Fafnir wrote: But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?
Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.
Fafnir wrote: But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?
Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.
Mine is min-maxxed around a dude with a funny unicorn fish as its general and shouting "GET 'EM BOYS!" on turn 3.
Oh yeah, definitely get it. It's a preference of not liking to feel like the game is up to just chance and there's little to nothing you can do about it and the ensuring disaster of your force getting struck twice and out maneuvered.
To me and others though it's a dynamic turn of events where you have to cope with the heavy losses, do what you can to mitigate damage with dispelling, allocating wounds and other tricks and then do your best to reform, redeploy and do what you can to win with the hope you can grab the next double turn and make your enemy pay for overextending his line.
Definitely not everyone's cup of tea and I fully understand houseruling it out. (Though like I said it's more your just always keeping the initiative in order which is fully in the rules. No one Has to actually take that turn switch. )
Fafnir wrote: But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?
Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.
Mine is min-maxxed around a dude with a funny unicorn fish as its general and shouting "GET 'EM BOYS!" on turn 3.
A good solid chunk of the group I play with (about 12 players or so) do not like double turn and a good solid chunk would be ok with it going away.
Seraphon are right now definitely going to be one of the premiere armies. Between teleporting, summoning, and strong strong abilities they were a terror.
The endless spells are a lot of fun, but there are definitely spells you're going to see all the time, kind of like 8th edition WHFB.
Overall today's game was a lot of fun, the imbalance is obvious, its a matter of not caring so much about the imbalance and trying to enjoy yourself.
But yeah, Seraphon, Nurgle and Nagash are looking to be the kings of AoS2. The age of magic, superstition and gods is back upon us as realms are buckled by titanic battles for their precious souls!
What fun.
Looking forward to trying out the big spells when I get them. I really like the light swords and traps, very thematic.
Baron Klatz wrote: Oh yeah, definitely get it. It's a preference of not liking to feel like the game is up to just chance and there's little to nothing you can do about it and the ensuring disaster of your force getting struck twice and out maneuvered.
To me and others though it's a dynamic turn of events where you have to cope with the heavy losses, do what you can to mitigate damage with dispelling, allocating wounds and other tricks and then do your best to reform, redeploy and do what you can to win with the hope you can grab the next double turn and make your enemy pay for overextending his line.
Definitely not everyone's cup of tea and I fully understand houseruling it out. (Though like I said it's more your just always keeping the initiative in order which is fully in the rules. No one Has to actually take that turn switch.
I've noticed that communities more able/willing to exploit double turns also trend to be more against them. If my exploit list gets a double turn the opponent takes ~60 mortal wounds to the face just from shooting that doesn't even have hit rolls. It deep strikes in with no minimum range during the hero phase after which it can move normally. Gryph hounds don't work, screens don't work, hit penalties don't work, save buffs don't work. They just sit there and die. I've seen players who liked or were neutral on the double turn become against it very quickly, even outside games where I am playing that army.
Yikes, no wonder. That list sounds terrifying and something you'd need to cripple early and keep your fingers crossed the dice gods are with you so you either miss double turns or get one yourself beforehand.
Baron Klatz wrote: Yikes, no wonder. That list sounds terrifying and something you'd need to cripple early and keep your fingers crossed the dice gods are with you so you either miss double turns or get one yourself beforehand.
All those mortal wounds don't deploy on the table.
Fafnir wrote: But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?
Eh, I don't have a problem with that. I've seen games with double turns go either way, getting it is not a guaranteed win. It does however add to the excitement every round and if it goes against me I get a chance to get a double turn back. We are a very casual group and no one has ever taken a cheese list except to try it out for a tournament, with advance warning given. I don't really care about the downtime, I'm still chatting with my opponent and having a good time even if I'm not moving my guys. And top tier tournament players seem to want to keep the double turn as well from what I've heard on their podcasts, at least in the UK where AoS has been strong since the beginning. I guess the biggest problems would arise if a competitive player took a cheese list against a more casual player, but that's the case with 40k as well even without double turns.
Top tier tournament players got there by exploiting weaknesses in balance, including the double turn. So it's a bit confusing to me how their opinion gets raised in so many conversations as if they inherently have a desire for balance. They literally have a financial interest in a lack of balance, which isn't to say they are automatically self-serving but the conflict of interest there doesn't seem to be noticed at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Top tier tournament players got there by exploiting weaknesses in balance, including the double turn. So it's a bit confusing to me how their opinion gets raised in so many conversations as if they inherently have a desire for balance. They literally have a financial interest in a lack of balance, which isn't to say they are automatically self-serving but the conflict of interest there doesn't seem to be noticed at all.
This is an excellent point. I think so many people lose sight of the fact that tournament play is explicitly about seeking out imbalance. And then when they make their regular games with friends like tournament games and try to make their armies as powerful as possible, they act surprised when the game gets really one sided.
That said, I'm a fan and advocate of the double turn. I play to find out what happens and the double turn mechanic means that things can swing back and forth very dramatically. I'm the wrong opponent for someone who wants a competition as I don't really play to win. I like to run my army like we're both gamemasters in an RPG. i ask myself what the soldiers would do rather than try to come up with the best moves to make from my outside perspective.
This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.
But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.
The double turn was almost universally panned yesterday and will be making its way into our campaign ruleset as an option to turn off if both players agree.
auticus wrote: This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.
But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.
If I can be brutally honest here, Auticus? To me, part of the reason why it seems like the response is negative is that you're trying to suggest balance suggestions for the game as a whole based on your community.
I get that you can only suggest based on your own experiences--but that's the way it keeps seeming in my eyes. I know we butt heads quite a bit over things but as I said to you awhile back, I understand that running campaigns can be a chore. It's a lot of effort for not much payout and tons of griping. A lot of your rule suggestions could probably work--but they don't strike me as overall fixes that are quality for the game. They seem like the kind of thing that works for your group.
The double turn was almost universally panned yesterday and will be making its way into our campaign ruleset as an option to turn off if both players agree.
Thankfully, it's getting left alone here. The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.
auticus wrote: This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.
But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.
If I can be brutally honest here, Auticus? To me, part of the reason why it seems like the response is negative is that you're trying to suggest balance suggestions for the game as a whole based on your community.
I get that you can only suggest based on your own experiences--but that's the way it keeps seeming in my eyes. I know we butt heads quite a bit over things but as I said to you awhile back, I understand that running campaigns can be a chore. It's a lot of effort for not much payout and tons of griping. A lot of your rule suggestions could probably work--but they don't strike me as overall fixes that are quality for the game. They seem like the kind of thing that works for your group.
With due respect to Auticus this is a reasonable point.
Thankfully, it's getting left alone here. The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.
This argument doesn't really hold up in my experience. I particularly dislike the double turn because of how well I can exploit it. See earlier mentions of my tourney list being specifically built to auto-win on double turns. But even outside of that, if I'm playing a game with rolled initiative and have turn choice I will always take second (but then all of my opponents do to, since it's kinda the obvious choice) and if I get the double that decides the game a good three quarters of the time, it isn't even difficult.
I compare it to a video game where one is fighting another player--then suddenly they bug out and can't do anything for a period. So you can just wail on them, or simply wait until they come back, but either option is really unsatisfying. That you could potentially bug out later in the same way doesn't make it less of an issue.
Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".
The thing with AOS 2.0 is several things that are now core rules were rules we were messing with as houserules as well (like the terrain obstacles now in place that make it harder to shoot through, or not shooting out of combat, etc)
One example: I proposed shooting having a penalty through woods and things like that back in 2015 and argued it through 2016 and 2017 and all the way this year. I received a lot of harsh negative feedback about how that was stupid and not necessary (even recently, with some of you guys in this very thread). But now its an actual part of the rules and everyone is fine with it. Or at least I haven't seen waves of negative feedback on it. Hell Sylvaneth Wyldwood are allegedly obscuring all line of sight through them (I cannot confirm this, but was told this by two different people that saw the rule)
I have a very strong feeling that if another houserule, shooting into combat hitting allies on misses, or even also taking a -1 to hit period, were to be official that people would also be fine with it. Things like that. I think its just a general dislike for houserules in general more than what the rule is itself.
The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.
I've still not seen anyone validly post a way to build and play around a double turn with examples. I've seen plenty of builds that exploit double turns to the point where if you get hit with it there's nothing you can do to pull the game off at that point, but I've never seen a good video or demonstration of how to build against or play around a double turn against a good player with an imbalanced build gaining one.
The double turn provides some very negative game experiences: you sit there for two complete turns doing nothing but removing models. This is both frustrating and a very long time of sitting there doing nothing yourself.
auticus wrote: Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".
Keep in mind that the people who disagree with you will speak more often and more loudly than the ones who agree--it's the nature of people. Also more casual players who are less likely to be perpetrators are also less likely to be engaged enough to discuss it frequently online.
Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.
Hulksmash wrote: Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.
auticus wrote: Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".
The thing with AOS 2.0 is several things that are now core rules were rules we were messing with as houserules as well (like the terrain obstacles now in place that make it harder to shoot through, or not shooting out of combat, etc)
One example: I proposed shooting having a penalty through woods and things like that back in 2015 and argued it through 2016 and 2017 and all the way this year. I received a lot of harsh negative feedback about how that was stupid and not necessary (even recently, with some of you guys in this very thread). But now its an actual part of the rules and everyone is fine with it. Or at least I haven't seen waves of negative feedback on it. Hell Sylvaneth Wyldwood are allegedly obscuring all line of sight through them (I cannot confirm this, but was told this by two different people that saw the rule)
To be fair, my criticism was not that it did it--but the way that you did it. Your version was not what "obscured" does(granting the effects of Cover) but rather granting a -1 to be hit.
As I said then, I just haven't seen significantly scary ranged units of late to make me think we need -1 to be hit to be an all over thing. If anything I think we need a return of "Magical" attacks so that we can start having some of the weirder stuff get toned down that way rather than just being Mortal Wounds.
I have a very strong feeling that if another houserule, shooting into combat hitting allies on misses, or even also taking a -1 to hit period, were to be official that people would also be fine with it. Things like that. I think its just a general dislike for houserules in general more than what the rule is itself.
Part of it certainly is a dislike of a plethora of house rules on my end. I have some that I use, mostly introing new players to the game...but they're tied to older official scenarios from things like the Skirmish handbook back in the day. I know that one being bandied about at the moment is that whoever actually fluffs their army as being from a Realm tied to their army's lore gets to declare what Realm the game will be in.
The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.
I've still not seen anyone validly post a way to build and play around a double turn with examples. I've seen plenty of builds that exploit double turns to the point where if you get hit with it there's nothing you can do to pull the game off at that point, but I've never seen a good video or demonstration of how to build against or play around a double turn against a good player with an imbalanced build gaining one.
I don't have any specific ones on my part. I don't build for it nor plan around it. If it happens--I know how to exploit it. If it doesn't, then I'll just keep playing as normal.
Admittedly my Idoneth just went from a riptide to a tidal wave if I get the double turn on 2+3 since I did find out(thanks Ninth!) that I can put Command Abilities on everyone I have CPs for. My units of 6 eels are going to be just slammin' with Lord of Tides on!
The double turn provides some very negative game experiences: you sit there for two complete turns doing nothing but removing models. This is both frustrating and a very long time of sitting there doing nothing yourself.
The double turn certainly does that, but so did combat oriented armies or those that had 'strikebacks' early on in AoS' history. So do Tau and Guard(incidentally, two of the most loathed 40k armies right now).
Hell, so did my Rogue in WoW.
The important part that you're seeming to miss out on here is on the parts of the players and their interactions. A player who provides a good game, win or lose, provides a positive game experience. People remember that. Talking after the game helps--not crowing about your luck in getting the double to stomp them.
I'm not arguing a player providing a good game provides a positive game experience.
But being tabled, being rolled, being put in a position that feels helpless never really provides a positive game experience regardless of if the opponent is awesome or not at providing a great game experience.
If the double turn provides a deep negative experience to a lot of people, regardless of whether or not other elements ALSO add negative experiences, for me lessening the negative experience load of something that is almost universally reviled would seem to be a good action.
Or at the very least, my preference, to provide that option. If people want to keep it in, let them keep it in.
The fact of the matter is, unless I am just hugely mistaken, when talking about the negatives of the system that is AOS, the ONE thing that gets brought up by so many people as being hugely negative is often double-turn.
A silver lining though is that for people against houserules it does put a foot in the door for opening their opinions when it comes to such a small change that's technically not really altering any rules.
Hulksmash wrote: Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.
It's been working just fine since GHB2, fyi.
Dude, I don't doubt it works where you are. I can see fielding it pretty effectively myself after seeing it I see a lot of the moving parts though the work up would take a bit. However I feel like that list is a coin toss list. It wins big or gets the gak kicked out of it. Since ghb 2 dropped and the sheer number of models and wounds started showing up on the field I think it would be a coin toss at the upper levels of a gt. It clubs mid tabs like no one because you can play out of bad matches likely. But in the last game or two of a gt I'm to likely to see tzeentch, seraphone, skellies, nurgle, mass model order or DoK. I think the list would struggle against how I've seen most of these built. But it works for you and seems to frame your whole look in regards to the double turn which is fine.
To give you an example I don't see any of the above armies outside of DoK with less than 150 wounds at the higher level locally. With the killing power rarely concentrated in an easily digestible chunks.
I find it amusing that you are telling me how my army works at tournaments. Like, how much arrogance does it take to think you know better how an army you have never played will perform verses someone who has played it for years and taken it to tournaments all that time?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I find it amusing that you are telling me how my army works at tournaments. Like, how much arrogance does it take to think you know better how an army you have never played will perform verses someone who has played it for years and taken it to tournaments all that time?
Honestly it's no less arrogant than posting "this is how it is" because of your local scene and personal bias. Maybe I'm wrong though and you're huge on the aos circuit of gts and events in the US outside of your local scene. But it feels like you filter a lot thru your personal experience with that army.
Additionally you tend to take things pretty personally. I was merely pointing out we haven't seen your style list much locally or at the larger gts I've attended. And that having seen it I'm not sure it chews thru, even on a double turn, most of the lists we commonly see played by our better players. Hence my statement of it being a wrecking ball mid tables but a coin flip at the higher tables later in a 6 game run.
Either way even with your monstrosity or other equivalents (tzeentch) we don't have anyone hating on the double turn locally that I've heard. We can discuss the particulars of hour list in your thread
NinthMusketeer wrote: I find it amusing that you are telling me how my army works at tournaments. Like, how much arrogance does it take to think you know better how an army you have never played will perform verses someone who has played it for years and taken it to tournaments all that time?
Honestly it's no less arrogant than posting "this is how it is" because of your local scene and personal bias. Maybe I'm wrong though and you're huge on the aos circuit of gts and events in the US outside of your local scene. But it feels like you filter a lot thru your personal experience with that army.
Additionally you tend to take things pretty personally. I was merely pointing out we haven't seen your style list much locally or at the larger gts I've attended. And that having seen it I'm not sure it chews thru, even on a double turn, most of the lists we commonly see played by our better players. Hence my statement of it being a wrecking ball mid tables but a coin flip at the higher tables later in a 6 game run.
Either way even with your monstrosity or other equivalents (tzeentch) we don't have anyone hating on the double turn locally that I've heard. We can discuss the particulars of hour list in your thread
It's an example. My opinion is filtered through personal experience? That's what an opinion is. I'm taking things personally because you made a passive-aggressive trash talk of my list based off nothing other than 'well I think this' then somehow tried to say that I was doing that despite at least having actual experience to speak from. This isn't the first time you have just posted crap, gotten called on it, and tried to walk it back.
Screw it, I'm tired of trying to get a mature response out of you. Ignoring. But go ahead and post to get the last word anyways.
There is this part of the community that is always "those rules are the best and most fun", no matter what it is
You provide houserules to balance things out and get those arguments against it, until GW changes the rule on their own to something similar, and the very same people come up with "this is the best rule change ever"
What I hope is, that GW is a little more open to Events/Tournaments and changes some things for Matched Play.
Double Turns are cool, but removing them for matched play could help a lot.
Oh, what determines that? A more time sensitive scenario like encroaching natural disasters or a crumbling fortress so time is of the essence and both armies are throwing everything into the fight?
I hear that objective missions do something with the double turn, so any of those could be double turn. Kill point style missions would be standard. Things like that.
auticus wrote: One idea I've had is double turns are present for some scenarios but not others.
