Official AoS/Ogor/Destruction Question & Answer Thread

Hey everyone! Welcome to the Age of Sigmar. As I can assume some Ogre generals are looking forward to trying out the new rules I thought we should go ahead and compile the FAQ/Answers in one "Official" list.

So who is the "Official" in all of this? Us! At least until GW ever decided to answer these questions. We can gutbrawl out the questions and answers here and I will compile them in the second post.

So... ask and answer away!!

AoS Ogor/Destruction "Official" FAQ

(Updated with consensus answers 7/6/15)

GENERAL AoS QUESTIONS

Is WYSIWYG required?

No, though the Battle Scrolls clearly have it in mind with existing models and their former 8th Edition options.

Are the Battalions suggested at the end of each Scroll guidelines for army composition?

These appear to be similar to 40k formations in that they are pre-written lists with certain models and playstyles in mind. They add additional abilities to your force. They may be used as guides for balanced army lists but it is unclear as of now if that was part of the intention of including them.

MOVEMENT

Can you overlap miniature bases?

Yes you may. From page 1 of the AoS rules sheet: "A model’s base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s just there to help the model stand up.." If you and your opponent choose to do so this appears to be intended and legal from a rules standpoint.

Can models move around the back of a unit during Pile In to make more room for other models to attack?

No. From page 3 of the AoS rules sheet : "When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them." There is no mention of maximizing models in base to base contact just that your models may move up to 3" towards the closest enemy model to be within attack range.

If the bases do not matter, how do you determine if a model can fit through a gap?

You cannot move a model 'through another model', so if the physical volume of a model cannot fit through the gap between two models then it cannot move in that direction.

COMBAT

If my opponent's model has a save of 6+ and I hit him with a Rend -1, is he automatically wounded?

Yes. Think of it as being similar to high strength attacks negating armor from earlier versions of WHFB.

SHOOTING

Can I shoot into Close Combat?

Yes. You may shoot into or out of combat assuming you have LoS and range.

OGOR QUESTIONS

"Stone Skeleton: Halve any wounds, including mortal wounds, inflicted on a Stonehorn (rounding up)."
When do I halve the wounds?

Halve the wounds from each individual damage source, rather than the total. Single-wound attacks will always deal 1 wound, while multi-wound attacks will be halved before applying them.

Okies my questions I am a total noob to 40k.

1. Can you shoot into combats?
2. Can you overlap bases?
3. Are the Battalions suggested at the end of each Scroll guidelines for army compositions?

Those are good questions. I had them too.

Can you shoot into combat? I think you can. It says nowhere I can find that you cannot. I think the idea that you cannot is holdover from older WHFB rules.

Can you overlap bases? I think you can but I would recommend that you do not as it leads to abuse and just makes things messy. However it does say in the rules you can use whatever base size you want and that measurements happen from the model not the base edge so... perhaps you can.

My question along that lines is what constitutes the model? If I attack with a reach weapon do I measure from the miniatures tip? Or the center of the mini? Or the head? Again I see room for abuse here if folks were to make miniatures with really long arms or weapons or something.

Are the Battalions suggested at the end of each Scroll guidelines for army composition? Specifically I would say no but they do have special formation rules so perhaps they are somewhere in the middle? Maybe we will see more of these come out with future battle scroll and miniature releases? I would say they are a good place to start with test and practice games probably before making your own list.

1 - Yes, you can shoot into, or out of, combat. The shooting rules just say to pick a viable target within range/LoS, and the combat rules say nothing to modify that. So fire away I guess.

2 - Again yes, as the rules say 'the base is only their to keep the model upright', it has no in-game function However doing so makes things look messy, and obviously you probably don't want to chip your opponents nice bases, or your own, so probably best to try not to.

3 - The Battalions are just the same sort of thing as 40K formations I think? 'Take these set units and get X special rules'? There are loads of these in 40K.

General question: is WYSIWYG completely required?

Movement questions:
1.  Once you are as close as you can get to the enemy model, during pile in, can you swing around the back (with your 3 inch pile in move) to make more room for your other models to pile in and attack?  You are technically not moving "towards" the enemy, one of two key restrictions on the pile it.  You actually may be moving away to do it.  But it does say the pile in is to get more models into combat? 

