:
Ghm,.. the wording doesnt say it makes another attack but another ‘hit roll’. Arent those two different things?

I looks like you are here staying ‘within’ the ability. Where as with Kroaks CD you have to cast again.
Click to expand...

Your right but as your rolling to hit it implies "another attack" with the spells like "curse of years" you just roll if you get a 6+, then a 5+ etc

I don't see the difference, well I do Rippers could cause infinite hits as the roll to hit does not diminish, so why not change it to act like "curse of years" I know it is reflected in the unit cost but it still seems unfair.
 
IggyStarhost said:
Ghm,.. the wording doesnt say it makes another attack but another ‘hit roll’. Arent those two different things?

I looks like you are here staying ‘within’ the ability. Where as with Kroaks CD you have to cast again.
Click to expand...
Crowsfoot said:
Your right but as your rolling to hit it implies "another attack" with the spells like "curse of years" you just roll if you get a 6+, then a 5+ etc

I don't see the difference, well I do and I know it is reflected in the unit cost but it still seems unfair.
Click to expand...

Meh, the entire rule is just stupid and shouldn't have existed to begin with. Abilities like those of the Rippers or even Kroak's shouldn't be that problematic to balance and are already designed with a inherent limitations. It shouldn't have been an issue to just tweak the numbers as opposed to just take out what made the ability special... I really wish they'd not done it this way as it also affects a lot of other stuff (e.g. the fact that you can't buff 2 units with mystic shield leading to stupid situations where your opponent will just attack the unbuffed one....) and getting rid of it now is going to be problematic...
 
Honestly the poor quality of the rules written by games workshop is part of why I haven’t played competitively in over a year. I grew so tired and exhausted arguing with rules lawyers every single tournament. They all know the rules as they are obviously intended to be but they refute them so they can gain an advantage. Keep up the good work getting this all sorted out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top