Masters FAQ?

[Lion of Flanders]

Hey All: I was going to add this post to the Squig Hopper movement thread, but I didn't have the courage to wade into that bewildering array of diagrams and analysis.

 

So....is there a link to the most recent Masters FAQ that was referred to in that thread? Google identified one that was February 2014 and that seemed a bit old.

 

Seems like adopting some agreed upon standard for OFCC would be a good idea for next year.

[Diomides]

I don't believe an updated one has been published yet. But going by what Godswearhats said, it should be coming soon.

[godswearhats]

Correct, it hasn't been published yet. When the player pack is published, I'll make sure and post links on the forum.

[MexicanNinja]

There's an FAQ up with an October 2014 date on it.

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.wargamersusa.com/showthread.php?tid=2501

[godswearhats]

I came back today to post this link, only to find I had been, uh, ninja'd :-)

[McNathanson]

I've been looking this over and it's great!  I'll be using it in all my games going forward (assuming of course my opponent agrees).

A few great rulings that jumped out to me right away:

 

3.1 Unchargeable units

You are not allowed to create situations where units almost completely block the forward
movement of another unit but still cannot be charged by the blocked unit. This can for example be done with the help of skirmisher’s contraction rules or clever aligning of several units making closing the door or reaching the correct side impossible.

This is great, I was wondering when one of my opponents was going to try this move, and what I was going to say when they did :)

 

3.8 Can an already engaged unit ever close the door?

No. A charge requiring such a maneuver will fail or be an illegal charge declaration.

Also great, as if you allow a charger to force an engaged unit to close the door, all sorts of shenanigans are possible.  This came up at the OFCC in fact (inadvertently) and my opponent graciously called it a failed charge by his unit because the only way to complete it was by forcing my unit to close the door which would have changed the pursuit direction of his already-engaged unit!

 

 

3.19 Is a charger forced to charge multiple units if it can be avoided by wheeling in a way that forces the defender to close the door with only one unit?

No. If the defender can close the door to avoid the charger charging multiple units, it must do so, even if this reduces the number of models fighting. 

This actually came up in my game with MexicanNinja last week, and this is how we played it, but I thought it was ambiguous ala the RAW.

 

3.9 What is an impossible charge?

For considering whether a charge is possible take into account the current position of charger and
target, as well as any already declared charge or reaction.

I'm a little unclear on the "already declared charge" part, because of the uncertainty of the subsequent charge roll for the already-declared charge.  My guess is that we are meant to interpret this as "If a charge would fail, due to a previously-declared charging unit's move regardless of what the previously-declared charging unit's charge roll is, then the charge is impossible and cannot be declared."

 

6.9 In a challenge, if the acceptor can’t move to meet the challenger but the challenger can move to meet the acceptor, does the challenger move? No.

This is fine but I'm just curious as to the reasoning?  Seems hard to abuse since the challenger is the one declaring the challenge!

Anyway lots more fun stuff to read over, but I gotta get back to work ;)
 

Great job, Masters FAQ authors!!

 

 

[Andrewgeddon]

Interesting to see they ruled that Predatory Fighter doesn't work for supporting attacks. OFCC said they did, if I'm not mistaken? Curious to see how this will go if Lizards get an official FAQ.

[MexicanNinja]

The main thing to realize here is that this FAQ is for the Masters.  In a non-Masters game or a tournment which isn't using the Masters FAQ, your opponent could throw the Masters FAQ on the ground and say, "that's cute".

 

While I like most of the Masters FAQ, there are a few things I don't like.  The best part is that I only need to worry about it....well, only one time this year.

[Kremmet]

Interesting to see they ruled that Predatory Fighter doesn't work for supporting attacks. OFCC said they did, if I'm not mistaken? Curious to see how this will go if Lizards get an official FAQ.

Lizards are very unlikely to get an FAQ and even then Predatory Fighters would need an erratum to work in ranks. The RAW is very clear for this rule it's just that most players find it a bad rule and play it a different way.

 

Yes an opponent could take your Master's FAQ and say "that's cute," but I'd probably ask them to reconsider. There are plenty of rulings in there that I don't agree with, but they are rather consistent and produce a much tighter ruleset than WHFB will likely have in the foreseeable future. If an opponent wanted to argue with me about the incredibly ambiguous rules in Fantasy I'd ask that they do so after the game and just use the Master's ruling until then. Or dice off, but that seems like an arbitrary distinction.

[JMGraham]

Interesting to see they ruled that Predatory Fighter doesn't work for supporting attacks. OFCC said they did, if I'm not mistaken? Curious to see how this will go if Lizards get an official FAQ.

 

This is one of those cases where it seems pretty straightforward. Page 49 of the BRB states: ""To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects." 

 

Emphasis mine. It seems pretty self-evident that Predatory Fighter is covered in that bolded part. Not sure why it's FAQ worthy.