I wouldn't mind this. I think the double turn only works because every match play mission is currently objectives. If you add essentially kp missions then the double turn would be a poop show.
Yeah. There are bunches of scenarios (battleplans) out now and not all have objectives. We played basically a kill point scenario saturday that would have ended on a double turn (in that game, there was no double turn thanks to the dice but the winning side was all praying for the double turn to seal the game).
In that game, no double turn would have been more appropriate IMO.
I can totally see that. I'm 100% coming from match play on my view of the double turn so that is why I lean so heavily to it being a good mechanic. Doing it by scenario would actually create more interesting army building as then people would have to account for it during the building stage.
I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.
I've made my stance on this pretty well-known at this point, but I feel it's worth mentioning again. I don't view the double turn as being a broken mechanic in and of itself, but it does make imbalances worse. The double turn isn't what makes Skryrefyre broken. Stormfiend troops dropping mortal wounds at a stupid rate with no way to counter them makes the list broken. As Hulksmash and auticus have mentioned, the double turn really doesn't change the game that much in objective scenarios. I wouldn't mind seeing it changed to a scenario-specific rule.
I've been fine with double turn, but most armies I end up facing at my store are pretty mellow and won't shoot off an army in a turn. No one runes around with 6 units of stormfiends cause that person isn't fun to play against. No one runs around with Skryrefire cause it's not fun to play against.
When I was at adepticon, a lot of games came down to if someone had gotten a double turn. My first game, I won because my opponent never got a double turn. My second game ended early to double dragon/phoenix list but I never got double turned, but it didn't matter, there was 4 bolt throwers chunking my army. 2 of my games, I got doubled early, and had an uphill battle just to win, and a game where I didn't get double'd, I still won, and still managed to nearly get table'd.
Double turn is strong, and I think it's fun to play around. It's just another tactical element in my head. Will I get a double turn and play aggressive? Do I need to play defensive, let me opponent move up, and I hope I get priority next round? what will help me mitigate getting double turned. What puts me in the best spot?
Carnith wrote: Double turn is strong, and I think it's fun to play around. It's just another tactical element in my head. Will I get a double turn and play aggressive? Do I need to play defensive, let me opponent move up, and I hope I get priority next round? what will help me mitigate getting double turned. What puts me in the best spot?
I always play as if my opponent will be first next round. If you anticipate the worst possible outcome, it can't surprise you. I do the same with my Necrons in 40k. I never build a strategy based out getting back 1/3 of my casualties because if I do that, I'll struggle when I only bring back two warriors.
We do alternating phases in multiplayer games. Seems to speed things up and drops the wait time a lot. The game works fine with a variety of turn structures.
I too really like the idea of the scenarios changing that up.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.
That's because it didn't change... the wording is just horrible in the rules.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.
That's because it didn't change... the wording is just horrible in the rules.
Or did it? I know folks who help with testing who say their GW contacts told them the rule did change. I've literally heard it both ways from people within GW. That one is definitely getting an official FAQ.
Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.
auticus wrote: Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.
I expect you're correct (and am disappointed that its the case), but it sounds like even internally there is some confusion over this.
I love my GW games... but ye Gods... how are we in an age where a rule that poorly written can make it all the way to print??
auticus wrote: Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.
I expect you're correct (and am disappointed that its the case), but it sounds like even internally there is some confusion over this.
I love my GW games... but ye Gods... how are we in an age where a rule that poorly written can make it all the way to print??
Sometimes it's not a case that the rule is "that poorly written", but rather that the players decide it needs an FAQ as they can't seem to wrap their heads around it.
From the Core Rules(which are available as a download right now and in the app):
At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off, and the winner decides who takes the first turn. If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.
It only comes into effect if the roll off for turn priority is a tie from what it seems.
Thats how I read it too but the community page said that was not the case and that if its the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first always chooses and that this would be cleared up in the faq coming out in a couple weeks.
If its true that its how the community account says it should be played, thats a poorly written sentence.
I'm not going to dig back to find the post, sorry. Its not that important to me, especially considering that the faq is very imminent and will be the final word, so the economy of my time digging up a facebook response in 150+ responses on that post does not justify.
When that response hit I was shocked. Its not how I read it either, and definitely not how I want the rule to be, but he was pretty clear as can be that that was the correct interpretation.
The guys on twitter that hang with the staff are all also treating it as the community page said, as are people on the TGA until the faq says otherwise.
The FAQ in a couple weeks will be the final word regardless. Two weeks of wondering.
I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.
The question was asking the community page if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose.
The answer was if you set up first, you always get to choose, and that that was allegedly answered by the rules devs and would be in the FAQ.
I take with a grain of salt since the FAQ could change between now and then. Especially since only the celebrities have had the full rules and I imagine they will wait for the full community (us) asking questions first before they finalize that faq.
Kanluwen wrote: I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.
In their review of the 2nd Edition rules, the MiniWarGaming.com guys claim their confusion led to them contacting their official GW folks who clarified that Auticus is correct. Like him, and you, I want to read it the way you are, but at least two factions within GW say otherwise (while a third says that your version was correct, as backed up by the German 2.0 rules wording).
Basically, it really is an unclear mess, but I REALLY want you to be correct, so formation/battalions aren't still disproportionately important.
Kanluwen wrote: I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.
In their review of the 2nd Edition rules, the MiniWarGaming.com guys claim their confusion led to them contacting their official GW folks who clarified that Auticus is correct. Like him, and you, I want to read it the way you are, but at least two factions within GW say otherwise (while a third says that your version was correct, as backed up by the German 2.0 rules wording).
Basically, it really is an unclear mess, but I REALLY want you to be correct, so formation/battalions aren't still disproportionately important.
I'm gonna be brutally honest here:
Until I see it directly from the GW team in a FAQ, I'm not going to play it that way. MWG gets basic rules wrong all the time in their previews.
It sounds like what happened is that they contacted not the actual studio/rules team, but rather their rep for ordering (who would have likely been their contact point for the actual boxes etc). There's literally one word missing between my being right and what Auticus seems to be doomsaying about and that is finishing. If someone finishes setting up first per what the Core Book says? They get to decide in the event of a tie. Going off of what Auticus is saying, it's whoever deploys a unit first chooses.
GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: GW has confirmed. Whoever is done setting up choose who goes first. Apparently between writing the INCREDIBLY CLEAr rules they wrote and being posed the question for clarity, they decided to change the rule and now need an FAQ day one. Cant even go a single frakking day without the need for extraneous documents.
Like how difficult is it to proofread a 14 page document WITH PICTURES.
Obviously difficult since the text is whoever is done setting up chooses who goes first in the event of a tie.
You want me to link it to you so that you can read it?
At the start of each battle round, the
players must roll off, and the winner
decides who takes the first turn. If the
roll-off is a tie, then the player who
went first in the last battle round can
choose who goes first in this one, but
if it is the first battle round, the player
that finished setting up their army
first chooses who has the first turn.
Like I said above I agree with the interpretation above. I don't agree with the GW guys saying its basically a wordy way of saying if you finish first you go first. I hate that. I'm just passing along what the community guy said and confirmed.
The books in our hands saturday won't change that. The FAQ will be what confirms it.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
I'd agree with you except for the gw guy saying that it indeed meant if you finish deploying first you get to pick. Thats why I'm waiting for the faq to finish this off.
auticus wrote: The question was asking the community page if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose.
The answer was if you set up first, you always get to choose, and that that was allegedly answered by the rules devs and would be in the FAQ.
I haven't seen the question...in question, but if this is how it is worded and asked then to me it still reads as intended.
The response "if you set up first, you always choose" in this context "if a tie, does the person who set up go first, or does the person who set up first alwaays get to choose." is still on target. I'm reading this as the Community Team not taking themselves out of "Tie-mode", ie they are responding to the question within the context of a tie.
So while the second part of the question is asking what happens outside of a tie, the Community Team is responding as if it were still inside the tie.
auticus wrote: It is. It wouldn't be a gw release without some sweet confusion and running contrary to what the rules appear to be though needing FAQ'd day one lol
I think a small part of me would be disappointed if there wasn't, in a weird way. It just wouldn't feel right. Like if there was a starter box without some sort of whippy-stick (or derivative) ruler. Can you imagine if there was a solid ruler, or an actual measuring tape? It would be ridiculous.
For those that can't view FB, the response given was:
"The player who finishes setting up their army first will take the first turn in the new edition. We've heard everyone's feedback on the wording of this rule and we've passed it on - it'll be covered in a companion document that we'll be releasing next weekend.
For now, for further clarification we'd recommend checking out the How to Play video here: https://youtu.be/fGOWPzoNRuQ"
The funny thing is how the response literally means that the person finishing deployment first MUST go first. Obviously that isn't the intent (I double checked the video to make sure though) but still kinda funny.
What's funnier is that they imply the person who has turn choice will actually choose to go first. In a way it's a disservice to new players because that's actually bad advice; second turn for the potential double is much stronger on average and should be the go-to choice barring a specific context.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
That is what the rule says, yes. But in the Learn to Play video on ageofsigmar.com they say the opposite: that whoever finishes deploying first, chooses. Which is where the confusion stems from.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just trying to hammer home that the rule doesn't need any "clarification". The "finished first" ONLY applies to the first battle round and ONLY applies in the event of a tie.
That is what the rule says, yes. But in the Learn to Play video on ageofsigmar.com they say the opposite: that whoever finishes deploying first, chooses. Which is where the confusion stems from.
She doesn't, she separates the part about the first battle round from the part about what happens on a tie, there's even a little cut in between. In the Core Rules the first turn rules are in the same sentence as the "in the event of a tie" rules.
Mymearan wrote: She doesn't, she separates the part about the first battle round from the part about what happens on a tie, there's even a little cut in between. In the Core Rules the first turn rules are in the same sentence as the "in the event of a tie" rules.
Yes, that's the difference between something being written and something being spoken aloud.
auticus wrote: It is. It wouldn't be a gw release without some sweet confusion and running contrary to what the rules appear to be though needing FAQ'd day one lol
I think a small part of me would be disappointed if there wasn't, in a weird way. It just wouldn't feel right. Like if there was a starter box without some sort of whippy-stick (or derivative) ruler. Can you imagine if there was a solid ruler, or an actual measuring tape? It would be ridiculous.
Ghaz wrote: It wouldn't be the first time GW wrote a perfectly clear rule that said exactly the opposite of what they wanted it to say...
True, but until we know exactly what the question being asked was--it's kind of a moot argument, isn't it?
Not only that, as is the case on the 40k side too, do not use community posts as confirmation for anything having to do with rules. Even in cases where they have been correct, it does not suffice as an official confirmation until it is entombed in an official rules source. Stick with the clearly written rules until informed otherwise - don't get too upset about what the community poster said without context, if the rule changes it will come from an official source, and given the track record here I wouldn't be too worried, folks
What everybody forgets to take into account is that community posts about rules do not get disseminated in the dozen+ languages this game's rules are printed in, nor do they even have a tenth of the same reach the official avenues do. Without official translations available, following this community ruling would create an arbitrary disparity between English speaking players following the post and players in every other language who did not receive the information.
That's madness. The companion document is all that matters.
Lemondish wrote: Not only that, as is the case on the 40k side too, do not use community posts as confirmation for anything having to do with rules. Even in cases where they have been correct, it does not suffice as an official confirmation until it is entombed in an official rules source. Stick with the clearly written rules until informed otherwise - don't get too upset about what the community poster said without context, if the rule changes it will come from an official source, and given the track record here I wouldn't be too worried, folks
What everybody forgets to take into account is that community posts about rules do not get disseminated in the dozen+ languages this game's rules are printed in, nor do they even have a tenth of the same reach the official avenues do. Without official translations available, following this community ruling would create an arbitrary disparity between English speaking players following the post and players in every other language who did not receive the information.
That's madness. The companion document is all that matters.
Except they have decided to abandon that idea and now you have official word in FB posts that still after months not available anywhere else. I have had "fun" experience of nearly getting valid(as per clarified by FB team in actual official reply) play of da jumping boyz out of DZ turn 1 denied because a) opponent hadn't heard of it(well no surprise comment to post in FB missed him...) and even tournament judges were confused for a while.
So now to be safe I need to have that FB post link. And yes they specifically even clarified THIS IS OFFICIAL. In very contemptuous way to boot.
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
....so fething lol.
This was what I was also saying on previous pages about the same topic. That facebook post turned everything on its head and now we have to wait for the FAQ to give the final answer.
Just for clarity.. I 100% agree with you. It SHOULD be a roll off, its VERY CLEAR the core rules state a roll off determines the first turn with a tie going to the previous rolloff winner, except in the case of the first turn (which had no previous roll off winner) where the person who was finsihed setting up would win that roll off.
VERY CLEAR. But it was completely over turned in a FB post as quoted above. It is beyond frustrating for me because how frakking hard is it to proofread 14 pages of rules with pictures. And they DIDNT NEED TO! Its clear as a crystal. But for SOME reason they decided to literally rule in the EXACT OPPOSITE that is stated in the rules that came out literally like a week ago
....so fething lol.
So now that we've seen the post, again it comes down to not an issue of proofreading but players being unable to read.
"We've heard everyone's feedback on the wording of this rule and we've passed it on".
It's like the Leman Russ' "Grinding Advance" rule and people claiming that you had to move in order to not actually move under half your Movement.
Mymearan wrote: She doesn't, she separates the part about the first battle round from the part about what happens on a tie, there's even a little cut in between. In the Core Rules the first turn rules are in the same sentence as the "in the event of a tie" rules.
Yes, that's the difference between something being written and something being spoken aloud.
Not really, no. Had you watched that video never having read the rules you would think that no roll-off happened on the first turn. Which, from all accounts, is indeed how GW means it to be played.
It is not only the players that are wrong but also the translator who works for GW as the German version is very clear in that part:
Bei einem Unentschieden in der ersten Schlachtrunde des Spiels
entscheidet derjenige Spieler, der zuerst mit der Aufstellung seiner Armee fertig war, wer den ersten Zug hat
With a tie in the first round the player who finished first setting up his army decides who gets the first turn.
So everything the same with GW, they don't know the (written) rules of their own games
Man... Nagash with his body-guard Morghast Archai, and a Mortalis Terminexus is going to be unkillable. In the realm of 1150 total points... but unkillable. :-p
Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?
A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.
So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Q: What happens when a unit that has been split into two
groups because of casualties piles in?
A: A unit must finish any type of move as a single group,
including pile-in moves. If this is impossible for any
reason, no models from the unit can move.
I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....
DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!
I like both SCE spells. Summoning hammers or a meteor right in the middle of an enemy army. Hope they release some sort of protection spheres to keep these spells in check, but seems fun.
Noticed a new option for the Guardian of Souls on the base size chart. The Guardian pictured below on the right is listed as a Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass.
Lemondish wrote: Not only that, as is the case on the 40k side too, do not use community posts as confirmation for anything having to do with rules. Even in cases where they have been correct, it does not suffice as an official confirmation until it is entombed in an official rules source. Stick with the clearly written rules until informed otherwise - don't get too upset about what the community poster said without context, if the rule changes it will come from an official source, and given the track record here I wouldn't be too worried, folks
What everybody forgets to take into account is that community posts about rules do not get disseminated in the dozen+ languages this game's rules are printed in, nor do they even have a tenth of the same reach the official avenues do. Without official translations available, following this community ruling would create an arbitrary disparity between English speaking players following the post and players in every other language who did not receive the information.
That's madness. The companion document is all that matters.
Except they have decided to abandon that idea and now you have official word in FB posts that still after months not available anywhere else. I have had "fun" experience of nearly getting valid(as per clarified by FB team in actual official reply) play of da jumping boyz out of DZ turn 1 denied because a) opponent hadn't heard of it(well no surprise comment to post in FB missed him...) and even tournament judges were confused for a while.
So now to be safe I need to have that FB post link. And yes they specifically even clarified THIS IS OFFICIAL. In very contemptuous way to boot.
Unless a rule clarification is provided in my native language, I'm not recognizing it as official. I don't care what some dude on Facebook says - it's madness to think they can get away with this by using a limited social media avenue to clarify the intent of their rules. If I were you, I would immediately begin ignoring it as a source and you'll soon find GW sticks to their traditional methods - printed (and translated) FAQs and errata. Thankfully they've done so perfectly in this case, so there's no issue going forward.