2.  If the bases do not matter, how do you determine if a model can fit through a gap?  i.e. the base won't fit, but its unclear if the model could squeeze through?

More to follow...

Combat:
1.  From the rules: "After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated"

Stonehorn's rules: "Stone Skeleton: Halve any wounds, including mortal wounds, inflicted on a Stonehorn (rounding up)."

When do I halve the wounds?  If I allocate 7 wounds (from single or multi-damage weapons), do I add them up first, then halve?  Or do I halve the damage of each individual weapon (rounding up?), so each 1 damage attack still does a single wound and each multi-damage gets halved.  Example: Stonehorn is hit twice by a D3 damage attack, each attack succeeds and rolls a 3 for damage.  6 total.  Half damage characteristic means 4 wounds, halved when all added up is 3, but RAW since you have to allocate wounds individually after they have all been compiled until the unit is slain could actually mean 7 individual wounds, never halved.

WYSWYG - I can't see anything in the rules which requires it, though the battlescrolls are clearly written with it in mind given that they provide rules for all weapon options. It is missing from the main rules though, so I guess it is not required technically.

Pile In - The rules for Pile In only say that you may move your models closer to the nearest enemy model, nothing about maximising number of models in base contact or anything (a difference from 40k I believe) so as written your 3" Pile In move should be directly towards the closest enemy model only.

Movement - You cannot move a model 'through another model', so if the physical volume of a model cannot fit through the gap between two models then it cannot move in that direction. Of course this is pretty subjective, especially if you consider that the models represent living things capable of moving from their rigid positions, but the rules seem to want you to consider the models as immobile statues, so I guess measure the model, and measure the gap and see if it will fit.

Stonehorn - I think it wants you to halve the wounds from each individual damage source, rather than the total, so single-wound attacks will always deal 1 wound, whilst multi-wound attacks will be halved before applying them. That's my read.

Combat Question:

If my opponent's model has a save of 6+ and I hit him with a Rend -1, is he automatically wounded?

That's a good question! I would say yes. It's basically the AoS equal to high strength weapons/attacks negating armor with their power.

I also agree with Halos on the rules questions Havoc posted.

I'd add on the Movement - it says bases are just to hold up your miniature so if you were very concerned about if you could fit you could measure the feet width and see if that works? The solution Halos posted could work too.

Here is a question I have - when removing slain models do you need to pull from a specific area in the unit or must you pull off the model which has the wounds allocated to it? For example: If I have a line of Ogres with a line of Clan Rats hitting them in the front and the wounds are allocated to the middle Ogre do I pull him off or do I take from one end of the formation?

If you only take off the minis that have wounds allocated to them this opens up a lot of potential for tactics in this area I think.

It says you can allocate wounds to any model in the unit, even ones out of LoS, so long as you don't allocate to an unwounded model before a wounded one.

Individual models have their own wounds, so, yeah, you could allocate to models in strategically useful positions first. This is vaguely similar to 40k, where if I recall wounds are supposed to be allocated to models in base contact first, which leads to a little bit of tactical positioning so that your better models don't get squashed before they can swing.

Along that same lines I see nothing about where things like musicians and banners need to be placed in a unit so putting them farther back seems like a smart play. Also no limit on these? Also once they die you lose the benefit yes?

Yup, looks like you can put the banner/musician anywhere you like in the squad.
The wording for all of them only applies when the model is either near an enemy or in a squad, so they need to be alive.
However, nothing seems to prohibit taking multiple banners/bellowers, also they don't seem to be mutually exclusive; I don't see anything which prevents a single model from being both a musician and a banner. I suspect this is an oversight, but that's the RAW.

--

A sort of question, or at least issue, of my own; it says that 'the leader of this unit is a crusher...' etc. however, it does not say that a unit automatically contains a leader, nor is there the option for unit members to 'upgrade' to a crusher present. So, by RAW again, a unit's leader does X, but there is no way to actually get a unit leader. I think the RAI is pretty clear here, with each squad having a champion as standard, but it is something to bear in mind.

How do you figure out a balanced game without a points-system available?

I'm assuming that it's based off a pre-determined wound count for your list? Like, 50 wounds total or something of that sort?

