‘Warhammer: The Old World’- Six Things From The FAQ… That Need A FAQ

Take a look at some Warhammer: the Old World questions… we have about the new FAQ.

The other week we got a massive new FAQ and Errata for Warhammer: The Old World. This update was a massive change in the game, with a lot of ramifications. We are still working through all the details of the changes. However as is usual with any new set of rules. We also have a few questions. So today lets take a look at a couple things from the FAQ/Errata that just might need an FAQ of their own. (N.B.- I’m not getting into the whole issue on causality removal here as that could really use its whole own article.)

6. The Fighting Rank Issue

This is actually an old issue, but when they updating fighting rank they didn’t change it either… sigh. The wording makes it so row, rank or file, in which one of more models is in base contact is a fighting rank. If you played this RAW (Rules As Written) it would mean that when contacted in, say, the front, not only would your whole front rank be the fighting rank, but also any of the files behind front rank models in base to base would also be part of the fighting rank. If your whole front rank is in base to base that would mean your whole unit is a fighting rank. Obviously no one plays it this way, but I wish they would have fixed this.

5. How Do I Frenzy

Next up we have a much bigger question, or really two of them! The Frenzy rule has been re-written and its a big change, with some questions. The first has to do with how it interacts with mounts now. Previously a non-monster mount could not get the +1 attack from Frenzy. However now that’s been removed, and replaced with the wording that a frenzied mount doesn’t give it to the rider and vice-versa. However this has a couple of issues. First off… technically, unless it says otherwise, the mount and rider share the rules. So even if only the rider is frenzied the mount also has that rule. You could argue in this case they won’t get the +1, but its a little unclear. Setting that aside however, most units, and pretty much all spells and effects, don’t specific who has Frenzy. In this case it does seem like mounts get the +1 attack now, but there is a lot of debate around various units.

To make things extra confusing we have this bit of wording, that leads to our second question: ” During a turn in which it makes a charge move, or during a turn in which it made a follow up move…” That seems simple at first, but it actually doesn’t cover a lot of ways for you to get into combat. For instance Counter Charge, Pursuit Move and Overruns all allow you to count as charging, but are not charge moves. Random Movement also lets you charge, but is not a charge move. RAW in all these cases you don’t get the Frenzy attack. This seems like an oversight, especially as follow up which doesn’t count as charging does give you frenzy, but  who knows, without some clarity from GW.

4. Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Next up we’ve got another RAW issue, and that’s with Stupidity. It’s been FAQ’d to be a lot more punishing, which we think is good. However there is one issue with it. The first bullet point in the things it can’t do is “cannot move”. Now the FAQ defines a move as anytime you would move or change the position of a model on the table. So being unable to move means they can’t give ground, move when broken from panic or in combat, etc.. They not only can’t willingly move, they can’t unwillingly move.

So you could have a situation where the unit becomes stupid, gets charged, breaks from combat, but can’t move. Even worse, we don’t know what happens then! There is this line in the rules “A unit that is still in base contact with an enemy unit cannot follow up or pursue.” So the Stupid unit breaks, but can’t move and then you can’t follow up or pursue, meaning you can’t catch and destroy them and are stuck in combat with a broken unit? Please fix this to voluntarily move or something of the like.

3. Sigh, Another Skirmisher Question

Oh Skirmishers, you give us all headaches. This bit of the Errata says that after combat a unit of skirmishers must “separate, moving the smallest amount possible to once again adopt Skirmish formation”. The issue here is that… there is no minimum distance you must have between models in a skirmish unit. So what is “the smallest amount possible”? Bases to base is legal… so the smallest amount possible is… 0. Nothing. If you say they can’t be in base to base for some reason… then to I have to go and measure and move them all 1mm apart? What does this section even mean?

2. Earthen Ramparts -Still

There has been an ongoing issue with the Earthen Ramparts spells with has you count as being behind a defended low linear obstacle (LLO). The issues is whether the units count as being in base to base contact. Normally when behind a LLO you aren’t in base to base, because the obstacle separates you. However with Earthen Ramparts you don’t have anything physically separating you and are in base to base. This is important becasue not being in base to base means no impact hits, no stomp attacks and only 1 attack per model.

So GW gave us an answer. The unit counts as being behind a LLO and the enemy must follow the rules for charging a unit behind a LLO. Except… that doesn’t clearly answer the question. Because the not being in base to base is not an effect of the LLO rules, its a side effect of the terrain being in the way, so this is still ambiguous. There is also some debate on how many sides LLO covers (LLO say you defend them by moving your front to touch them give rise to an argument that only the front is covered). It would have been nice if they just answered these questions clearly.

1. Parry and Parry

I’ll wrap it up with one more, though I’m sure there are plenty of other questions people have. The FAQ gave all regular and heavy infantry a rule called “Parry”. This allows them when fighting with a hand weapon and shield to add +1 to their save, to a max of 3+. Easy and a great rule. However a couple Wood Elf units in the new Arcane Journal just got a brand new rule… called Parry. This rule is similar, but different. It reads: “When fighting with a hand weapon and shield, or Asrai spear and shield, this unit improves its armour value by 1.” So, it’s not quite the same rule, it allows Asrai spears to be used and doesn’t cap at 3+, but it is very similar. It also has the same name. So… can these stack? Can you use Hand Weapon and shield to get a +2 save?

While these rules have the same name they are different rules. One is also a core rule, while the other is a Unique Special Rule, which are two different categories. They are not the same rule. Yet it seems unlikely they were meant to stack.

Let us know what questions you have form the new FAQ, down in the comments! 

Abe is that rare thing, an Austin local born and raised here. Though he keeps on moving around, DC, Japan, ETC., he always seems to find his way back eventually. Abe has decades of experience with a wide range of tabletop and RPG games, from historicals, to Star Wars to D&D and 40K. He has been contributing to BOLS since almost the start, back when he worked at and then owned a local gaming store. He used to be big into the competitive Warhammer tournament scene but age has mellowed him and he now appreciates a good casual match. He currently covers Warhammer: The Old World, as well as all things Star Wars, with occasional dabbling in other topics. Abe mourned over loss of WFB for its entire hiatus, but has been reborn like a gaming phoenix with Warhammer: The Old World.

Read the Comments (0)

Read more at this site