As usual, though, if your opponent doesn't agree then you'll need a tiebreaker. I suggest both players stand on their heads until one falters and falls.
auticus wrote: Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?
A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.
So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.
Yuck. Suppose it further justifies battalion points increases across the board + the need to include them if at all possible. Annnd sorry armies without battalions / books
Mr Morden wrote: I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....
DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!
Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?
A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.
Yeah, looks like they may have decided to change it after the Core Rules were published. I find the bolded part interesting, though. I'm assuming that means different battle plans will use different deployment methods, so in some cases, the first to finish always gets to choose, but in others, we'll roll of for who chooses. In the latter case, it'll probably say that ties go to the first to finish.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....
DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!
And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.
It's pretty weird that some stuff you can buy right now is suggested to be on a bigger base. I'm wondering those discrepancies are a preview of what is to come.
I am fricking overjoyed at seeing the Idoneth points reverted on the Leviadon and Aspect of the Storm.
I would have liked to see the Morrsarr retain their 20pt drop and the Warscroll Battalion price changes(+ and + on Akhelian and Namarti Corps - on the Council) remain the same.
It's always funny when they do an AoSFAQ and the number of 'changes' or 'new rules' that people talk about which were always how it was done.
auticus wrote: And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.
Just bring a cutout of the right size and put your model on it, seriously...
Lemondish wrote: Unless a rule clarification is provided in my native language, I'm not recognizing it as official. I don't care what some dude on Facebook says - it's madness to think they can get away with this by using a limited social media avenue to clarify the intent of their rules. If I were you, I would immediately begin ignoring it as a source and you'll soon find GW sticks to their traditional methods - printed (and translated) FAQs and errata. Thankfully they've done so perfectly in this case, so there's no issue going forward.
As usual, though, if your opponent doesn't agree then you'll need a tiebreaker. I suggest both players stand on their heads until one falters and falls.
Oh I'm in agreement but I can't decide to ignore what's official and what's not in tournaments. And of course in this case if I were to ignore it I would have been hampstrunging my game a lot as I couldn't have teleported my boyz outside deployment zone in turn 1(though albeit I went for fluffy "CHAAAARGE!" option rather than spread my army in multiple places hiding but that's not orky and scenario was so against orks it was foregone conclusion anyway) so I had vested interest trying to get official rules actually used.
But how many other official clarifications and changes I have missed...That's the issue with this their new "FB can contain official rules and clarifications" policy is. I don't even KNOW what are most up to date official rules and I would assume I'm above average in that regard. Many casual players don't follow things as closely as I and as shown here not even all tournament players(which generally indicates higher than average following of rules) follow every FB post.
This policy sucks. The GW really needs to backpedal on that and have all official stuff in one easy to find location. Yet I get accused of pointless complaining on this issue. But I have already ran into downside of this policy which ruined mood in one game already when GW could have sorted it out properly lot easier and quicker than what they did actually...
Mr Morden wrote: I thought this was a big one and needs adding to 40k....
DICE ROLLS
Q: Some abilities allow me to re-roll a successful (or
unsuccessful) roll. When this is the case, is the success or failure
based on the roll before or after any modifiers are applied?
A: Re-rolls happen before any modifiers are applied,
so the success or failure will always be based on the
unmodified roll. Note that, when an ability says you can
re-roll a failed roll, you may want to consider the effect
that modifiers may have before deciding to re-roll the
dice. For example, if a roll succeeds on a 4+ and you
have a +1 modifier, you probably don’t want to re-roll
‘failed’ rolls of 3, because they will become successful
after the modifier is applied!
Has been in 8th ed 40k since the beginning.
Weird though. In 40k the last part would be irrelevant as you end up rerolling those 3's much to players annoyance having to reroll what would succeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: And as expected the twitterverse and facebooks are full of people gnashing their teeth at the basing chart getting angry because they feel that they have to rebase their armies now even though it says you don't have to. Even more funny are things that just came out apparently being on the wrong base already.
Of course GW's "suggestions" tends to be in practice iron hard rules. On 40k side "the rule of 3 is just a suggestion". well gee. It's suggestion but if you don't enjoy playing 40k solitaire you use it.
And having to eyeball 25mm square as 32mm round isn't easy.
Of course GW's "suggestions" tends to be in practice iron hard rules. On 40k side "the rule of 3 is just a suggestion". well gee. It's suggestion but if you don't enjoy playing 40k solitaire you use it.
And having to eyeball 25mm square as 32mm round isn't easy.
Yeah because tournaments dictate all of our games (seriously). Fortunately for me I am an event organizer and I can make the call that this won't be enforced, and that you can just use what bases your models came with.
Having to rebase every X years willy nilly is not happening for me as a modeler. I spend time on my bases.
Its one of the criteria I use to determine if I'm going to some other event as well. If that rule is enforced. If so, I just don't attend.
Our local games here are also surprisingly lax on the subject (no one is forcing anyone to rebase) though our couple hard core tournament players passive aggressively insinuate you are cheating if you don't rebase.
I expect some of these base sizes to be corrected sooner rather than later. For example Ogors, Dragons (like five different base sizes on the same/very similar models), and models that are supposed to use one size when they actually come with another size. They put out so much material at once with all the FAQs that I'm not surprised so many errors slipped through.
auticus wrote: Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?
A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.
So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.
Yuck. Suppose it further justifies battalion points increases across the board + the need to include them if at all possible. Annnd sorry armies without battalions / books
- Salvage
Well magootkin has a battletome and every batallion in the entire book is fething garbage, so toss us in that pile to.
Yeah I'm not really interested in paying a ton of points for half useful battalions. If I really want a command point I'll just shell 50 points for it instead of 220 lol.
It really blows because EVERY one of the realm of life artifacts are saw are so fluffly, and fun, cinematic and have amazing potential for conversions. But with items like the endless gift, witherstave, carrion dirge and so on (obviously maggotkin specific here) they wont ever get used because the only way to get artefacts is to use woefully mediocre battalions.
auticus wrote: A: The player that first finished setting up their army always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the battleplan that is being used.
Yeah, looks like they may have decided to change it after the Core Rules were published. I find the bolded part interesting, though. I'm assuming that means different battle plans will use different deployment methods, so in some cases, the first to finish always gets to choose, but in others, we'll roll of for who chooses. In the latter case, it'll probably say that ties go to the first to finish.
Waitasec! What if the matched play batteplans (that's what the scenarios are called, right?) have a caveat about rolling off per the RAW? I've never read them, so maybe that's a matched play thing that we / I don't know about? Grasping at straws here but still, that's a potential out right there ...
auticus wrote:
And having to eyeball 25mm square as 32mm round isn't easy.
Our local games here are also surprisingly lax on the subject (no one is forcing anyone to rebase) though our couple hard core tournament players passive aggressively insinuate you are cheating if you don't rebase.
Frankly the biggest issue I've found is using square bases (20 square vs 25 round; 25 square vs 32 round), as they allow far more models to attak than proper up-sized rounds by being able to align flush with each other, and without templates there's no incentive not to do this. Likewise using 25 bases instead of 32 bases for 1" weapon infantry. My bloodletters, with their preposterous 1" hellblades (I still can't get over this, look at the models GW!), get double the attaks if they're on smaller bases ... which feels so wrong that it's one of the reasons I'm completely rebuilding my old metal Khorne bois in shiny plastic
Also just saying it now, I'm still gonna upbase my heroes. It's cooler and has little effect - I guess slightly larger auras? While also pushing their underlings out of base contact at times and being slightly larger targets for ranged assassination? Whatever, it looks cool.
Mymearan wrote:I expect some of these base sizes to be corrected sooner rather than later. For example Ogors, Dragons (like five different base sizes on the same/very similar models), and models that are supposed to use one size when they actually come with another size. They put out so much material at once with all the FAQs that I'm not surprised so many errors slipped through.
Speaking of Ogres, still probably going with 40mm, again for looks vs their 50mm heroes, which should have minimal effect on game play (1" weapons can't reach across either base, 2" weapons can already reach across 1 base worth but not 2). And as noted I can just magnetize on 50mm MDF bases underneath the minis if it's a problem for somebody.
auticus wrote:Yeah I'm not really interested in paying a ton of points for half useful battalions. If I really want a command point I'll just shell 50 points for it instead of 220 lol.
Drop limitation and the bonus artefact seem bigger buffs than the CP personally. But even then I'm on the fence about shoehorning in the meh battalions my red daemons fit into.
Mega quote storm aside, I think it's worth saying that as a Count As player I'm a big proponent of using proper bases, however as a Counts As player I'm also pretty dedicated to the Rule of Cool. There are times proper basing has enough of an impact to override cool / whatever reasons people are still on squares (seriously just use an adapter or magnetize to MDF rounds underneath, it's easy and cheap), but in large part I'm just thrilled that some people still paint + base their dudes.
I knew it was coming, still, not rebasing my hag queens, the wolf mounts aren't going to be able to balance on 25mms anyway.
Overall, I'm fine with asking my opponent to indulge the different sized base, and be prepared to subtract the difference in radius to the range of their spells and abilities.
And of course, will have an alt model ready if they aren't cool with it.
Captain Joystick wrote: Overall, I'm fine with asking my opponent to indulge the different sized base, and be prepared to subtract the difference in radius to the range of their spells and abilities.
Ah smart, there's the solution for up-based heroes accidental buff
Captain Joystick wrote: I knew it was coming, still, not rebasing my hag queens, the wolf mounts aren't going to be able to balance on 25mms anyway.
Overall, I'm fine with asking my opponent to indulge the different sized base, and be prepared to subtract the difference in radius to the range of their spells and abilities.
And of course, will have an alt model ready if they aren't cool with it.
That's good, because it's precisely what the base chart guidelines suggest you do.
Captain Joystick wrote: I knew it was coming, still, not rebasing my hag queens, the wolf mounts aren't going to be able to balance on 25mms anyway.
Overall, I'm fine with asking my opponent to indulge the different sized base, and be prepared to subtract the difference in radius to the range of their spells and abilities.
And of course, will have an alt model ready if they aren't cool with it.
I'd suggest cutting out some cardboard "templates" for different base sizes that you can slide under the model when a precise measurement is required.
Typically what I do is if I'm on a smaller base or a square I give my opponent the extra few mm when a model is out of range to fight or what have you.
Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.
By the same credit, these rules aren’t compulsory – if you’d rather leave yourself the flexibility of not fighting for a specific Stormhost, you can do so!
In fact, these rules are a bit of a treat for those who like to home-brew their own Stormhosts and characters, allowing you to further distinguish your army to represent how YOU think it should play. If your Stormcast Eternals are cerebral, patient and tactical, you could use the Tempest Lords rules, while the Celestial Warbringers rules are perfect for those looking to make the most out of magic.
auticus wrote: Q: Does the player that first finished setting up their army
always choose who has the first turn in the first battle round, or
is it only if the roll-off is a tie?
A: The player that first finished setting up their army
always chooses who has the first turn in the first battle
round, unless specifically noted otherwise in the
battleplan that is being used.
So as we can see, the warhammer community page was correct, and despite it being clear rules as written, it was actually the way we feared it would be. That if you set up first, you still get to choose.
Yuck. Suppose it further justifies battalion points increases across the board + the need to include them if at all possible. Annnd sorry armies without battalions / books
- Salvage
Well magootkin has a battletome and every batallion in the entire book is fething garbage, so toss us in that pile to.
Fafnir wrote: At least we get the Plaguetouched Warband.
There's a lot of angst over on the TGA Khorne thread about this Q+A and its impact on the Everchosen battalions:
Q: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units, for example)? A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion. In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle).
I don't know about the Nurgle books, but basically the takeaway was that a Bloodmarked Warband has to be CHAOS (or EVERCHOSEN? I don't know) not KHORNE, so no blood tithe and what not.
"A battalion can still be part of any allegiance that all its units have on their warscrolls."
It's in all the 2018 battletomes, I assume it's somewhere in the core rules as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding base size, all the tournaments I have attended in the last two years have mandated the models be on the correctly sized rounds. They did it because players can, and were, utilizing square bases for advantage (and it can be a big advantage). I even did it in the GHB1 days; it was foolish to willingly gimp myself by putting things on larger round bases. I'm glad that tournaments have since moved to mandatory resizing. Even models on squares can be blue tack'd to the correct rounds then just pulled off after the tournaments.
I don't know about the Nurgle books, but basically the takeaway was that a Bloodmarked Warband has to be CHAOS (or EVERCHOSEN? I don't know) not KHORNE, so no blood tithe and what not.
- Salvage
Yeah, they'll have to have the Everchosen allegiance. Which, honestly, kind of makes sense - it's supposed to specifically represent a Khornate warband sworn to Archaon, so you could understand why they might be a little less favoured in the eyes of their god.
Easy answer for measuring from bases. Just start measuring from the center of the mini. Add half of what ever is suppose to be the proper base. Problem solved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding base size, all the tournaments I have attended in the last two years have mandated the models be on the correctly sized rounds. They did it because players can, and were, utilizing square bases for advantage (and it can be a big advantage). I even did it in the GHB1 days; it was foolish to willingly gimp myself by putting things on larger round bases. I'm glad that tournaments have since moved to mandatory resizing. Even models on squares can be blue tack'd to the correct rounds then just pulled off after the tournaments.
The problem with the GW base size list is that it's just sometimes another base size as they are showing on pictures (e.g. ogors are on 40 in pics, but the list tells us 50) or another size than they are supllied with (e.g. Harbinger of Decay comes with an oval base but is shown in pics on 60mm round and the list also tells us 60mm round).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding base size, all the tournaments I have attended in the last two years have mandated the models be on the correctly sized rounds. They did it because players can, and were, utilizing square bases for advantage (and it can be a big advantage). I even did it in the GHB1 days; it was foolish to willingly gimp myself by putting things on larger round bases. I'm glad that tournaments have since moved to mandatory resizing. Even models on squares can be blue tack'd to the correct rounds then just pulled off after the tournaments.
The problem with the GW base size list is that it's just sometimes another base size as they are showing on pictures (e.g. ogors are on 40 in pics, but the list tells us 50) or another size than they are supllied with (e.g. Harbinger of Decay comes with an oval base but is shown in pics on 60mm round and the list also tells us 60mm round).
That is something I hope is just a mistake and they will fix.
Yup plaguetouched in a nurgle army is dead. And its not because of what Ninth posted.. its because of re-working what is counted as allies.
Ninth, I KNOW that line "A battalion can still be part of any allegiance that all its units have on their warscrolls." is in the magootkin book somehwere....but cant find it. Do you have a clue where it is printed?
It's in the description for warscrolls, right before the warscrolls themselves. You're right, it isn't in LoN, but it's in Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
So to repeat, Plaguetouched Warband does NOT have to be an ally, as it can explicitely be included in Nurgle since all of the units within it are Nurgle. I guess you could technically treat it as an ally if you wanted to, but there's no point in that.
And once more, the gods hungrily seek the souls of the fallen for their own purposes – be it to raise them high as new Stormcast Eternals, to recreate races long lost in the world-that-was, or simply to create an army of the dead that will outnumber all the living and bring the eternal order that Nagash craves.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's in the description for warscrolls, right before the warscrolls themselves. You're right, it isn't in LoN, but it's in Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
So to repeat, Plaguetouched Warband does NOT have to be an ally, as it can explicitely be included in Nurgle since all of the units within it are Nurgle. I guess you could technically treat it as an ally if you wanted to, but there's no point in that.
I want to believe in this with all my heart.. but I have a feeling that the new rule book overrides the battletome? Its very very frustrating to me that it is this difficult to figure out whether an army is valid or not.
Forgeworld warscrolls are up. Exalted great unclean one is a nice looking paper weight now.
Marleymoo wrote: Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Aelves.
Morathi, Malerion, Teclis and Tyrion are all about this.
auticus wrote: Exalted Great Unclean One is basically trash now. Which might explain why he was given a summoning discount.
I should have seen this coming. PTWB gets ripped from my arms, so I make a list completely revolving around the EGUO last night. Wake up and its functionally invalid. feth this earth.
what is this nonsense? Ogors, Leadbelchers and Ironguts in the pictures on their warscrolls are clearly on 40mm bases. Thats the studios army! I'm not rebasing mine thats for sure.
TGA ogre peeps are currently barraging GW with emails about how 50mm is bad and wrong (badrong), along with sundry other basing things that go against bases models actually ship with + what studio armies have shown us. They say they're amenable to input, so here's hoping ... but in the meantime yea, don't sweat it. 40mm is the obvious answer.