Can Heroes join/attach to units? In 40k fashion, that is...

Does the Thundertusk have the ability to shoot at different units now with its three different attacks?

What's the easiest solution that any Tyrant can come up with for using our square-based models as round-based without having to change bases? I've thought about sticking/gluing a round base underneath the model, that way it'll prop it up over the height of the other bases so that you can move and make contact without having the square corners in the way, but does anybody else have any better ideas? I know you can overlap the bases, but I have some heavy metal models that I'd rather not be off-balanced in that fashion, and would rather have an alternate solution.

---

In regards to the command group (champ/std/mus) in this game, it looks like the units are intended to have one champ automatically (to lead the little squads), and then it looks like unlimited numbers of standards and musicians. However, I think they use the plural to indicate for multiple units of the same type, so that you should have one musician and one standard per unit, but aren't limited to one musician and one standard per army. Does that make sense?

-Balance
Hohoho, there is none, the rules just say to plonk down 'battlescrolls' until both players are happy. The only balance is going to be in house rules, some people are trying it based on total wound count, though I am skeptical of how well that works (although it is certainly more effective than the current, uh, 'system').

Personally I would just spend a little bit of time tweaking the battlescrolls; the game is designed around the idea that all battlescrolls are equal, so all you have to do is make them equal. Then armies using an equal number of battlescrolls should be roughly balanced.
Of course this is a little tricky given that both goblins and dragons exist; that is a huge scale difference! So the best way would probably be to group battlescrolls into tiers and balance those against each other, wind up with a simplistic points system.

-Characters
Cannot join units à la 40k, making them ripe for assassination, try and keep them safe, or use them as bait, I suppose this opens some tactical doors and prevents super-hard character blocks from dominating the game.

-Thundertusk
Ummmm, maaaybe? The entire rules for the shooting phase is this paragraph:
'Pick one of your units. You may not pick a unit that ran or retreated this turn. Each model in the unit attacks with all of the missile weapons it is armed with (see Attacking). After all of the models in the unit have shot, you can choose another unit to shoot with, until all units that can shoot have done so.'

That's it, no mention of how to pick targets or anything. The only other helpful rules are in the combat section, which does tell you how to pick targets, and says a model with multiple attacks can choose to split them. If we assume these rules are transferable (melee weapons do have a range now after all; they function in exactly the same way as ranged weapons) then yes, the Thundertusk can split it's ranged attacks between different, viable targets, and so can every other ranged unit with multiple shots/attacks.

-Bases
I'd probably just leave them on round bases and glare at anyone making a fuss, I don't think it will make that much difference when it comes down to it.

If it does become a problem maybe just bring some empty round bases/templates of appropriate size you can use for measuring to and from when necessary.

Awesome! Now, a couple more questions that have come up:

With the Irongut's Rune Maw Banner, does the enemy unit have to roll more dice for the casualties sustained by the banner?

In the Combat phase, if there's multiple combats going on, do each combat need to be resolved one at a time, or can the order of combats be broken up? like, for example, if battle A and battle B are going on, can one player choose to fight with a unit in battle A, then the other player can fight with unit in battle B immediately after? Or does battle A news to be done before battle B? If that makes any sense lol

Rune Maw (and Giant Beast Skulls - same wording)
-No, units only test for Battleshock once per turn, if they have suffered casualties in that turn. If they suffer extra casualties from a Rune Maw or Beast Skull they must have already tested once for battleshock, and it is not yet the next turn. So they just lose extra models, consider it a bonus.

Combat
-You can definitely break up the order of combats. You don't really fight combats in these rules per se, rather the players take turns activating units which are in combat until they have all had a chance to fight. This can be done in any order.
So there is a degree of strategy in this; you'll probably want to activate units which are more likely to lose combat first so that they have the chance to strip some wounds off of their opponent before going down, but in doing so your opponent might manage to knock your better unit down below fighting strength, so there is a compromise to consider. I actually kinda like this idea.

--

Edit: Actually I have another question myself:

Looking at the Tyrant we see that a single 'club, basher or slicer' grants 6 attacks, but, a Tyrant has the option to take two 'clubs, bashers or slicers' with the added caveat of gaining re-rolls to hit if they do so.
Presumedly this is 6 attacks, re-rolling to hit, however 6 attacks is only for a single hand weapon, if one club provides 6 attacks two clubs should be 12 attacks? I feel like this is unintentional again, and the two-weapon bonus is supposed to just be the re-rolls, but it is unclear.

