GW: New FAQs For AoS & The Hobbit

stormcast-warbeast-horz

Games Workshop has released new FAQs for both Age of Sigmar & The Hobbit – come take a look!

sigma-logo

On the AoS front there doesn’t appear to be any major changes, although there are clarifications which many folks will find helpful. (Note: As of publishing time the FAQs were not available on Games Workshop’s home FAQ page which can be HERE.)

via Warhammer Community

Download the FAQs for AoS HERE

General’s Handbook

Grand Alliance Order

Grand Alliance Chaos

Grand Alliance Destruction

Grand Alliance Death

 

Interesting Changes:

aos-faq-wyldwood aos-faq-victory-conditions aos-faq-netters aos-faq-zombies

There are quite a few more changes so check them out for yourself.

 

60041499034_hobbittheunexpectedjourney01-484x500

On the Hobbit front these FAQs haven’t been updated since September of 2014. I’m sure the Hobbit community has been waiting for these answers and changes for quite awhile and it seems like Games Workshop is serious about shaking things up on the LoTR/Hobbit front. Good for them! (Note: As of publishing time the FAQs were not available on Games Workshop’s home FAQ page which can be HERE.)

via Warhammer Community

Download The Hobbit FAQs HERE

The Rules Manual

Kingdoms of Men

Free Peoples

Fallen Realms

Mordor

Moria & Angmar

There are a number of changes as this one has been two years in the making. Luckily all the changes are in Magenta so if you’re just quickly scanning for the “new stuff” you’ll be able to find it.

 

Have at it Folks!

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Good stuff. Most of it is pretty reasonable and no brainer-ish but still it is good to be explicit.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      People wanted to attack and pile in twice with Shadowblade Assassins? *Facepalm*

  • Koen Cambré

    Ring of Immortality! Pay full price for a model with D3 wounds… Legit! I think one of devs got screwed over by that item in a recent game because they nerfed it to be completely useless now.

    • ZeeLobby

      Eh, they kind of test as they go, haha.

    • Michael Van Eeckhoute

      It’s only viable for cheap characters now, like a necromancer. Seems ok to me, hard nerf no doubt, but ok.

      • Malisteen

        Double price for +d3 wounds isn’t viable. You can just buy another necromancer with a full 5 wounds instead. This nerf kills this item dead in matched play.

        • ledha

          you forget that it’s give you the opportunity to save the GENERAL of the army, which is insanely important for death, more than a non-general other character

          • Koen Cambré

            Yeah… Death really relies on the generic command ability sooooo much. What with their low bravery… Or were you referring to ask those useful summoning command abilities that also require points. Stop pretending this is remotely useful…

          • Malisteen

            Yes, keeping your general alive IS really important. Which is why in anything but the smallest games, Death armies can’t afford to make easily snipable 5 wound characters their general. Even with d3 extra wounds, those characters are still too vulnerable, so instead you field a monstrous general, like a vampire on zombie dragon, or ghoul king on terrorgheist, or tomb king on war sphinx. And if you do that, then the ring of immortality is costing you 300 to 400 points for d3 extra wounds, when a tomb blade could be giving you many more extra wounds than that for zero extra points.

            The ring of immortality was best in small games, where you don’t have the points for an actually survivable general and are stuck using the 5 wound heroes. But in a game where you don’t have points for a monstrous general, you also can’t afford to double your general’s points cost for what might amount to a single extra wound.

            No. In matched play, this ruling kills the ring. There is no reasonable circumstance in which it’s worth taking over the blade or the book.

      • Koen Cambré

        not even remotely ok, even when used on a cheaper character… you’re still coming out worse than just paying full price for the real deal. It’s stupid if it’s a cheap character and get progressively more stupid as the character point cost goes up.

    • Malisteen

      At least we still have the Cursed Book and the Tomb Blade.

    • MarcoT

      I agree it’s badly nerfed, by why do people seem so angry about it? In AoS all these upgrades are free (except for this one now), so just take another.

      • Koen Cambré

        You are right, it’s not the end of the world. Death is just a faction that’s been mostly ignored (don’t think there’s actually been a new model since end times) and the Grand alliance that’s basically been hit the hardest by all these summoning restrictions in matched play.

        It’s painfull to even see the so called freebies be obliterated because of those summon rules (especially since it’s so painfully obvious that this doesn’t create a full blown new unit).

        It’s also painfull that the devs are supposed to be making stuff that’s kind of balanced in matched play. Clearly such a joke of an item is anything but balanced…

  • Randy Randalman

    Good stuff. Small adjustments and tweaks will keep this game killing it.

  • The_Mighty_Moogar

    I’m glad they finally got around to saying no 90 man zombie units. Was a total game killer with full buffs

  • TenDM

    I’m not normally one to bash GW for their rule writing, it is what it is and they’ve been getting better lately, but how on Earth does ‘a few’ make it into an official rule?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      The focus was on narrative play, not competitive.

      • TenDM

        I get that and I like Age of Sigmar, but that seems totally out of place even by Age of Sigmar’s standards. Like having a Hit value of ‘maybe’ or a Rend of ‘not bad’.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Its the way the old goblin unit was worded as well. You just had to represent a few netters on the front line.

    • Shawn

      Well, at least for me, none=0, single=1, a couple = 2, a few = 3, and a handful = 4. Not surprised they went with three.

      • TenDM

        That’s pretty much how I go, except for a handful, but if you’re going to say a few = 3 then why not just say 3? I’m not having a go at Age of Sigmar it just seems really strange to me that someone writing a stat sheet for a model in a number based game would choose to write ‘a few’ instead of an actual number.
        I mean if you told me to write a flexible number range for how many you could take I’d write something like 3 to 6. A few seems like the warscroll equivalent of shrugging.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          There seems to be a different attitude taken with the old WFB armies as compared to the new ones, just look at the battalions that make you ct grumpy or wear a hood.

        • Shawn

          I understand, but I think it was intentional. I believe GW likes casual games (emphasis on casual), so they are leaving it up to the players to decide what they feel is a few. I know that frustrates and irritates many, especially the 40k folks. I guess it’s GW’s way of saying the game should be a social discourse as well as dice throwing. (shrugs shoulers)

  • zeno666

    Did the card… I mean warscroll for the Moonclan grots actually say “a few grots..”?!

    • Red_Five_Standing_By
    • Morgrim

      I think that’s a hangover from the text on the WFB entry. There, you had ‘a few goblins’ modeled with nets in the box, you put them all in your ranked up unit, and away you went. The precise number of nets didn’t make a difference to the rules. Which doesn’t translate over so well when suddenly everyone is on their own base and has their own wounds…