Marleymoo wrote: Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Tomb Kings would be part of the Undead. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing fleshed out Khemrians (literally) being brought in to the game. Only, which plane would they be from?
Commodus Leitdorf wrote:what is this nonsense? Ogors, Leadbelchers and Ironguts in the pictures on their warscrolls are clearly on 40mm bases. Thats the studios army! I'm not rebasing mine thats for sure.
Boss Salvage wrote:TGA ogre peeps are currently barraging GW with emails about how 50mm is bad and wrong (badrong), along with sundry other basing things that go against bases models actually ship with + what studio armies have shown us. They say they're amenable to input, so here's hoping ... but in the meantime yea, don't sweat it. 40mm is the obvious answer.
auticus wrote:I'm also seeing a lot of people trying to enforce their base guidelines being mandatory.
kodos wrote:Or the document is future proof and we have to expect new models and/or repacks sooner or later
Marleymoo wrote: Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Tomb Kings would be part of the Undead. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing fleshed out Khemrians (literally) being brought in to the game. Only, which plane would they be from?
I've said it before: vampires. Since Neferata apparently recreated her former homeland as Nulahmia in Shyish, I'd expect her to have recreated the vampiric court she used to surround herself with as well. So elite Pharaoh-Vampire models/units, and zombie/mortal thrall units for chaff.
Maybe give all vampires more than 1 Wound and the ability to wound friendly mortals to recover lost Wounds?
Marleymoo wrote: Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Tomb Kings would be part of the Undead. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing fleshed out Khemrians (literally) being brought in to the game. Only, which plane would they be from?
I didn't know how badly I wanted this thing, until now.
I would drop a stupid amount of cash on a lore-follow-up-to-Tomb-Kings, army, rules unseen.
Marleymoo wrote:
Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Wouldn't that be the Seraphon? Don't they conjure or what ever it their units that are actually from the Old World? Maybe now they want to keep them here permently instead of being sent back.
Marleymoo wrote:
Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Wouldn't that be the Seraphon? Don't they conjure or what ever it their units that are actually from the Old World? Maybe now they want to keep them here permently instead of being sent back.
That's a common misconception that's been cleared up recently. When a Slann first conjures a Seraphon, he's remembering a creature from the Old World. After that, the Seraphon is a permanent physical being. They don't just dissipate after the battle.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's in the description for warscrolls, right before the warscrolls themselves. You're right, it isn't in LoN, but it's in Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
So to repeat, Plaguetouched Warband does NOT have to be an ally, as it can explicitely be included in Nurgle since all of the units within it are Nurgle. I guess you could technically treat it as an ally if you wanted to, but there's no point in that.
I want to believe in this with all my heart.. but I have a feeling that the new rule book overrides the battletome? Its very very frustrating to me that it is this difficult to figure out whether an army is valid or not.
Forgeworld warscrolls are up. Exalted great unclean one is a nice looking paper weight now.
I've read all the rules in the core book and seen nothing that invalidates that. Unless it's hidden in the GHB somewhere (didn't see it in there either but haven't gotten a chance to really read through it in detail yet) Plaguetouched for Nurgle is still in the clear. Someone could argue that the other three need ally points but they would have to base that on the rule in Nurgle, DoK, Idoneth, and I suspect Stormcast & Nighthaunt not being valid outside those allegiances.
Future War Cultist wrote: Would ‘fleshed out’ (ha!) Khemrians be the still living humans of Shyish? Such a thing exists yes?
Egyptian vampires is another unique idea. Really good!
There are quite a few living mortals in Shyish - well there were before the Necroquake not sure now but I presume there are - Neferata and co would be pissed if they are all gone.
Egyptian Vampires - er all the original vampires in warhammer were quasi Egyptian
Since Neferata apparently recreated her former homeland as Nulahmia in Shyish, I'd expect her to have recreated the vampiric court she used to surround herself with as well.
She did indeed populated with vampires and mortals
And the Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass has disappeared
Makes sense, it's an event exclusive and will come with the proper base?
Probably (assuming that is the event exclusive model), but it's still odd that it made the list in the first place...
If I had to guess, it was something that they meant to have as a generically available model first but the event model is going to be coming out first.
There's definitely some stuff they've held back lately.
Spoiler:
I haven't found this eel yet, and I bought at least 1 of everything except Lotann for Idoneth. Whatever kit it's from is at a point where they had promo pictures of it.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: ^ It's probably in lotann's kit then. It is advertised as having a lot of extra fishes for basing stuff. Or you could have just missed it.
Lotann, the Soul Warden, has nothing in his kit that is not for him or his Octarr Familiar. It's not in the Eidolon of Mathlann kit(this is the one that has extra basing stuff). It's not in the Leviadon kit. It's not in the Thralls, Reavers, Eels, or any kit. I've been slowly filling the box for my Gloomtide Shipwreck with the basing critters so that I can 'show' the threat/buff range for the Gloomtide with models rather than just having to put down dice or whatever.
So excited for tomorrow morning!!
Same here. I've got a game scheduled next week and Path to Glory starting Sunday. My Idoneth are getting their first real test I feel.
And the Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass has disappeared
Makes sense, it's an event exclusive and will come with the proper base?
Probably (assuming that is the event exclusive model), but it's still odd that it made the list in the first place...
If I had to guess, it was something that they meant to have as a generically available model first but the event model is going to be coming out first.
There's definitely some stuff they've held back lately.
Spoiler:
I haven't found this eel yet, and I bought at least 1 of everything except Lotann for Idoneth. Whatever kit it's from is at a point where they had promo pictures of it.
Hmm, that's a very strange image. The cropping around the front half of that fish is very choppy and it looks like there's a full clip between it's front and back half about midway between the head and coral that's been blended over. And the back half of the body looks exactly like the eel in the kit.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hmm, that's a very strange image. The cropping around the front half of that fish is very choppy and it looks like there's a full clip between it's front and back half about midway between the head and coral that's been blended over. And the back half of the body looks exactly like the eel in the kit.
It's really quite funny. The reason I keep harping on it though is that the base looks remarkably empty for a Reaver...plus everything else about it.
Spoiler:
Compare the two.
Aside from the fin at the back being the same and there being a two+one piece of coral, there's not a whole heck of a lot that is comparable between the two IMO.
I, personally, have been thinking that it's from some kind of monster riding character kit that they weren't able to release with the book so we'll get it later this year with some stuff for other armies too.
Ironically, that is where Nagash and his Vampires came from, and those who still have the old Khemrian models could possibly use them as such. Remember, that all the Tomb Kings were under Nagash's plane when the Age of Sigmar started, so...
Had another game. Same armies as last week, more or less. So Daughters of khaine for me and legions of nagash for my opponent. Went with the endless spells again, he took the chains and I took geminids. 1000 total
Definitely the opposite of the first game. I cast geminids twice and he cast the chains once (compared to zero spells going off the first game). Chains slowed all of my units from turns 3-5 and did mortal wounds 3 times which was super frustrating. Geminids won me the game. I had cast them at bottom of turn 3 and moved across his skeletons, vampire and necromancer doing 7 wounds to the skeles, 2 to the vampire and 0 to the necro )he bounced some to the skeles); he won priority and decided to take it so he could revive and buff the skeletons, only for me to move the spells right back over his characters and do 5 wounds to each and both died. No more death buffs, recycle units, spells or aura of making it harder to wound; a very good round of combat vs morghasts ensued and I finished him off on 5.
So yea depending on the spells and positioning I can definitely appreciate giving away a double turn to not get chewed up by some
It's interesting, because while "double turn" generally means any double turn, half the time I see it people are using it to refer to the round 1-2 double. Certainly I think a good 75% of the problem with double turns lies there rather than later rounds.
Marleymoo wrote:
Recreate races long lost in the world-that-was? Who could that be, Brettonians, Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs maybe? What do you folks think?
Wouldn't that be the Seraphon? Don't they conjure or what ever it their units that are actually from the Old World? Maybe now they want to keep them here permently instead of being sent back.
That's a common misconception that's been cleared up recently. When a Slann first conjures a Seraphon, he's remembering a creature from the Old World. After that, the Seraphon is a permanent physical being. They don't just dissipate after the battle.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's interesting, because while "double turn" generally means any double turn, half the time I see it people are using it to refer to the round 1-2 double. Certainly I think a good 75% of the problem with double turns lies there rather than later rounds.
Well to be fair he got a double turn from turn 2 to 3, with our first turns mainly consisting of cautiously moving up, buffing and casting endless spells. So it was pretty much the second turn of stuff happening
Wargames with alternate turns often have one or two early turns where a lot of damage is dealt out. If you thus secure a double turn in the early couple of turns then you gain the ability to push home on the engagement and really do damage at the most critical time; to also push forward and secure objectives etc... Ergo you get to really stamp your position on the game and put your opponent fully on an up-hill struggle.
In theory double turns nearer the end of the game are entering closer to the potential "clean up" period where a winner might already be clear; or where early choices have already resulted in a game state where there aren't many ways out of it barring the luck of the dice.
So yes a double turn early is generally going to benefit people far more so than one near the end of the game (unless the game is on a knife-edge).
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's in the description for warscrolls, right before the warscrolls themselves. You're right, it isn't in LoN, but it's in Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
So to repeat, Plaguetouched Warband does NOT have to be an ally, as it can explicitely be included in Nurgle since all of the units within it are Nurgle. I guess you could technically treat it as an ally if you wanted to, but there's no point in that.
I want to believe in this with all my heart.. but I have a feeling that the new rule book overrides the battletome? Its very very frustrating to me that it is this difficult to figure out whether an army is valid or not.
Forgeworld warscrolls are up. Exalted great unclean one is a nice looking paper weight now.
I've read all the rules in the core book and seen nothing that invalidates that. Unless it's hidden in the GHB somewhere (didn't see it in there either but haven't gotten a chance to really read through it in detail yet) Plaguetouched for Nurgle is still in the clear. Someone could argue that the other three need ally points but they would have to base that on the rule in Nurgle, DoK, Idoneth, and I suspect Stormcast & Nighthaunt not being valid outside those allegiances.
Unfortunately, p6 of the designer commentary complicates things for the Everchosen warbands:
"Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle)."
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's in the description for warscrolls, right before the warscrolls themselves. You're right, it isn't in LoN, but it's in Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
So to repeat, Plaguetouched Warband does NOT have to be an ally, as it can explicitely be included in Nurgle since all of the units within it are Nurgle. I guess you could technically treat it as an ally if you wanted to, but there's no point in that.
I want to believe in this with all my heart.. but I have a feeling that the new rule book overrides the battletome? Its very very frustrating to me that it is this difficult to figure out whether an army is valid or not.
Forgeworld warscrolls are up. Exalted great unclean one is a nice looking paper weight now.
I've read all the rules in the core book and seen nothing that invalidates that. Unless it's hidden in the GHB somewhere (didn't see it in there either but haven't gotten a chance to really read through it in detail yet) Plaguetouched for Nurgle is still in the clear. Someone could argue that the other three need ally points but they would have to base that on the rule in Nurgle, DoK, Idoneth, and I suspect Stormcast & Nighthaunt not being valid outside those allegiances.
Unfortunately, p6 of the designer commentary complicates things for the Everchosen warbands:
"Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle)."
I know, that's the bit that started the line of discussion. The part I'm quoting makes it so that a battalion filled with only Nurgle units can be included in Nurgle allegiance. The battalion itself isn't an ally anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: A few of the celeb GT players are saying that plague touched is dead dead dead as well.
TBF these are the guys playtesting the new points so I think there's generous evidence that, in places, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Also random question; did you know forests block line of sight now?
Designer commentary says that, but the Maggotkin book specifically says that if every model in your army is rocking a keyword, you don't have to count as allied.
Since the designer's commentary also rules that specific -> general, and there's nothing in the new GHB that says anything about new battalion restrictions, I'm going to side with the Plaguetouched Warband being alive and well until GW says otherwise.
So fun thing I found in the GH2018, any Citadel woods (including Wild Woods) have a nifty new ability that makes them block line of sight.
If the model/unit your trying to attack/is attacking (shooting and magic mostly) and you have to draw over 1" across a Wood terrain piece that unit is considered block for line of sight. Unless the unit flys.
I already have a feeling they'll be doing well with their spell and battalion based summoning. There's a once per game recycle on dryads or TRs from oakenbrow and an every turn on a 5+ recycle on the same from heartwood.
You can completely manipulate drops since you have 2 battalions and you snag 2 command points as well; dryads are dirt cheap for 30, tree revenants are always a threat with objective snagging, and hunters are pretty good in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually having looked at it, the wyldwoods don't get it at all. Citadel wood =/= wyldwood
I can see why you think that, but the warscrolls say "The following scenery rules are used for these models" and then specifically list the rules. They don't even share the Citadel Wood Keyword.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: I can see why you think that, but the warscrolls say "The following scenery rules are used for these models" and then specifically list the rules. They don't even share the Citadel Wood Keyword.
Okay, and? A Warscroll Battalion lists the contents and gives you a set of special rules--do you think that this is a different situation?
Realistically, this is a thing that should get a look at for FAQs. But as it stands--you cannot argue that a Sylvaneth Wyldwood is not composed of Citadel Woods. Them not having the keyword means nothing.
Also random question; did you know forests block line of sight now?
Yep. So many of our houserules that we were using and taking **** for houseruling are now official rules lol. I love it.
And for our events sylvaneth wildwoods will definitely be counted as citadel forests and also block line of sight. Its daft to try to make them not because they don't have a citadel wild wood keyword. IMO.
Sure they're composed of those models. But the warscroll is unequivocal in what the rules are for that. Battalions are covered in their own rules. A wyldwood isn't a battalion; it doesn't conference additional abilities.
I do think it needs a faq, and wouldn't be surprised if they implemented the Los block into it, but raw they don't until they either add the rule or make it a battalion. Imagine that, getting even more battalions as sylvaneth
NinthMusketeer wrote: Agreed; it's pretty cut and dry that RAW that is the case, RAI is a bit unclear however.
I want to believe but if ghb18 says all units in a battalion whose allegiance is different then the rest of army allegiance count against allies limit...how can you take a ptwb where all units in it are under 400 points?
So in other fun news;
-Lord Kroak (4 spells)
-General (+1 summon point)
-Astrolith Bearer (+d3 summon points
-Chronomantic Cogs (+1 spell)
-Balewind Vortex (+1 spell)
=d3+19 summoning points a turn!
Have fun non-Seraphon!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Agreed; it's pretty cut and dry that RAW that is the case, RAI is a bit unclear however.
I want to believe but if ghb18 says all units in a battalion whose allegiance is different then the rest of army allegiance count against allies limit...how can you take a ptwb where all units in it are under 400 points?
Fafnir was kind enough to quote it above, but I'm not sure how I was unclear previously.
Yes your right that line exists.. it says you can still use it. But the new rules state ALL the units in the ptwb count toward your ally cap. How are you going to write a ptwb list using only 400 points?
NinthMusketeer wrote: So in other fun news;
-Lord Kroak (4 spells)
-General (+1 summon point)
-Astrolith Bearer (+d3 summon points
-Chronomantic Cogs (+1 spell)
-Balewind Vortex (+1 spell)
=d3+19 summoning points a turn!
Have fun non-Seraphon!
If you want to start generating on turn 1 you'd need to pay 450+160 (2 star priests)+ 160 (astroth bearer) + 100 spells) for a total of 870pts. That's a lot of points. Granted if you're ready to start turn 2 generating those points then you can reduce it by 160pts. It's still a lot of points to not summon anything big in a single turn.
Summoning is strong but as a supplement to an army. If you build a list on summoning as the primary focus then youre going to have trouble since you're talking turn 3 before anything big is useful. This isn't mostly free summoning like 40k was from hidden dudes the cost 60pts.
I think the new FAQ overwrites that battletome's ruling. It's pretty clear now when they say a battalion is from a different allegiance, then all units from that battalion count against allies, including the battalion's cost itself.
In other news, how do we know things are case of "Warscroll > Core rules" in terms for how special rules work. We know Kroak could use his damage spell 3 times cause it says he can, despite there being a rule saying you normally can't. But what about ripperdactyl's their warscroll allows for generating extra attacks, but a core rule says you can't. Would this be a case of the warscroll is right, and the ripperdactyl could keep generating attacks?
It used to be that the matched play overrode the warscroll. Now it seems to be the other way around.