@Halos: the six attacks is with the pair, as he has fewer attacks with the two handed weapon.  So, I interpret that as both weapons together total 6 attacks with rerolls.  Otherwise it'd be like my ridiculous opponent that swung at me with EVERY weapon combination his characters could have, not what the were actually armed with, for 3 combat phases until I called shenanigans.

If you look everywhere else, it appears that extra weapons seem to grant a reroll of some sort.  I actually like this balancing method, because you don't necessarily have more attacks, just more likely to hit.  But, your damage potential is limited

I agree with your assessment, and believe that that is the intended ruleset. However, note that a Tyrant with one hand weapon (and brace of pistols) has the same 6 attacks. The weapon profile is only for a single hand weapon. There is a clear rules argument for doubling the number of attacks with a second 'club, basher or slicer' though it would soon get out of hand when applied to other applicable models; standard Ogres would have 6 attacks each by this logic!

Just something to bear in mind in case someone decides to get clever with rules interpretations I suppose.

Note: I don't like the idea of just using a wound count to try and determine armies for games.  It seems very loose and can go haywire

Excellent answers so far, everyone. I didn't even realize until I read through this that initiative has gone the way of the Dodo bird! Plus, you can shoot into and out of combat?!? My Leadbelchers can finally have the dust shaken off them! However, I'm confused by a couple of things.

1.) Wound count. Example, Ogres have 4 wounds and 'should' be in units of at least 3. Does this mean each ogre has four wounds? Therefore when distributing wounds, a wounded Ogre continues to receive wounds until he dies, correct?

2.) Damage table and movement for the Stonehorn/Thundertusk. I can't wrap my head around how this is suppose to work. What is their movement value? Can Stonehorns move up to 12" and 'tusks up to 8"? What does the wounds suffered mean? I don't understand any aspect of these scroll entries.

2.) Damage table and movement for the Stonehorn/Thundertusk. I can't wrap my head around how this is suppose to work. What is their movement value? Can Stonehorns move up to 12" and 'tusks up to 8"? What does the wounds suffered mean? I don't understand any aspect of these scroll entries.

Those damage tables basically show how (large) models become less effective as they take damage.
The Stonehorn for example, starts off with a Move of 12", 6 attacks with its Horns, and wounds on a 2+ with its Crushing Hooves.
As the Stonehorn is attacked and takes damage, these figures reduce to show fatigue and injury in a "basic" fashion.

If for instance, the Stonehorn is attacked by a unit of Chaos Warriors, who manage to inflict 6 Wounds
then after the Stone Skeleton rule kicks in, the Stonehorn has been dealt 3 Mortal Wounds
which means that its Movement, Horn Attacks, and Crushing Hooves are all reduced to the 3-4 row of the Damage Table (10", 6 Attacks, and 3+ respectively).

The whole stone skeleton thing is unclear, how and when wounds are halved

Yeah, that's the primary problem with how they've done the "update". Everything's been cut so close to the bone, there's nothing that could classify as "flesh". It's something GW are going to have to FAQ, but probably won't because it'll be obsolete by the end of the year.

My guess is that it would be on a unit basis, so if there were 9 of the aforementioned Chaos Warriors, and 5 of them managed to deal a wound to the Stonehorn, then rather than halving each wound and rounding it up (meaning they deal 5 wounds total), you would take the total of 5 wounds from the unit, and halve that 2.5, rounded up to 3.
I can understand where the Chaos player would want it the other way, they deal more, but it is the unit that is attacking, not individuals.

I can understand where the Chaos player would want it the other way, they deal more, but it is the unit that is attacking, not individuals.

I understood it as it was individual models attacking. I guess I'll just have to field a stonehorn, try it both way, and see what feels more fair.

Can units have a mix of equipment?

I can understand where the Chaos player would want it the other way, they deal more, but it is the unit that is attacking, not individuals.

I understood it as it was individual models attacking. I guess I'll just have to field a stonehorn, try it both way, and see what feels more fair.