[ratrek]

The main thing to realize here is that this FAQ is for the Masters.  In a non-Masters game or a tournment which isn't using the Masters FAQ, your opponent could throw the Masters FAQ on the ground and say, "that's cute".

 

While I like most of the Masters FAQ, there are a few things I don't like.  The best part is that I only need to worry about it....well, only one time this year.

 

People said the same thing about ETC restrictions and Swedish Comp and look what has happened.

 

I imagine that this will apply not only to the main Master's event, but all the qualifiers as well and if the latter is the case I would then expect it will be adopted by every event organizer. GW isn't doing FAQ's for Fantasy at this point and Tournament Organizers have enough things on their plate to take time to create seperate rulings when everything is already made for them in a easy package that's readidly accessable.

 

If you do have some serious issues with some things, I think bringing them to the attention of the Master's Rule panel sooner rather then later would be a good idea.

[thatdave]

Assuming they are valid issues and not just 'I don't like it'.

[Andrewgeddon]

This is one of those cases where it seems pretty straightforward. Page 49 of the BRB states: ""To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."

 

Emphasis mine. It seems pretty self-evident that Predatory Fighter is covered in that bolded part. Not sure why it's FAQ worthy.

Fair enough, I always figured PF only applied to the first front rank, but there always seemed to be enough dispute that it might warrant some clarification.

[McNathanson]

Personally I think that as long as the ruling is well-considered (which these clearly are) that it's FAR more important to have a consistent and clear ruling which can be used everywhere (from pickup games to Masters tournaments), than it is for me to agree with every single ruling!  

 

Like I said, I'm going to be using (or at least suggesting using) these in all my games!  Much cleaner and easier than waiting until these situations arise, then consulting the rulebook, then dicing it off :)

[ClassicFlava]

As far as predatory fighter goes yeah RAW supporting attacks don't get it. I played in 6 tournaments this summer and the only one that ruled that support in attacks didn't benefit was the OFCC open. It doesn't make much of a difference in most cases; its just way easier to roll all the attacks together. Whether GW intended for it to work for supporting attacks we will probably never know.

[godswearhats]

These rules will not be forced upon any Masters qualifier in the Northwest Region. However, the King of Cascadia tournament will use the complete Masters rulepack (so that every one of our regional reps gets a 5-game GT under their belts with the exact comp, rules and player pack).

[MexicanNinja]

These rules will not be forced upon any Masters qualifier in the Northwest Region. However, the King of Cascadia tournament will use the complete Masters rulepack (so that every one of our regional reps gets a 5-game GT under their belts with the exact comp, rules and player pack).

You are going to be using the Master player pack, as in 5 battle lines scenarios along with the strategic cards?

[godswearhats]

Yes. Technically the Masters is 6 games (with the 6th straight battle line), but KoC will only be 5.

[MexicanNinja]

Yes. Technically the Masters is 6 games (with the 6th straight battle line), but KoC will only be 5.

I got that.  I was just seeing if you are intending on doing all battle lines and also use the scenario cards.

[godswearhats]

Yup.

[Don't Panic]

dwarf question.  i didn't see it so ill ask it here if you know it aidan.  forging and canons.  can you reroll both the shot and roll for misfire or just one?  i got blasted for rolling it for both the shot and the bounce(they are technically two different rolls) and didn't really understand the logic as to why i couldn't do that so I'm curious how you guys at masters interpret that.  and its kind of common to occur with me with misfires :)

[MexicanNinja]

dwarf question.  i didn't see it so ill ask it here if you know it aidan.  forging and canons.  can you reroll both the shot and roll for misfire or just one?  i got blasted for rolling it for both the shot and the bounce(they are technically two different rolls) and didn't really understand the logic as to why i couldn't do that so I'm curious how you guys at masters interpret that.  and its kind of common to occur with me with misfires :)

 

I don't understand either.  The rule is clear for the rune of forging.  It specifically states whenever a misfire is rolled.  It doesn't differentiate between the first shot or the bounce.  So, RAW, you are totally with the legality of re-rolling both the initial shot as well as the bounce.

[Don't Panic]

yea i thought it was clear as well... ive talked to one of my 'rules buff' friends from iowa and he said it may be something people are thinking about with the last dwarf book because they were vague about it then, but in this book they got rid of the vague-ness.  heck if i know though because 1. ive only been playing for like 7 months and im wrong about as many times as im right(which being a scientist i get use to this...) 2. i started playing right after the dwarf book was released(funny timing) so i have no clue as to the change in writing/interpretation.

[VonVilkee]

Also way back ie two books it was clearly the other way it stated if you did not reroll on the initial shot you could rreroll the bounce. I'd suspect it is old understanding and rulings getting in the way of new stuff. It happens I'm just getting back into fantasy for like a month I love my gobos but everybody else is just so much better... I'm missing forty K already!