Additionally on summoning - having gotten a chance to play with it a lot now the last ten days or so... its not that big a deal if your opponents are equally powergaming alongside you.
If you show up with a summons list and your opponent does not have a tournament powered list, you will have a gross advantage from the summoning.
So from the perspective of powegaming tournament play summoning is a minor advantage.
From the perspective of the rest of the game that is not tournament play, things like the seraphon battery-summoning is going to be just as detrimental to the game as mortal wound spamming casuals off the table is.
From that I'd say... summoning in 2.0 is a fail for the overall health of the system still for the playerbase as a whole because its going to drive people away still. Even if its not as bad as 1.0 or 40k 7th.
I agree that summoning can be really harsh. I played against stormcast and I didn't even optimize my list for summoning. I didn't take 6 slaanesh heroes, only taking 4, and I didn't herald spam, which is supposed to be the new hotness due to weight of attacks and how easily they can make back their points.
But I gained about ~40 depravity points as we ruled it in our store that spells cast by Slaanesh heroes and mortal wounds done to Slaanesh heroes cause depravity. We based this off of that Mortal wounds are wounds for rules purposes
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: Yes your right that line exists.. it says you can still use it. But the new rules state ALL the units in the ptwb count toward your ally cap. How are you going to write a ptwb list using only 400 points?
The points don't matter. The battalion is not an ally. I don't know how else to say that.
But is not the plague touched warband an everchosen battalion? That seems like a clear contradiction with the faq that came out after the book. I would say TOs would have to decide on that if they want to go with that ruling.
Fafnir wrote: "A battalion can still be part of any allegiance that all its units have on their warscrolls"
-Maggotkin of Nurgle, pg. 76 (and others)
The FAQ says the units in an allied battalion must be taken from allied points. The rule above says that the Plaguetouched Warband -will not be an allied battalion-. I'm honestly confused here because I don't know how else to say it.
The rule that units in allied battalions must be taken from allies does not apply because the Plaguetouched Warband is not an ally in a Nurgle army.
If TO's want to house rule otherwise that's fine, but it is a house rule. There is zero room for interpretation on what the RAW situation is.
So noticed reading the rules that it looks like declaring a realm only gets you the artifacts from that realm. The spells/command traits are dependent on where the actual battle is being fought (i.e. if the realm of battle rules are being used). So that makes me feel better about banishment.
Hulksmash wrote: So noticed reading the rules that it looks like declaring a realm only gets you the artifacts from that realm. The spells/command traits are dependent on where the actual battle is being fought (i.e. if the realm of battle rules are being used). So that makes me feel better about banishment.
I wouldn't worry too to much about the realm specific stuff unless you're playing narrative games or local games. The relics might see some play in tournaments but with how incredibly strong some of them are even compared to book relics, we may well just see them quietly slide to the way-side. I mean...an ethereal VLoZD? Really? Or a Stardrake that's basically immune to mortal wounds?
BomBomHotdog wrote: So fun thing I found in the GH2018, any Citadel woods (including Wild Woods) have a nifty new ability that makes them block line of sight.
If the model/unit your trying to attack/is attacking (shooting and magic mostly) and you have to draw over 1" across a Wood terrain piece that unit is considered block for line of sight. Unless the unit flys.
Oh really? Great news. Hopefully GW adopts this to 40k. TLOS sucks in miniature game where playability is factor. Forest that would block LOS realistically well is rarely not playable with miniatures so compromises has to be made. Which means TLOS breaks up.
Best change ever in AOS for my books. Now hopefully GW is smart enough to bring it to 40k as well.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Sure they're composed of those models. But the warscroll is unequivocal in what the rules are for that. Battalions are covered in their own rules. A wyldwood isn't a battalion; it doesn't conference additional abilities.
I do think it needs a faq, and wouldn't be surprised if they implemented the Los block into it, but raw they don't until they either add the rule or make it a battalion. Imagine that, getting even more battalions as sylvaneth
I hope they won't do that, that would make the wyldwoods to good
Woods blocking line of sight only makes sense. Really they addressed a lot of the nonsensical rules with some rules that are grounded in some form of expectations on "reality" and not just gamey rules for the sake of gamey.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now the wait to see if the big events are going to be using all of the rules or will be excluding the malign spell expansion. This will have a big impact in my area.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now the wait to see if the big events are going to be using all of the rules or will be excluding the malign spell expansion. This will have a big impact in my area.
I am pretty sure that Nova will be using all the spells and realm rules, for better or worse. Depending on how that goes I imagine other big events will adjust accordingly. Requiring a $75 expansion to access all the realm spells and items seems like it could rub folks the wrong way. Endless spells are a bit different in that if you take them in your list, your opponent gets to move some of them as well whether they bought the set or not. The spell lores and items though are potentially problematic, looking at Banishment spell and the ethereal item. I am kinda torn. The one page realm rules in the core book provide one signature spell, one command ability, and a random effect that might not be too bad, but even then a few of the effects can totally destroy someones game. Not saying I don't like it as it may be a restraining mechanism on some of the extreme skew lists, but not likely summoning armies will care. Having witnessed a few games between competitive players using LoN and FEC, summoning is going to be a problem for anyone not also summoning. Who would have guessed.
Yeah. We've been saying that since the day they announced free summoning, and despite some backlash saying wait and see... you are absolutely correct. If you are also not summoning you're going to be at a fair to severe disadvantage (barring you bringing in the mortal wound firehose)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Would you get the digital copy of the core rulebook or the physical one? I would get the physical, but digital for the GHB.
I get physical copies of everything just because my ipad is not easy to navigate during a game.
auticus wrote: Woods blocking line of sight only makes sense. Really they addressed a lot of the nonsensical rules with some rules that are grounded in some form of expectations on "reality" and not just gamey rules for the sake of gamey.
Woods blocking line of sight is fine, but it begs the question of why the hell characters now get the -1 to be hit by ranged attacks when near friendly units if 1" plus of Citadel Woods can be used to completely obscure.
Because not every table will have woods... or if they have a couple woods there is still a whole lot of open space on the table.
Of course as I have stated a billion times, I'm happy with the Look Out Sir compromise (-1 to hit is fairly minor IMO).
Everyone in the army targeting single characters on foot standing in the middle of their army was ... well... very much not cinematic.
I need to dig out the cartoon i saw a few months ago that said "what if lord of the rings played out in the movies like Age of SIgmar rules". It illustrated the point exactly.
The most fun one being Aragorn rallying the troops and then turning to lead the charge and then he's laying there dead wtih 100 orc arrows in him while the rest of his army looks down at his body.
GW said they wanted their systems more cinematic and to play out like their stories, said it several times over the past year, and they finally started delivering that.
We can still fire willy nilly into combats without hurting our own side but other than that the 2.0 changes by adding Look Out Sir and the woods blocking sight etc did a lot here over the past weekend to bring back a half dozen guys that had been waiting for less non-sensical rules and more immersive rules, so I'll chalk that up as a major victory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to the everchosen battalions, this is turning out quite interesting. A lot of the tourney-bros are saying you can't take them anymore and they are now dead on arrival, but here we are saying you can still take them.
I suppose... we'll have to wait and see what the tournament organizers say.
So they've mostly fixed summoning now, but where does it leave spells / abilities that create units? Tzeentch has many spells that create new unit when succesfully cast. Will we have to use reserve points still for those?
auticus wrote: Because not every table will have woods... or if they have a couple woods there is still a whole lot of open space on the table.
People always complain about a "lack of strategy" when it comes to interacting with terrain. It's not my problem that people refuse to put terrain on the board.
Of course as I have stated a billion times, I'm happy with the Look Out Sir compromise (-1 to hit is fairly minor IMO).
I'm not. Not when most ranged units that aren't going to be comprising a huge chunk of your points or Heroes are sitting at 4+/4+ with 0 or -1 Rend and now can be locked into firing at whatever is in 3" of them.
Everyone in the army targeting single characters on foot standing in the middle of their army was ... well... very much not cinematic.
Easy solution: don't stand your characters on foot in the open?
We can still fire willy nilly into combats without hurting our own side but other than that the 2.0 changes by adding Look Out Sir and the woods blocking sight etc did a lot here over the past weekend to bring back a half dozen guys that had been waiting for less non-sensical rules and more immersive rules, so I'll chalk that up as a major victory.
Just so we're clear:
-1 to Hit on Heroes that aren't Monsters(which is a huge chunk of Heroes)
Woods obscuring Line of Sight, completely, if the range measured is at least 1" through a Citadel Wood
Ranged units cannot fire at anything outside of their CC bracket if engaged in combat.
Yeah, yeah, yeah you can "fire willynilly into combats without hurting your own side"--but by that same vein you can lock ranged units from firing outside of their combats by getting in their face.
Easy solution: don't stand your characters on foot in the open?
I've probably played about... three hundred or so games of AOS.
True line of sight means that if your character is not hiding the entire game behind something, he's going to be able to be seen and be shot at.
In the vast majority of my games, heroes get killed trying to move into combat, even if they are directly in the middle of friendly units, from massed missile fire against gunline style armies. They were unequivocally NEVER standing out in the open but were fair game to be shot at while they tried to struggle into combat, and even then were fair game if you could see them even if they were in combat. The MOST unnarrative unimmersive ruleset I've ever played in 30 years.
Having played with these rules pretty much for three years now as they were our houserules, in over 300 games using these as houserules (only a bit more extreme, we had Look Out Sir 4+ passing the wound off to a friendly model, not a -1 to hit) and with terrain blocking line of sight, the missile units STILL performed well, so I already know that the doom and gloom about how missile units are now in this pit of despair and are useless (i hear that phrase a lot the last week or so) are blown up, hyperbolic, and not true.
I'm going to side with narrative immersiveness over gamey game play any day.
The only builds this would seriously hurt are gunlines, and while its just my opinion, gunlines are not fun to face, and should have a drawback. They should most definitely not be so common or easy mode like they've been.
Even in 40k, the army centered around guns, no one wants to face gunlines because they are not fun to play against.
I think they gave a compromise. The changes didn't go as far as I would have had them go, but they are compromise enough to bring some narrative immersion back into the game and at least here its netted a return of a half dozen players over the weekend, with another half dozen considering.
Or... my campaign group grew 150 - 300% because they have rules that make sense again. Win in my opinion. Their new rules coming back to a ground of "reality" or "immersion" are, here anyway, increasing the playerbase many times over.
Hulksmash wrote: Summoning is strong but as a supplement to an army.
That's really how it's feeling, having actually played a game (Triumph & Treachery: Seraphon vs Khorne vs Sylvaneth vs Tzeentch). Wizard-less lizards (it was double bastiladons ) eventually summoned some skinks thanks to their astrolith bearer; Khorne summoned several skull cannons and only didn't summon a 'thirster because he left it at home; Tizz (me) resummoned some garbage screamers at the very end of the game, having finally reached 10 fate points; Sylvaneth blanketed the table in wild woods until he couldn't place any more. At this point I really like Khorne's mechanic, as you passively get points for doing what you want to be doing + having your stuff die and the chart is *very* compact (i.e. good stuff costs low points) compared to say Tizz's ridiculous one, but I also never played with the Blood Tithe chart when it didn't have summoning too, so I literally don't know what I'm giving up. Seraphon summoning seems more like an armchair mathhammer thing than in game powerhouse, though Kroak does feel like he could be a thing. If a 450 point thing
I guess my other comment is that I still get really frustrated playing Sylvaneth, or at least the wild woods. From the "1-3 wild woods" thing (why the range? make it 1 or D3), to all the buffs that the woods give, to how some things extend 1" off them, or 3", or 6", or not at all (just make the template the template and skip all of these extra measuring). Every time I play them I struggle to remember all the different effects - and then learn more that characters give them - play cautiously, get stung anyway by things that reach off the template, and then just have to muscle through the woods anyway because you literally have no choice. Adding no shooting through woods to them a) makes sense and b) makes me hate them even more. Not hate the concept, I think it's cool that the table overgrows when Sylvaneth is there, but hate the inconsistent execution and how amazing these terrain pieces are.
End of tree rant
FWIW the new edition is fine. Not a mindblowing improvement IMO, but enough has changed to make me want to keep trying. I guess Saturday I was reminded of a bunch of things that make me salty about AOS, and I need to play some 1v1 to get a better feel for what's new and what's exciting to me. Playing the local beastclaw's magma dragon is not one of them
The counter to sylvaneth tree spam is always using proper amounts of terrain in the first place and having board coverage.
You can't place wyldwoods too close to other terrain features, with giant ones being pretty much unplaceable on decently covered boards, or against armies that control the table.
Other than casting close to it, there's only 2 other things that make them do damage. Tree Singing and Awaken the Wood, both of which are a bit easier to dispel now that range has gone to 30"
Hulksmash wrote: Summoning is strong but as a supplement to an army.
That's really how it's feeling, having actually played a game (Triumph & Treachery: Seraphon vs Khorne vs Sylvaneth vs Tzeentch). Wizard-less lizards (it was double bastiladons ) eventually summoned some skinks thanks to their astrolith bearer; Khorne summoned several skull cannons and only didn't summon a 'thirster because he left it at home; Tizz (me) resummoned some garbage screamers at the very end of the game, having finally reached 10 fate points; Sylvaneth blanketed the table in wild woods until he couldn't place any more. At this point I really like Khorne's mechanic, as you passively get points for doing what you want to be doing + having your stuff die and the chart is *very* compact (i.e. good stuff costs low points) compared to say Tizz's ridiculous one, but I also never played with the Blood Tithe chart when it didn't have summoning too, so I literally don't know what I'm giving up. Seraphon summoning seems more like an armchair mathhammer thing than in game powerhouse, though Kroak does feel like he could be a thing. If a 450 point thing
I guess my other comment is that I still get really frustrated playing Sylvaneth, or at least the wild woods. From the "1-3 wild woods" thing (why the range? make it 1 or D3), to all the buffs that the woods give, to how some things extend 1" off them, or 3", or 6", or not at all (just make the template the template and skip all of these extra measuring). Every time I play them I struggle to remember all the different effects - and then learn more that characters give them - play cautiously, get stung anyway by things that reach off the template, and then just have to muscle through the woods anyway because you literally have no choice. Adding no shooting through woods to them a) makes sense and b) makes me hate them even more. Not hate the concept, I think it's cool that the table overgrows when Sylvaneth is there, but hate the inconsistent execution and how amazing these terrain pieces are.
End of tree rant
FWIW the new edition is fine. Not a mindblowing improvement IMO, but enough has changed to make me want to keep trying. I guess Saturday I was reminded of a bunch of things that make me salty about AOS, and I need to play some 1v1 to get a better feel for what's new and what's exciting to me. Playing the local beastclaw's magma dragon is not one of them
- Salvage
Was your opponent using all their current errata? I've heard that things like Treelord Wild-wood Summoning has been made to be one per turn, per army now... so its much harder to outright spam them.
To be very clear though, its MOST of those spells are gone. The sylvaneth, for example, have a summon dryad spell still that summons 10 free dryads that is still a spell (it used to summon 2d6 dryads now its just a flat 10)
Easy solution: don't stand your characters on foot in the open?
I've probably played about... three hundred or so games of AOS.
True line of sight means that if your character is not hiding the entire game behind something, he's going to be able to be seen and be shot at.
In the vast majority of my games, heroes get killed trying to move into combat, even if they are directly in the middle of friendly units, from massed missile fire against gunline style armies. They were unequivocally NEVER standing out in the open but were fair game to be shot at while they tried to struggle into combat, and even then were fair game if you could see them even if they were in combat. The MOST unnarrative unimmersive ruleset I've ever played in 30 years.
Then that's on you and your board setups. The tables I play on, there was enough LOS blocking that this wasn't an issue. I struggled a bit, to be honest, using my Wanderers early on before the addition of their Allegiance ability since while there was no "penalty" for shooting while in combat(y'know, other than your pricey shooting troops getting hacked down--things like that), exiting a combat made it a far less fun thing for myself to deal with anyone in CC.
And before Ninth chimes in, I don't expect my ranged units to be able to just totally wreck someone in a single turn. I'd like them to be able to do something to some units without having to burn a once per game ability(Arcane Bodkins) though.
Having played with these rules pretty much for three years now as they were our houserules, in over 300 games using these as houserules (only a bit more extreme, we had Look Out Sir 4+ passing the wound off to a friendly model, not a -1 to hit) and with terrain blocking line of sight, the missile units STILL performed well, so I already know that the doom and gloom about how missile units are now in this pit of despair and are useless (i hear that phrase a lot the last week or so) are blown up, hyperbolic, and not true.