What feels fair will depend entirely on whether you field the stonehorn or you are trying to kill it!

I can understand where the Chaos player would want it the other way, they deal more, but it is the unit that is attacking, not individuals.

I understood it as it was individual models attacking. I guess I'll just have to field a stonehorn, try it both way, and see what feels more fair.

I had another read through of the rules, and while attacks can be dealt with "individually" wounds are always dealt with as a unit.

Making Attacks
Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll the dice for attacks together.

Inflicting Damage
After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocated any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit

I played with a Stonehorn yesterday, and after some discussion we came to the compromise of pooling all the wounds from different weapons and then halving each of those pools; so Saurus Warriors can attacks with both their swords and their teeth; two different profiles so both were rolled seperately, then the wounds caused by each were halved before being applied.

However, this feels really strong, like, the Stonehorn was still alive with 4 wounds remaining after being charged by 40 Temple Guard, 20+ Saurus and a smattering of Silver Helms. Especially because alternate unit activation means the Stonehorn will get to strike before some of the opposing units and so can attempt to limit the number of incoming attacks.

My suggestion is that the Stone Skeleton rule should only halve multi-wound attacks, the Stonehorn is already amazing without also being insanely durable!

Plus this give incentive for your opponent to throw a big block of troops at the thing, which is all I really want out of warhammer. Beautiful, unadulterated Stonhorn madness.

Can units have a mix of equipment?

I know a lot of time it spells out in one of the first few paragraphs on the warscroll what weapons your unit can wield. As my opponent pointed out, your Tyrant doesnt always get his pistol >.<

Yeah, you have to choose equipment generally (though not always; as far as I can tell a Chaos Lord on Manticore is armed with both a sword and a lance, and can attack with both profiles during their combat turn).

The question though is more pertinent to multi-model units, and asks whether different models in the same unit can be armed differently or not.
The answer is still to check the battlescrolls though; the first paragraph gives you any weapon options available, so for Ogres it says 'some units are equipped with...' which suggests whichever option you choose the entire unit must have the same equipment.
As far as I can see no Ogre units have the choice to mix weaponry within a single unit, but some other armies battlescrolls may have that option, I haven't read them all; if you're unsure just check the scroll!

I can see both ways being interesting but yes I suppose the "some units" language leads us to the conclusion that you have to choose what a unit is armed with before you begin.

As an additional mark against being able to mix weaponry in a single unit; you roll saves as a unit, not per model, so the effects of Ironfists (and the various other unique shields in the game) would not work if only some of the models in the unit were equipped with them.

I played with a Stonehorn yesterday, and after some discussion we came to the compromise of pooling all the wounds from different weapons and then halving each of those pools; so Saurus Warriors can attacks with both their swords and their teeth; two different profiles so both were rolled seperately, then the wounds caused by each were halved before being applied.

However, this feels really strong, like, the Stonehorn was still alive with 4 wounds remaining after being charged by 40 Temple Guard, 20+ Saurus and a smattering of Silver Helms. Especially because alternate unit activation means the Stonehorn will get to strike before some of the opposing units and so can attempt to limit the number of incoming attacks.

My suggestion is that the Stone Skeleton rule should only halve multi-wound attacks, the Stonehorn is already amazing without also being insanely durable!

I have noticed that without S vs T for wounding, the old massive really hard to kill monsters are very easy to bring down with massed attacks.  Perhaps the stone skeleton thing halving all wounds from a unit is GW's way of representing his hardiness?  I mean, after all, dwarves with shields get to reroll all failed saves!  I think if they wanted it to be just from multi wound weapons, they would have specified it in the ability, as they did in the previous rulebook.  I wouldn't have been that hard to just transfer the wording.

Mmm, true, though from memory the Stonehorn's old rule specified halving damage from 'multiple wounds', which no longer exist, now you only really get 'weapons which inflict more than one wound' so you would need to change the wording a little.

However, if I continue to play it as written with 'halves all wounds' I think people are going to be throwing more than dirty looks my way! Give it a try both ways and see what works in your group, maybe when people get a better grip of the system it will turn out the RAW interpretation is more appropriate, we'll see.