So you literally did not have "these as houserules". Passing a wound off to a friendly model is VERY different to a -1 to hit. Passing a wound off to a friendly model still kills something, potentially, while a -1 to hit means that the wound potentially never happens.
I'm going to side with narrative immersiveness over gamey game play any day.
The only builds this would seriously hurt are gunlines, and while its just my opinion, gunlines are not fun to face, and should have a drawback. They should most definitely not be so common or easy mode like they've been.
You keep talking about these "gunlines" like they're a thing. Show some lists, man. I want to know what people are using that it's a game over in 1 turn.
Because honestly, if the argument is still hinging around Skyfires or Skaven shooting? That's like me saying that summoning is broke because of Nurgle.
Even in 40k, the army centered around guns, no one wants to face gunlines because they are not fun to play against.
By that same vein, in 40k nobody wants to face the all melee spamlists that are in your face turn 1 locking you down. They literally just gave us a beta rule to deal with this.
I think they gave a compromise. The changes didn't go as far as I would have had them go, but they are compromise enough to bring some narrative immersion back into the game and at least here its netted a return of a half dozen players over the weekend, with another half dozen considering.
Or... my campaign group grew 150 - 300% because they have rules that make sense again. Win in my opinion. Their new rules coming back to a ground of "reality" or "immersion" are, here anyway, increasing the playerbase many times over.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but this isn't "reality" or "immersion". It's the cheapest way to to 'balance' things like Skyfires while not actually balancing them.
auticus wrote: To be very clear though, its MOST of those spells are gone. The sylvaneth, for example, have a summon dryad spell still that summons 10 free dryads that is still a spell (it used to summon 2d6 dryads now its just a flat 10)
True that. The question was about Tzeentch, and those are all gone (at least, as far as I can tell/remember). But some other factions' summon spells may be still in place and tweaked.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in our group. We're mostly semi-casual, but one of our group plays Kharadron which may still be a bit of an uphill battle, perhaps even more so with the summoning spam that the Seraphon, Tzeentch, Legion of Nagash/Nighthaunts are going to be throwing out there.
Warhammer fantasy has always been the oppsite of 40k. Its very hard for a pure shooting army to work, just like a pure meele in 40k. Im glad that AoS is going again to a more meele centered meta. I know it sucks for you Kanluwen, but I believe is good for both games to have different feelings.
But to be honest, I play Khorne and destruction jorde with ogres, orcs and goblins, SO im clearly biased towards meele. But my favourite games are against dwarfs. Nothing more epic than my meele horde charging a fortified dwarf position, with artillery fire raining and the epic meele vs the steel wall of the dwarven infantr.
I use "gunline" simply because if you have a mixed list then having a -1 to hit is so minor it shouldn't even be an issue for you. The only people I can see that this negatively impacts in such a way are people running all gunlines.
Missile units still can do quite a bit in the game. They just cannot do it with impunity anymore.
Don't know what to say other than that. If you favor an army that is predominantly missile weapons then like with any wargame that ever existed, you need to examine how to get around the same wargaming constructs that exist in most eveyr game... that being line of sight blocking and having missile units locked in combat. AOS was the outlier... it was literally the only wargame ever that let missile troops not care about anything and just do what they wanted, and now they need screens and the like as well.
And you're right, the 4+ pass off the wound is easier for shooting troops because it at least lets them match their damage output (whcih is why I chose that route) and it was still hammered hard by people hating on it. All I was saying is that missile units were still killing heroes even with our look out sir fairly reliably if they were fielding dedicated gunline armies (where the majority of their models had a ranged attack profile of some kind). -1 to hit is so very minor, and they also have the ability to simply just target the unit for full effect if they want. THERES AN ACTUAL CHOICE TO BE MADE NOW whereas before... why would you never shoot everything possible into the characters? No penalties, can do it if you can see Lord Bob's little finger, why not do it?
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but this isn't "reality" or "immersion". It's the cheapest way to to 'balance' things like Skyfires while not actually balancing them.
In your opinion sure.
I don't agree with your opinion though. These are now rules that to me make a little bit more sense than the nonsense that was the first pass at AOS for the last three years. Its also brought back a ton more of my old players for that very reason.
At this point wer'e just going back and forth over personal preference. The pendulum swang back in my direction this time. Just as I have said for years on this board... the pendulum swings and the rules direction changes every few years. Just as it will swing again in a few years.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:Was your opponent using all their current errata? I've heard that things like Treelord Wild-wood Summoning has been made to be one per turn, per army now... so its much harder to outright spam them.
His Treelord was definitely summoning them every turn, or trying to anyway (4+ roll I think). He explained that there are ~4 ways to summon them, and each way has different rules, then he explained them, but whenever I play against Sylvaneth my eyes glaze over because why isn't this consistent?! But I'll let him know next time I see play him.
Valander wrote:The question was about Tzeentch, and those are all gone (at least, as far as I can tell/remember). But some other factions' summon spells may be still in place and tweaked.
Related, one of the daemonic powers for Tizz is 'Mark of the Conjurer', which gives +1 to summoning spells. I'm still trying to figure out what it actually does in the new edition, as it wasn't errata'd
Valander wrote:The question was about Tzeentch, and those are all gone (at least, as far as I can tell/remember). But some other factions' summon spells may be still in place and tweaked.
Related, one of the daemonic powers for Tizz is 'Mark of the Conjurer', which gives +1 to summoning spells. I'm still trying to figure out what it actually does in the new edition, as it wasn't errata'd
- Salvage
Good catch. It's quite possible either there is still some summoning spell somewhere (I haven't sat with the list and done a warscroll-by-warscroll audit), or they just completely forgot about that one and it's a useless ability now.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:Was your opponent using all their current errata? I've heard that things like Treelord Wild-wood Summoning has been made to be one per turn, per army now... so its much harder to outright spam them.
His Treelord was definitely summoning them every turn, or trying to anyway (4+ roll I think). He explained that there are ~4 ways to summon them, and each way has different rules, then he explained them, but whenever I play against Sylvaneth my eyes glaze over because why isn't this consistent?! But I'll let him know next time I see play him.
Valander wrote:The question was about Tzeentch, and those are all gone (at least, as far as I can tell/remember). But some other factions' summon spells may be still in place and tweaked.
Related, one of the daemonic powers for Tizz is 'Mark of the Conjurer', which gives +1 to summoning spells. I'm still trying to figure out what it actually does in the new edition, as it wasn't errata'd
- Salvage[forest.
]
There's silent communion, which is the treelord ancients ability that works on a 4+.
There's acorn of ages, which is a relic that once per game makes a forest.
There's verdant blessing, which is a spell that goes off on a 6+
Theres metamorphosis, which is alarielles spell; it does a variable amount of mortal wounds on a 4+, killing a unit with it makes a forest.
It's important to note that silent communion requires each wood be set up within 15" and not within 3" of anything else, so that you really don't have a ton of options for new woods after turn 2.
They all have different mechanics because they're all different abilities; usually the harder they are to get off, the less restrictive they are on the placement
Valander wrote:The question was about Tzeentch, and those are all gone (at least, as far as I can tell/remember). But some other factions' summon spells may be still in place and tweaked.
Related, one of the daemonic powers for Tizz is 'Mark of the Conjurer', which gives +1 to summoning spells. I'm still trying to figure out what it actually does in the new edition, as it wasn't errata'd
- Salvage
Good catch. It's quite possible either there is still some summoning spell somewhere (I haven't sat with the list and done a warscroll-by-warscroll audit), or they just completely forgot about that one and it's a useless ability now.
Pass it on up to the FAQ team and see if it gets answered in the FAQ.
1. Silent Communion [Treelord Ancient] - 4+ place a wyldwood every turn, wholly within 24" and 3" away from everything 2. Acorn of Ages [Artefact] - Place a wyldwood within 5", once a game 3. Verdant Blessing [Spell (6)] - Place a wyldwood within 18" 4. Metamorphosis [Alarielle Spell (5)] - 16" nuke, 6-12 dice of 4+ mortal wounds, if unit dies place a wyldwood but 1" away from everything
Commentary: 1. I checked, errata doesn't mention once per game. Mostly they cleaned up the language and extended the range from 15" to 24" 2. Eh, once per game, short range, artefact slot 3. Sweet I can dispel that 4. Holy crap that spell, but sweet I can dispel that - and it may be relevant, as this Sylvaneth dude really wants to run Alarielle, who seems pretty bonkers O_O (I mean, she is a god ...)
Ah so. Happy to see "wholly within" being a thing in AOS / GW verbiage. Very familiar from other games (WMH primarily), the distinction is nice + avoids obnoxious daisy chaining into combat and whatever.
Hulksmash wrote: Summoning is strong but as a supplement to an army.
That's really how it's feeling, having actually played a game (Triumph & Treachery: Seraphon vs Khorne vs Sylvaneth vs Tzeentch). Wizard-less lizards (it was double bastiladons ) eventually summoned some skinks thanks to their astrolith bearer; Khorne summoned several skull cannons and only didn't summon a 'thirster because he left it at home; Tizz (me) resummoned some garbage screamers at the very end of the game, having finally reached 10 fate points; Sylvaneth blanketed the table in wild woods until he couldn't place any more. At this point I really like Khorne's mechanic, as you passively get points for doing what you want to be doing + having your stuff die and the chart is *very* compact (i.e. good stuff costs low points) compared to say Tizz's ridiculous one, but I also never played with the Blood Tithe chart when it didn't have summoning too, so I literally don't know what I'm giving up. Seraphon summoning seems more like an armchair mathhammer thing than in game powerhouse, though Kroak does feel like he could be a thing. If a 450 point thing
I guess my other comment is that I still get really frustrated playing Sylvaneth, or at least the wild woods. From the "1-3 wild woods" thing (why the range? make it 1 or D3), to all the buffs that the woods give, to how some things extend 1" off them, or 3", or 6", or not at all (just make the template the template and skip all of these extra measuring). Every time I play them I struggle to remember all the different effects - and then learn more that characters give them - play cautiously, get stung anyway by things that reach off the template, and then just have to muscle through the woods anyway because you literally have no choice. Adding no shooting through woods to them a) makes sense and b) makes me hate them even more. Not hate the concept, I think it's cool that the table overgrows when Sylvaneth is there, but hate the inconsistent execution and how amazing these terrain pieces are.
End of tree rant
FWIW the new edition is fine. Not a mindblowing improvement IMO, but enough has changed to make me want to keep trying. I guess Saturday I was reminded of a bunch of things that make me salty about AOS, and I need to play some 1v1 to get a better feel for what's new and what's exciting to me. Playing the local beastclaw's magma dragon is not one of them
- Salvage
You and your opponents combined didn’t reach ten spells cast until the end of the game? I suppose when you have that many players who can each try to unblind, that might be, but in a normal game you should reach 10 points in a couple of turns if your opponent is also casting.
Mymearan wrote: You and your opponents combined didn’t reach ten spells cast until the end of the game? I suppose when you have that many players who can each try to unblind, that might be, but in a normal game you should reach 10 points in a couple of turns if your opponent is also casting.
Yea, end game was 11 spells cast I believe? 5 wizards on my side (0 of them LOC), 2 Sylvaneth wizards, none for lizards or kr0n. I shut the trees down, and had some woeful casting rolls, even with +1 on the horrors from the herald's presence, along with a first turn where I was out of range for most spells. In fact I ended up burning most of my destiny dice just to get some spells cast in Turn 3
Galas wrote: Warhammer fantasy has always been the oppsite of 40k. Its very hard for a pure shooting army to work, just like a pure meele in 40k. Im glad that AoS is going again to a more meele centered meta. I know it sucks for you Kanluwen, but I believe is good for both games to have different feelings.
See, but the difference is that there are very few "pure shooting armies" in the game. You can make armies that are pure shooting by ignoring melee units(Stormcast with Judicators, Skyfire Tzeentch, etc) but the only armies that purely were designed around shooting are few and far between. Wanderers were a big one in this regard.
But to be honest, I play Khorne and destruction jorde with ogres, orcs and goblins, SO im clearly biased towards meele. But my favourite games are against dwarfs. Nothing more epic than my meele horde charging a fortified dwarf position, with artillery fire raining and the epic meele vs the steel wall of the dwarven infantr.
The funny part is that I'm absolutely, 100% not against melee getting a big buff. I just don't agree with Auticus' reasoning here. His argument is seemingly centered around people playing on tables with such barren terrain density that they might as well just throw some cardboard cereal boxes on the table and call it a day when it comes to setting up scenery.
Either we needed the terrain obscuring feature(I won't argue that one--I'm personally for it, if only because now I don't have to feel badly about running my Waywatchers anymore) or we needed the -1 to be hit for characters.
SLIGHT RANT AHEAD IN SPOILERS
Spoiler:
We didn't need both, not when coupled with the fact that even a supposedly ranged focused army like Wanderers is sitting on 4+/4+ with 0 Rend on what is supposed to be a 'premiere' archer unit in terms of the lore. Yes, they can get a +1 to hit when no enemies are within 3" of them...but that doesn't fix the issue of Wounding.
Sisters of the Watch(a unit transplanted over from the High Elf side of things and strangely tied to the Waywatcher) are where Glade Guard should be in terms of points and performance(minus their special anti-Chaos arrow rule). Putting the 'Overwatch' on them plus a 3+/3+ would go a long way towards making them supremely interesting--even if the tradeoff is reducing their unit sizes to 5 minimum and capping out at 15 with no benefits for having a certain number.
Yeah, yeah, yeah I get that they're a "legacy" army--however they're also being pumped up exceedingly heavily in the lore. Between them and the Dispossessed, there's a lot of work that needs to be done looking at their ranged units or potentially granting some weird scenery/terrain related rules.
The problem is true line of sight. You can nearly always draw line of sight to pretty much anything you want. And if you're playing at a GW store... you are beholden to GW terrain. And nearly all GW terrain fails at blocking line of sight in any meaningful manner.
auticus wrote: The concept of reserve points are gone. They don't exist anymore.
So these spells work free of charge then? That's pretty good value!
No, all those spells are now gone. There is no "Summon Pink Horrors" spell anymore, for example. The GHB includes the errata that removes all those.
I wasn't talking about the summoning spells but rather spells like the Ogroid's Fireblast which creates a brim for every model slain or the Magister's Bolt of Change turning slain creatures into chaos spawns. Are those free now? It used to be they cost reserve points.
auticus wrote: The concept of reserve points are gone. They don't exist anymore.
So these spells work free of charge then? That's pretty good value!
No, all those spells are now gone. There is no "Summon Pink Horrors" spell anymore, for example. The GHB includes the errata that removes all those.
I wasn't talking about the summoning spells but rather spells like the Ogroid's Fireblast which creates a brim for every model slain or the Magister's Bolt of Change turning slain creatures into chaos spawns. Are those free now? It used to be they cost reserve points.
No points for those, though the Ogroid's spell did change (or at least, it's in magenta in the newest FAQ):
Page 127 – Ogroid Thaumaturge, Fireblast
Change the last sentence to:
‘After the damage has been inflicted, you can set up 1
unit of Brimstone Horrors within 1" of the target; the
number of models set up in the new unit is equal to the
number of mortal wounds inflicted.’
auticus wrote: The concept of reserve points are gone. They don't exist anymore.
So these spells work free of charge then? That's pretty good value!
No, all those spells are now gone. There is no "Summon Pink Horrors" spell anymore, for example. The GHB includes the errata that removes all those.
I wasn't talking about the summoning spells but rather spells like the Ogroid's Fireblast which creates a brim for every model slain or the Magister's Bolt of Change turning slain creatures into chaos spawns. Are those free now? It used to be they cost reserve points.
Any changes to those rules can be found in the appropriate FAQs and Designer's Commentaries.
auticus wrote: The problem is true line of sight. You can nearly always draw line of sight to pretty much anything you want. And if you're playing at a GW store... you are beholden to GW terrain. And nearly all GW terrain fails at blocking line of sight in any meaningful manner.
Which means nothing when you literally have a rule now about obscured.
If I'm playing at a GW store and they have Citadel Woods on the table, any shots going beyond 1" on them no longer work unless one or both units have fly.
In regards to wyldwood summoning/spam, a point I've seen people miss is that all the woods have to be within 1" of each other. If you have three woods each must be within 1" of both the others; you cannot chain them out in a line.
Ok. One or two woods on an entire table are not that big a deal. Are you assuming that tables are like jungles covered in woods?
Our GW store has three wooded terrain pieces for three tables. In total.
You aren't blocking line of sight in any meaningful way. Unless its ok that heroes need to hide behind that piece of wooded terrain all day and do nothing else.
You're talking on a 6x4 table, 3456 square inches of table, a citadel wood covers about 90 square inches of that you'll have line of sight obscurement.
If I have all three of those woods on my one table at the GW store that's roughly 270 square inches of guaranteed obscurement out of a 3456 square inch table.
Pick any table on the internet right now off a google search. There's literally nothing where a hero is going to escape being picked off by the enemy in one or two turns if the enemy is predominantly a missile armed force.
You're acting like the entire table is going to be covered in woods. Maybe against sylvaneth, but thats only because they can summon woods specifically onto the table.
And just tonight my nurgle force lost 2 of its 4 heroes by turn 2 to... shooting lol. With woods and with look out sir -1 to hit. So no... still not seeing it as that big a deal.
auticus wrote: Ok. One or two woods on an entire table are not that big a deal. Are you assuming that tables are like jungles covered in woods?
By this same vein, "one or two pieces" of fortifications in 40k "are not that big a deal" yet Commissars, Conscripts, and Infantry Squads all got hit with a ton of bricks because of it.
Our GW store has three wooded terrain pieces for three tables. In total.
Then talk to your manager about getting more?
You aren't blocking line of sight in any meaningful way. Unless its ok that heroes need to hide behind that piece of wooded terrain all day and do nothing else.
You're literally blocking line of sight as long as any LOS hits 1" or more of the Citadel Woods.
You're talking on a 6x4 table, 3456 square inches of table, a citadel wood covers about 90 square inches of that you'll have line of sight obscurement.
If I have all three of those woods on my one table at the GW store that's roughly 270 square inches of guaranteed obscurement out of a 3456 square inch table.
Pick any table on the internet right now off a google search. There's literally nothing where a hero is going to escape being picked off by the enemy in one or two turns if the enemy is predominantly a missile armed force.
You're acting like the entire table is going to be covered in woods. Maybe against sylvaneth, but thats only because they can summon woods specifically onto the table.
And you're acting like the entire table is going to be as bare as the guests at a nudist resort.
And just tonight my nurgle force lost 2 of its 4 heroes by turn 2 to... shooting lol. With woods and with look out sir -1 to hit. So no... still not seeing it as that big a deal.
You keep making these statements but you never produce lists or unit names.
Probably because I know that without a full written battle report with entire diagrams of the table on a turn by turn basis, talking about it here with you will not be very productive at all.
I will list what I fought, you will come back with a variant of git gud, and we'll go in circles. We'll just say when you combine several stormcast bolt throwers with stormcast bows and stormcast heroes with sniper bows, that they will hit what they want to hit and kill what they want to kill if its a standard infantry hero unless said hero wants to hide in a forest... which removes a melee hero from the game and is for all intents and purposes the same as killing him.
I've never once also said we play on barren tables. I've said with true line of sight there is really no way to block line of sight completely and thus shooting units can mostly shoot what they want with impunity.
The tables we play on aren't barren. They are always at the very least tournament standard tables because thats what the tournament guys demand. They average a solid 6-8 pieces. You aren't hiding on most of a standard table. There will be some pockets you can hide on but melee heroes are trying to move and get into contact, so if you can force them to hide the entire game so they don't get shot, you've done the same as killing them.
The attached image would be fairly common except that table has a lot of forests, so sub out a couple forests with things like the chaos hill or fence lines from the necropolis kit.
auticus wrote: Probably because I know that without a full written battle report with entire diagrams of the table on a turn by turn basis, talking about it here with you will not be very productive at all.
I will list what I fought, you will come back with a variant of git gud, and we'll go in circles.
Telling you to "use more terrain" or "keep people in cover" isn't really "git gud" but okay sure.
We'll just say when you combine several stormcast bolt throwers with stormcast bows and stormcast heroes with sniper bows, that they will hit what they want to hit and kill what they want to kill if its a standard infantry hero unless said hero wants to hide in a forest... which removes a melee hero from the game and is for all intents and purposes the same as killing him.
This is literally all you've had to say, minus the snark. When I've asked "what are you defining as a gunline", I want to know what armies you're defining as such. I want to know what units you're defining as part of this. In the past, you've only mentioned Skyfires--which are well acknowledged at this point as being OP as hell.
I'm going to point out right now that Knight-Venators("Stormcast Heroes with Sniper Bows") have the 'Fly' keyword which means they ignore the no LOS part anyways. Their Star-Fated Arrow(once per battle use, drops you from 3 attacks to 1 and causing D3+3 or D6+3 vs a Hero or Monster) ability is certainly impressive, but it falls under the category of a "once per game" thing--just like Arcane Bodkins for Glade Guard. The normal profile is 3 attacks 2+/3+ with -1 Rend and 1 damage. In both cases, it's not Mortal Wounds meaning you can save against them.
Judicators are a 3+/3+ -1 Rend 1D with the special bow having a rule of their hit turning into a D6 result's worth of wounds. Since you said you were playing Nurgle, that means "Eternal Judgement" was in effect meaning the Judicators could reroll failed Hit rolls of 1.
The Celestar Ballista has "Chained Lightning" meaning that you get a successful hit, it becomes D6 hits instead of 1.
I get that ranged isn't great for Nurgle but it's not like Nurgle is hurting for protection from ranged even without LOS blocking. You even have a Command Ability on a melee hero(who gives nearby units a ranged attack to boot!) that grants a -1 to be hit by shooting attacks.
We use standard terrain. Using more terrain makes grown men throw hissy fits because its not standard. Its d3-1 pieces per 2x2 tile. Thats going to generate anywhere between 0 and 12 pieces.
Its average is 6-8 pieces. Big name tournaments, what is used as the standard in my region, is about 5-6 pieces, so we're already playing slightly more than the big name tournaments give you.
I've defined gunline several places. Its an army where over half of the models have ranged attack profiles. When you combine two or three bolt throwers with 20 lightning bow shots with a sniper bow once a game it easily removes infantry heroes. Thats stormcast.
We also have bretonnian players using a bunch of peasant archers and their quad fire once a game. That also erases heroes.
We also have skaven players popping up and doing a ton of ranged mortal wounds and ranged attacks with all of their contraptions and gadgets and stormfiends.
We also have a couple tzeentch players loaded down with skyfires.
We also have a sylvaneth player with about 12 hunters and then the various other ranged abilities that they have thrown in miscellenia.
Then there are the seraphon players with their dino war machines and salamanders and blowpipes.
We also have a kunnin rukk hold out because kunnin rukk is still very good against casual lists.
So in summary... facing all of the above, with the new rules, heroes are still dropping pretty reliably even with woods blocking line of sight and heroes now getting a -1 to be hit if near friendly troops.
We use standard terrain, and often it has to be GW terrain if we're playing at the GW store, which sucks for blocking line of sight, which takes us further back to the real culprit being... true line of sight being a garbage rule.
What's the point in contention here? If shooting armies suck now?
In regards to sniping, I like the change. I feel like I can snipe heroes if I really need to (important for gameplay given how strong some support buffs are) but it's actually a choice now where as before a good 80% of the time the best option was to snipe the hero. Now I don't think the sniping situation was -that- bad, but I understand the extra tactical effort/list redundancy was something people didn't want to deal with and it did limit options in what heroes were viable and more so in what artifacts were viable (offensive artifacts for example usually weren't worth a dam because the hero would just die).
The attached image would be fairly common except that table has a lot of forests, so sub out a couple forests with things like the chaos hill or fence lines from the necropolis kit.
Hopefully AOS isn't even half as terrain dependant as 40k. On 40k that would be super barren board. Even if those forest pieces would block LOS.
I have a quick question that doesn't deserve its own thread so this seems like the place to ask it.
I thought I remembered them saying something about us being able to theme our armies around coming from one of the realms, and that would give us access to certain things (notably artifacts). I looked in the Core Book and found descriptions of the realms and rules for battling in the various realms, bid didn't see anything about lists of artifacts from the different realms. I also skimmed through the GHB 2018 and didn't find it.
Did I just miss it, or did I imagine that whole thing about artifacts?
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I have a quick question that doesn't deserve its own thread so this seems like the place to ask it.
I thought I remembered them saying something about us being able to theme our armies around coming from one of the realms, and that would give us access to certain things (notably artifacts). I looked in the Core Book and found descriptions of the realms and rules for battling in the various realms, bid didn't see anything about lists of artifacts from the different realms. I also skimmed through the GHB 2018 and didn't find it.
Did I just miss it, or did I imagine that whole thing about artifacts?
It's about artefacts and the Realm artefacts are in the Malign Sorcery book. You can use them when saying your army hails from a certain realm.
Are you using woods with fixed trees that block sight/movement, or are you using them with the trees able to be taken off to allow models to move thru and/or stand where they were?
Even keeping the trees on the base, the citadel wood hardly blocks any line of sight to anything. Any of my heroes behind a tree can be seen and shot at because an arm or a horn or a foot can still be seen. Obviously a unit behind or in the citadel woods doesn't matter if the trees are there or not, you'll always be able to draw line of sight to someone in the unit (unless you say the woods block line of sight, which they now did).
auticus wrote: The concept of reserve points are gone. They don't exist anymore.
So these spells work free of charge then? That's pretty good value!
No, all those spells are now gone. There is no "Summon Pink Horrors" spell anymore, for example. The GHB includes the errata that removes all those.
I wasn't talking about the summoning spells but rather spells like the Ogroid's Fireblast which creates a brim for every model slain or the Magister's Bolt of Change turning slain creatures into chaos spawns. Are those free now? It used to be they cost reserve points.
Any changes to those rules can be found in the appropriate FAQs and Designer's Commentaries.
Those rules were never listed on the warscrolls but in the reserves chapters of the 2017 general's handbook. I didn't find anything about what became of them in the commentary nor the FAQ thus why I posted here Thanks tho
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I have a quick question that doesn't deserve its own thread so this seems like the place to ask it.
I thought I remembered them saying something about us being able to theme our armies around coming from one of the realms, and that would give us access to certain things (notably artifacts). I looked in the Core Book and found descriptions of the realms and rules for battling in the various realms, bid didn't see anything about lists of artifacts from the different realms. I also skimmed through the GHB 2018 and didn't find it.
Did I just miss it, or did I imagine that whole thing about artifacts?
It's about artefacts and the Realm artefacts are in the Malign Sorcery book. You can use them when saying your army hails from a certain realm.
Thanks! My copy of Malign Sorcery hasn't come in yet so that explains why I haven't been able to find it.
auticus wrote:Pick any table on the internet right now off a google search. There's literally nothing where a hero is going to escape being picked off by the enemy in one or two turns if the enemy is predominantly a missile armed force.
You're acting like the entire table is going to be covered in woods. Maybe against sylvaneth, but thats only because they can summon woods specifically onto the table.
And just tonight my nurgle force lost 2 of its 4 heroes by turn 2 to... shooting lol. With woods and with look out sir -1 to hit. So no... still not seeing it as that big a deal.
Just anecdotes from my game on Saturday vs Sylvaneth:
- Treelord got 2 triple tree bases down, combined with the normal wood on the table for 1890 square inches of woods - I actually asked him, didn't woods block LOS somehow now? He said no, just all the Sylvaneth buffs against non-heroes and non-monsters, plus cover (which I never remembered!) - His 3 kurnoth hunters mowed down a unit of pink horrors a turn, shooting from a wood through a second wood - Very late game, with just a herald and ~5 horrors left, I scuttled my herald away from his unit and behind a tower so he couldn't be shot, as I didn't trust -1 to hit. Sylvaneth dude laughed, teleported the hunters to a wood that did have LOS ... and then rolled a huge handful of 1's, leaving the herald alive
Personally very happy to have some abstraction added to woods, giving them a purpose beyond cover. Terrain that matters in AOS 1.0 seemed to be large LOS blockers, flat-ish things big enough to give units cover, special scenery like realm gates, or anchors for nonsense magical effects (i.e. mystical or GTFO). Happy to see the random nonsense get toned down in both effect and radius, and woods added to the list of terrain that does something tactical.
I agree. One of the things that I really did not like in 1.0 was the lack of tactical depth, and the terrain not really mattering was a big contributor to that.
Terrain has come up a notch. While its not where I'd like it to be, its a compromise and something that needs managed on the table now a lot more than the last three years required.
He probably didn’t know the woods block LoS now since that’s new. I only know because I was told. I still haven’t seen where it’s actually in the rules yet as I work my way thru the Sylvaneth, Core, General’s, Sorcery, and various FAQs and Designers Commentaries that I picked up over the weekend.
AduroT wrote: He probably didn’t know the woods block LoS now since that’s new. I only know because I was told. I still haven’t seen where it’s actually in the rules yet as I work my way thru the Sylvaneth, Core, General’s, Sorcery, and various FAQs and Designers Commentaries that I picked up over the weekend.
Guh, the rules you actually care about really are so scattered across all these books
FWIW I don't think he was screwing me, clearly neither of us had read the new rulebook we both had sitting next to us in shrink wrap
The rules for Citadel Woods are in the GHB. I don't know why they wouldn't put the terrain warscrolls in the core rules but... thats what they did.
So GHB 2018 has a few of the terrain warscrolls altered. One is the citadel woods, which state you can't see more than an inch through (which interesting enough, when I asked if there were terrain warscrolls added for things like woods, I was told no by the guys that had the books early... so they either were lying to troll or hadn't read all of the books yet and acted like they had... which is why I hate when people get the books two or three weeks before everyone else because we can't share in the context of the conversations while they are doing podcasts and you tube videos about it)
There are a LOT of terrain warscrolls not in any of the books though that used to have rules... so I have kept my old books for those for right now. I anticipate that GW has a 2.0 terrain book in the works just like they did with the Dominions of Chaos and Chaos Strongholds books for 1.0.
The attached image would be fairly common except that table has a lot of forests, so sub out a couple forests with things like the chaos hill or fence lines from the necropolis kit.
Hopefully AOS isn't even half as terrain dependant as 40k. On 40k that would be super barren board. Even if those forest pieces would block LOS.
I believe many AoS tables suffer the hanghover from fantasy where terrain was squarce. But at the same time I have seen 40k tables like that pic from auticus.
Lucky for us, most stores and big tournaments here use minimun double the terrain from that pic. Just two weeks ago in the biggest tournament of Galicia for 40k i was able to hide behind terrain 3 predators from 3 baneblades in turn 1.
The same for AOS. Even with how simple terrain rules are for aos and 40k, having enough terrain and los blocking one makes the game much more tactical.
I'm not convinced the cover aspect of the citadel woods is meant to carry over to Wyldwoods. Our local player base (including the GW employees) argue the wyldwoods are made of citadel woods models but aren't citadel woods themselves, and while I don't think that holds water, from a gameplay perspective it buffs Sylvaneth extremely.
Speaking as a rangeless Sylvaneth player one of my favourite tactics is to put down a forest between an objective and the opponent forces (or in a choke-point or something) and warp in a blob of dryads or three-piece kurnoth hunters unit and goad them into trying to charge through the woods.
It helped bring out the advantages for the dryads (which are peppered throughout the book and need to be remembered) and blunted enemy charges already (often out of fear of what the woods could do over the actual damage) and having the woods also block LoS is a very big bump in that strategy'effectiveness.
For the record, I only have three woods models and usually I find that's enough with the amount of terrain they put down here. (Though for a good while it was that stupid chaos plant stuff that seemed to only exist to keep me from placing woods.)
Sylvaneth wildwoods are themselves Citadel Woods. They are an "is a" relationship. It specifically states that a sylvaneth wildwood ARE 1-3 citadel woods.
From an english language perspective, they ARE citadel woods, and thus would gain the rules of citadel woods on top of their own specialized rules.
It certainly buffs sylvaneth extremely. My g/f plays Sylvaneth and we have five woods she can lay down. The downside is that her ranged units lose line of sight when she employs this tactic, but she gains in other areas.
But at the same time I have seen 40k tables like that pic from auticus
It is a multi faceted issue.