On the stonehorn: looking over the 1/2 wounds thing again, I now think I am certain.  It is pretty clearly stated in the rules, under the section "Inflicting Damage" that you don't allocate wounds until after all attacks have been made from a unit.  Inflicting wounds happens after all damage is calculated from a units' attacks.  The stonehorn takes halves all wounds inflicted on it.  If they wanted it to be a mechanic of each separate attack, then they would have tied it to the Damage characteristic, the way they tied all kinds of armor and shields to the REND characteristic of the opponent.

This is not to say it seems fair by old-8th-edition standards, but hey, this is the Age of Simgar(!...if I yell that do I get a re-roll?) and it just seems par for the course.  I mean, look at all the other broken stuff out there... And personally, I think it is appropriate.  Its supposed to be very hard to kill, and small attacks should bounce off of it (think LAND RAIDER in 40K).  I hated how in the old system, the big expensive supposedly-hard-to-kill bull mammoth would always fall to a few bowmen.

I got another question guys.Yesterday me and my friend had this situation,

My friends beastman archers were lined up, 10 models. I ran my sabertusk at them. My tusk was sideways, standing directly in front of 3 beastman archers. During my friends shooting phase, he wants to shoot at my Hunter across the map. 7 beastmen have a clear line of sight, 3 beastmen are looking directly into the broadside of my sabertusk.

Do those 3 blocked archers get to shoot at my hunter? If not, do they get to shoot at a different target (my sabertusk)? I think I'm being held back by 8th edition sensibilities. Can someone help.

Another, another question. Can I get a second opinion?

The beastman shaman has some passive ability that lets nearby units move an extra 3" in the move phase. Does this extra movement also apply to the shaman himself? Wording seemed to suggest that perhaps it does.

What's the wording on the Shaman? Also, I believe the only thing that determines if you can shoot is if you can see, so draw LOS with a string or something.

What's the wording on the Shaman?

Infuse with Bestial Vigour: All Brayherd units from your army that are within 8" of a Great Gray-Shaman at the start of your movement phase can move an extra 3" that phase.

He does have the "brayherd" keyword on his scroll. I went ahead and let him have it.

The shaman is an applicable unit which begins it's movement turn within the appropriate distance (in this case from itself granted, but it's hard to argue that a single model is not within 8" of itself!) So it gets the bonus movement too, yeah.

As for shooting; it is true line of sight, if a model can see it's target it can shoot it so long as it is within range. This includes any part of the Hunter model visible over the Sabretusk per the rules, though it may be worth discussing with your opponent to ignore things like banners/wings for LoS purposes.
Note that, as far as I can see, it is perfectly fine for units to split their shooting attacks at different targets just as they can split their melee attacks.

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about shooting; I've seen batreps where people seem to take the idea that you can shoot into combat to also mean you can shoot through other units, terrain, etc. I don't see this at all.

According to the rules, models shoot at units. So if a model has clear LOS to a model in an enemy unit, then you can shoot at that unit. (Owner then chooses which model/s to remove, even ones out of range/ LOS.) But a model that doesn't have LOS can't shoot. So if 3 of your 20 leadbelchers can see an enemy, then those three fire. If others in the unit can see targets in a different unit in range, then they can fire at them.

Now, what counts as LOS is up to interpretation, but if there's one thing I think we should finally give up on with AoS, it's RAW over RAI. What does LOS mean? It means you can see enough of the model to shoot at it! So in your example, I would say 7 of the beast men can shoot at the hunter, and 3 should shoot at the sabre tusks (or any other unit they can see - which might involve someone behind them, since there's no facing anymore, and models can "see through" other models in their own unit. .)

At least that's my take on it.

I do have a question of my own though - suppose I want to shoot at a dwarf cannon with 3 crew. (This happened in my last game). I hit and wound with x shots. Does my opponent save with the cannon, or the crew? (They may have the same save if the crew are within 1", but what if the cannon is in cover too?!).  And is my opponent free to allocate the unsaved wounds to the cannon or the crew? Or does he choose before the saves are made? Or do I choose when I shoot? Can't find an answer In the rules/warscrolls.

The rules assume that all models in a unit have the same save (and note that a unit only benefits from Cover if every model in that unit is in cover, in which case they all get +1 save). In the event where a unit somehow winds up with multiple different saves I would just use the majority save, or the highest if there is a tie.

For LoS the target unit just has to be 'visible' to the attacking model. As you are supposed to measure from model to model I think there is reasonable grounds to assume that they mean a 40k style 'true line of sight' system, where any part of a target model is viable for determining LoS, you don't need 'clear visibility' or anything.

@Baron Wastelands ~ I generally agree with how you've interpreted the shooting rules. It feels right. As to your question about the war machines. As I read it, the war machine is its own model and not a part of the crew's "unit". The crew gets cover when they are next to the war machine, so presumably the crew can wander off wherever they want. Therefore, I think the crew can be targeted separately from the war machine. If you dont want them to be picked off, hide them behind the war machine. If there is no LOS to them they can be targeted. This would force your opponent to try and pick off the wounds on the war machine itself.

I believe you are supposed to measure from the model. That does make some calls a little fuzzy. My group has just been going with "Eh, its close enough".

My group has just been going with "Eh, its close enough".

Isn't that how GW's gone about Age of Smegmar?

Isn't that how GW's gone about Age of Smegmar?

Ha, maybe.

I wanted another general opinion about piling in. You can move 3" towards the closest enemy model (believe that's the proper wording). Lets say a guy in the second rank is blocked but he has more than enough wiggle room in his 3" pile in to walk around the guy in front of him and attack the closest enemy. Do you think he's able to do that?

Similar question. Can my guy in the front rank wiggle a little to one side to open up space for a buddy to join him from the second rank?

I guess what I'm asking, do you have to take the shortest route towards the closest enemy? Or do you think you have some liberties in your route as long as the closest enemy model is engaged?

Thanks guys. You've been a lot of help,
PP

The piling in/combat wriggling seems a little finicky; I'm not sure I'm reading it right.
When charging the first model moved must end up within 1/2" of any enemy model, the others can move however they like up to the charge distance so long as they remain in coherency.
When piling in each model in the unit may move up to 3" towards the nearest enemy model. It does not say directly towards the nearest model, so I guess you could do it in a curve to open up more space. However, as written if you are moving your model it must end up close to the nearest enemy model than when it started piling in, those are the only restrictions I can see.

---

I was chatting to the manager in my local GW earlier and he raised an interesting point; it seems he and some of the other managers have been talking, and some of them were playing the Sudden Death rules quite differently then what seems to be the majority consensus.
I cannot find support for this as RaW myself, but if it is RaI then it makes the Sudden Death rules, and by extension the game, rather more palatable.

Most people, including myself, have been playing sudden death as something which is only calculated at the beginning of the game; count up the models, anyone with a 33% or more disadvantage gets a Sudden Death objective.
However, if you instead work out the model difference at the start of every Battle Round before rolling for Initiative you end up with something far more interesting.
This way the game will swing in favour of the actual disadvantaged player; as they lose models, rather than sticking in favour of the player who brought the fewest (possibly more powerful) models.
It also helps to mitigate the power of summoning lists; as summoning hordes of units opens up the possibility of your opponent snatching out a Sudden Death victory.
It makes things a lot more swingy and less one-sided, though I have only tried it once so far, I recommend testing this version of the Sudden Death rules out, it makes a lot more sense.

That would actually make more sense with the idea of sudden death when things are getting close or swinging the other way. I do prefer that take on it.

Kind regards Zolas

Most people, including myself, have been playing sudden death as something which is only calculated at the beginning of the game; count up the models, anyone with a 33% or more disadvantage gets a Sudden Death objective.
However, if you instead work out the model difference at the start of every Battle Round before rolling for Initiative you end up with something far more interesting.
This way the game will swing in favour of the actual disadvantaged player; as they lose models, rather than sticking in favour of the player who brought the fewest (possibly more powerful) models.
It also helps to mitigate the power of summoning lists; as summoning hordes of units opens up the possibility of your opponent snatching out a Sudden Death victory.
It makes things a lot more swingy and less one-sided, though I have only tried it once so far, I recommend testing this version of the Sudden Death rules out, it makes a lot more sense.

If you have time to try that out please share your results. My main opponent is vampire counts and summoning has been a real thorn in my side. I like the sound of scenario focused games. Excited to see what this campaign book will look like.