Shooty players will scream bloody murder if you have too much terrain on the table (and too much is subjective to the player). Melee players will scream bloody murder if you're playing on planet bowling ball. Whats the middle ground? Whats the compromise? You need some kind of mechanism in place that is seen as fair. Most players I've known gauge what is found at large tournaments as what should be "fair". Adepticon was full of those sparse tables as well, and thats the expectation.
We use the terrain chart that was in the 1.0 rules to generate number of terrain items on the table.
Now I have held specialized campaigns in places like Lustria that was all jungle. Let me tell you, a solid handful of tournament whfb players pitched a massive fit complaining that the campaign "screwed them over"(we had planned Lustria a year in advance and made a lot of aztec style jungles and pyramiids but when it came down to putting it on the table, the shooty whfb tournament players lost their ****, apparently to them a jungle table meant mostly a flat featureless table with a few jungle stands put in the sides of the table and a river or something but free access to shoot whatever they want like in a tournament).
It causes a lot of headaches for me as an event organizer to deviate from tournament standard. Even if I'm doing a campaign and not a tournament. Terrain has always always always been one of those hot topics that can cause grown men to have a melt down in the store.
auticus wrote: Sylvaneth wildwoods are themselves Citadel Woods. They are an "is a" relationship. It specifically states that a sylvaneth wildwood ARE 1-3 citadel woods.
Which is why I say the 'it's only a model' argument doesn't hold water.
Either way, play it the way your meta allows and wait for clarification from GW one way or the other. I would not recommend buying into the army with that strat in mind, as its future is uncertain.
In principle the trees exist and block movement, though you can place models on their roots and such. People leave them unglued so you can remove them so their branches don't snag on your fingers or knock over tall models, but in those cases the holes for the trees remain impassable.
This is how it's supposed to be, but most people play it as abstract and removable.
One time playing against flesh eater courts we realized sufficiently large bases were effectively locked out of wyldwoods. Then we realized this particular model could fly and so the zombie dragon landed on top of the trees.
We then invoked WMS and removed one of the trees instead.
auticus wrote: Probably because I know that without a full written battle report with entire diagrams of the table on a turn by turn basis, talking about it here with you will not be very productive at all.
I will list what I fought, you will come back with a variant of git gud, and we'll go in circles. We'll just say when you combine several stormcast bolt throwers with stormcast bows and stormcast heroes with sniper bows, that they will hit what they want to hit and kill what they want to kill if its a standard infantry hero unless said hero wants to hide in a forest... which removes a melee hero from the game and is for all intents and purposes the same as killing him.
I've never once also said we play on barren tables. I've said with true line of sight there is really no way to block line of sight completely and thus shooting units can mostly shoot what they want with impunity.
The tables we play on aren't barren. They are always at the very least tournament standard tables because thats what the tournament guys demand. They average a solid 6-8 pieces. You aren't hiding on most of a standard table. There will be some pockets you can hide on but melee heroes are trying to move and get into contact, so if you can force them to hide the entire game so they don't get shot, you've done the same as killing them.
The attached image would be fairly common except that table has a lot of forests, so sub out a couple forests with things like the chaos hill or fence lines from the necropolis kit.
Hm, to me that table looks almost entirely devoid of meaningful terrain, I mean you can draw LoS to almost any point on the table no matter where you are. I can certainly understand you have problems with sniping if that’s the sort of table you play on regularly, I would chuck in at least two but preferably three reasonably big hills (maybe 12” long and about 3” high) on top of what’s there already.
Captain Joystick wrote: In principle the trees exist and block movement, though you can place models on their roots and such. People leave them unglued so you can remove them so their branches don't snag on your fingers or knock over tall models, but in those cases the holes for the trees remain impassable.
This is how it's supposed to be, but most people play it as abstract and removable.
One time playing against flesh eater courts we realized sufficiently large bases were effectively locked out of wyldwoods. Then we realized this particular model could fly and so the zombie dragon landed on top of the trees.
We then invoked WMS and removed one of the trees instead.
If the trees block LoS now, I can guarantee you 100% that slyvaneth players are gonna need to get good at navigating those woods with the trees in them. No way in HELL is anyone gonna let you put models where the trees are supposed to go anymore. Otherwise you're looking at 30 invisible dryads and an invisible Durthu just camping out an objective.
If the trees block LoS now, I can guarantee you 100% that slyvaneth players are gonna need to get good at navigating those woods with the trees in them. No way in HELL is anyone gonna let you put models where the trees are supposed to go anymore. Otherwise you're looking at 30 invisible dryads and an invisible Durthu just camping out an objective.
It's not a question of the trees blocking LOS. It's the whole terrain feature.
If you make a ranged attack and it goes through 1" of a Citadel Wood, it's not able to get LOS.
If the trees block LoS now, I can guarantee you 100% that slyvaneth players are gonna need to get good at navigating those woods with the trees in them. No way in HELL is anyone gonna let you put models where the trees are supposed to go anymore. Otherwise you're looking at 30 invisible dryads and an invisible Durthu just camping out an objective.
It's not a question of the trees blocking LOS. It's the whole terrain feature.
If you make a ranged attack and it goes through 1" of a Citadel Wood, it's not able to get LOS.
Who was shooting 30 dryads and Durthu off an objective anyways? If the Sylvaneth player really wants to camp that many points on one objective go after another one and let that massive chunk of points sit there.
AduroT wrote: So how Do people play the trees on the woods? Removable and abstract, or they are stuck there and they block movement?
Not AOS but regardless of game system always abstract and removable. I might consider non-abstract in some super small skirmish game where each model is individual but as I don't play that small game(like 5-6 models per side) but rather ones where smallest units are squads playability comes into issue. No way should normal human be blocked from positioning under tree because his god damn sword is so high it interferes with the terrain model! The warriors aren't in reality doing silly poses like that all the time. He would lower his sword there ;-)
Same reason why I hate TLOS. It just isn't feasible with playable terrain if you then want LOS to be something other than planet bowling ball without using just big square blocks for terrain.
ERJAK wrote: If the trees block LoS now, I can guarantee you 100% that slyvaneth players are gonna need to get good at navigating those woods with the trees in them. No way in HELL is anyone gonna let you put models where the trees are supposed to go anymore. Otherwise you're looking at 30 invisible dryads and an invisible Durthu just camping out an objective.
Being able to remove the trees has less to do with being able to place models there and more to do with you accidentally snagging your finger on a branch and sending the terrain piece, and the models on it, for a ride.
AduroT wrote: So how Do people play the trees on the woods? Removable and abstract, or they are stuck there and they block movement?
One of the community articles specifically mentions that they're supposed to be stuck and block movement. It specifically mentions placing them in ways that control the movement or larger models.
Another excellent use of Wyldwoods is area denial. Let’s say you’re facing a Beastclaw Raiders force with a Frostlord on Stonehorn and a couple Huskards on Thundertusks. They come on a 120x92mm oval base, which is too large to fit between the tree trunks in a Citadel Wood (and just as you wouldn’t disregard the area occupied by a building, it seems odd to disregard the area occupied by the tree trunks!). Wyldwoods give you a way to slow them down and “funnel” them in more favorable directions.
That does seem to imply the trunks should be static.
ERJAK wrote: If the trees block LoS now, I can guarantee you 100% that slyvaneth players are gonna need to get good at navigating those woods with the trees in them. No way in HELL is anyone gonna let you put models where the trees are supposed to go anymore. Otherwise you're looking at 30 invisible dryads and an invisible Durthu just camping out an objective.
Being able to remove the trees has less to do with being able to place models there and more to do with you accidentally snagging your finger on a branch and sending the terrain piece, and the models on it, for a ride.
Yeah, that's the story the sylvaneth players have been using to make sure their units of 9 bow Kurnoths get cover since the dam book came out.
I'm actually disappointed with the Knight-Zephyros just being Naeve with a helmet on though. There was potential for a very interesting model release left unrealized. Guess I'll convert one instead.
Oh, thought I should add this bit:
Spoiler:
PS: Read the Starsoul Mace bit. Can't waaaaaaaaaaaait for that to get widely circulated.
Hm, interesting change to starsouls. A slight nerf in average output (from 2 to 1.83) and a slight nerf in consistency. I don't think it's enough to mitigate how strong they are but I will say it's a good change.
In case anyone didn't want to click through, here's another important tidbit:
First, the Scions of the Storm rule doesn't need a roll anymore but happen at the end of the movement phase. Except this, it's identical as it still count as your movement for the phase and the models must be set up more than 9” away. Also note that if you didn't deployed at the start of the 4th turn they count as lost.
Shock and awe : -1 hit roll against friendly SE that were set up on the battlefield during the same turn.
Stormhosts : 8 hosts you may choose from that add each: 1 ability , 1 command ability, 1 command trait that you must use and one artifact of power you must take,
I'm a big fan of the way the book seems to be shaping up. Some of the power is still there for sure, but it also seems like it's been toned down.
I really want to see how my Vanguard are shaking up.
Woa that -1 hit when they show up coupled with automatic is a big buff, only slightly offset by it being end of the movement phase. I hope some other areas of their allegiance have been toned down to compensate.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Woa that -1 hit when they show up coupled with automatic is a big buff, only slightly offset by it being end of the movement phase. I hope some other areas of their allegiance have been toned down to compensate.
He says that it's unchanged aside from those specifics mentioned.
The "4th turn" bit, for example, makes a big shift---if you don't deploy at the start of the 4th turn, anything in the Celestial Realm is counted as slain. That's huge compared to "end of the game".
You're still tied to the 9" from any enemy models and it's your move for that turn.
I have literally never seen a Stormcast army not deploy everything by 4th turn even when they had to roll randomly, let alone when they don't. That's a formality, not a nerf. I guess it keeps them from dropping things onto objectives on the very last round but that is a very specific context which would only make the difference in maybe on in twenty games, if that.
As for the rest of the allegiance I should have specified meaning the command traits/artifacts/prayers. With the Sacrosanct chamber Stormcast are also well into the Legions of Nagash issue where they have a strong set of allegiance abilities to compensate for a restrictive army list that they don't actually have. Idoneth or Kharadron allegiance would be OP as hell if they could draw from all Aelves or all Duardin as part of their faction, for example.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have literally never seen a Stormcast army not deploy everything by 4th turn even when they had to roll randomly, let alone when they don't. That's a formality, not a nerf. I guess it keeps them from dropping things onto objectives on the very last round but that is a very specific context which would only make the difference in maybe on in twenty games, if that.
My understanding is that there was a few goofy lists that used the Celestant-Prime for this kind of thing.
As for the rest of the allegiance I should have specified meaning the command traits/artifacts/prayers. With the Sacrosanct chamber Stormcast are also well into the Legions of Nagash issue where they have a strong set of allegiance abilities to compensate for a restrictive army list that they don't actually have. Idoneth or Kharadron allegiance would be OP as hell if they could draw from all Aelves or all Duardin as part of their faction, for example.
Well, you're locked into a specific Command Trait and one specific Artifact if you take a Stormhost so there's that thing at least.
That's something I approve of. The whole idea behind them is to be thematic after all.
As a sidenote on CPrime, I find him funny because he's counter intuitive and many people think he's bad because they use him how he's -intended- to be used. Which is keep him in reserve a few rounds to get extra attacks with Ghal Maraz. How you should actually use him is bring him in round 1, camp him in the back, and drop meteors using his celestial whatsit to max out the aoe every time.
The following comment was left on the War of Sigmar review:
Spoiler:
Norrikan wrote:I have the book myself now, so here are some thoughts on the rules.
The bad:
- Knight-Zephyros is Neave, except a lot worse. The loss of Nemesis is awful. I had hoped for better.
- The Lord-Exorcist is possible the most pointless model in the army. Such a narrow role and such poor tools. Gorgeous model though.
- Restriction of named characters to Hammers of Sigmar keyword makes sense, but I dislike losing a bunch of count-as heroes. Call me biased.
- Lord-Ordinator nerf is probably warranted, but the replacement ability is boring and makes no thematic sense.
- All variants of the Lords-Arcanum are some flavor of weird. There are some good spells and command abilities in there, but they are spread over several warscrolls and none of them is what I'd call conventionally good on the whole.
- Desolators and Prosecutors did nothing to really warrant a nerf. Nobody was playing them anyway.
- None of the Stormhosts are all that appealing bar Anvils for a absurdly strong Command Ability and Tempest Lords for being able to generate mad CPs. Getting locked into relics makes no sense from a lore perspective, either
The good:
- Gavriel went from terrible to amazing.
- Unified stormbreath for all dracothian guard is convenient.
- Celestant-Prime buffs are neat.
- Starsoul maces are sensible and more engaging now.
- Tempestors, Vanguard-Raptors and Protectors all offer very interesting auras now, which I love.
- Judicators with 3 attacks baseline. Great!
- Relics, spells and traits galore.
- Severe nerfs to practically all warscroll battalions.
- Lots of quality of life changes that makes for smoother game play, which I always appreciate.
Sorry for the long text. Just had to get this off my chest. Overall, the book seems a great step forward in terms of gameplay and has a lot of very good changes in it, but some things totally baffle me.
Beyond rules, the book has a lot of lore for the units and especially the named characters, a detailed look into the reforging process, gorgeous art (that tower in Sigmareon...) and some great lore tidbits. The only bit there I didn't really like were some exceedingly ugle portraits, which I felt were trying too hard to make stormcast edgy and dark. Still, I can strongly recommend it to anyone with interest in the SCE's lore.
I'm interested to see the Vanguard-Raptors' aura.
Also, the Lord-Ordinator no longer has the "Engineer" keyword from what someone else said.
If you guys want to know everything about the new Battletome then just listen to Facehammer. Their Stormcast Battletome review is nearly 4 hours long and goes through EVERYTHING.
http://facehammer.co.uk
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knight wrote: Gavriel is getting fielded on Saturday. As I understand, the command ability stacks and his seems absurdly good with deep striking.
The SCE lore of magic is rather disappointing. Various flavour of spamming mortal wounds.
I won't pick any Stormhosts, there are artefacts that I'd like to try and no benefit really tempts me.
Gavriels Command ability works on HAMMERS OF SIGMAR only. So either you take that Stormhost or you won’t have much use for him.
Sad at the hammering vanguard wing too. All the unmodified 6 rolls now hurt a bunch of the combos you could use to make meager liberators actual damage dealers.
Point for point and wound for wound Liberators are supremely outclassed battleline infantry when compared to the battleline options of any of the updated books (i.e. once they started getting traits and such). I mean when Arkonaught companies look good in comparison for the points you know there is something wrong.
I've got some ideas to keep it at least mildly competitive but Stormcast I think are not top tier anymore competitive wise. But they'll still be fairly strong just below that level and at local events. A lot of changes make them more fun to play against at that level so there is that.
So crazy to see the competitive difference between SCE and Night Haunt when they are coming out together.
I think from a "for fun" perspective, the stormcast are still plenty strong.
The problem with chasing the competitive dragon is that the strong broken armies change so rapidly that you have to constantly buy and paint a new force on the regular.
auticus wrote: I think from a "for fun" perspective, the stormcast are still plenty strong.
The problem with chasing the competitive dragon is that the strong broken armies change so rapidly that you have to constantly buy and paint a new force on the regular.
Agreed with both. Just sad cause that's one my smaller collections so it can't bounce back as easy as say my Seraphon, Sylvaneth or my currently in progress Night Haunt. Besides, I have my good in a "for fun" armies already (Ironjawz, Mixed Order, Beastmen, and FEC) so I didn't want another one. Especially one painted so well to join them
The Lord Ordinator was one of very few models that helped my "mostly old-world Dwarf" mixed-Order list somewhat viable. Without him helping my artillery, I guess that one chance to not be absolutely trash-tier, is gone. :-p
)
) eventually summoned some skinks thanks to their astrolith bearer; Khorne summoned several skull cannons and only didn't summon a 'thirster because he left it at home; Tizz (me) resummoned some garbage screamers at the very end of the game, having finally reached 10 fate points; Sylvaneth blanketed the table in wild woods until he couldn't place any more. At this point I really like Khorne's mechanic, as you passively get points for doing what you want to be doing + having your stuff die and the chart is *very* compact (i.e. good stuff costs low points) compared to say Tizz's ridiculous one, but I also never played with the Blood Tithe chart when it didn't have summoning too, so I literally don't know what I'm giving up. Seraphon summoning seems more like an armchair mathhammer thing than in game powerhouse, though Kroak does feel like he could be a thing. If a 450 point thing 
