Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Carnikang, you seem to know the battalion quite well. I am curious as to why did you asked Amish about what it did...?

I feel like I am missing something in this conversation.

...In before "so like normal then?"

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Carnikang, you seem to know the battalion quite well. I am curious as to why did you asked Amish about what it did...?

I feel like I am missing something in this conversation.

...In before "so like normal then?"

I didn't ask him what it did. I was asking him how the whole Battalion was getting it.
It was one behemoth of said battalion, and several rules were misremembered in the interpretation. Much like the other quoted person who assumed the new TQ affected the whole army.

That's half the problem with the 'State of the Age of Sigmar'. Misunderstanding what does what and then talking about it.

Ah, that clicks the puzzle for me. Thank you.

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Carnikang, you seem to know the battalion quite well. I am curious as to why did you asked Amish about what it did...?

I feel like I am missing something in this conversation.

...In before "so like normal then?"

I didn't ask him what it did. I was asking him how the whole Battalion was getting it.
It was one behemoth of said battalion, and several rules were misremembered in the interpretation. Much like the other quoted person who assumed the new TQ affected the whole army.

That's half the problem with the 'State of the Age of Sigmar'. Misunderstanding what does what and then talking about it.

"so like normal then?"

Yeah.

And as a heads up, there's going to be lots of FAQs with the Seraphon Battletome. Lots of little weird rules interactions that need clarification.

Like the Bastilidons 1+ Armor Save. Lots of argument over it at the moment. Or the Engine treating it's crew as the mount and itself as the hero, meaning it can take weapon relics...

Ignore this, wrong thread

HAHA yes 2 out of 3 got the re-rolls, but its still close :p

 Carnikang wrote:
Yeah.

And as a heads up, there's going to be lots of FAQs with the Seraphon Battletome. Lots of little weird rules interactions that need clarification.

Like the Bastilidons 1+ Armor Save. Lots of argument over it at the moment. Or the Engine treating it's crew as the mount and itself as the hero, meaning it can take weapon relics...

What is unclear about the 1+ armor save? The rules are quite clear that unmodified rolls of 1 always fail. This is far from the first instance of a 1+ statistic, or even a 1+ save.

 Carnikang wrote:
Or the Engine treating it's crew as the mount and itself as the hero, meaning it can take weapon relics...

This has been a problem for a long time, the Deepkin don't say what is or isn't a mount, like the Turtle.. no one knows if it is a mount or not even tho it literally is mounted by a crew. We have asked GW from day one about this and there is still no answer. Most players count is as a mount and no one has said anything against it yet.

Now if all the mounted units had the Mount keyword and the Akhelian Leviadon did not, then sure. But thats not the case.

Here are some examples from the IDK units

DESCRIPTION
A unit of Akhelian Allopexes has 1 or more
models. The crew unleash long-range attacks, using
either volleys of bolts from a Razorshell Harpoon
Launcher or shredding nets  red from a Retarius
Net Launcher. The crew fight in close combat with
Barbed Hooks and Blades, while the Allopexes they
ride rip chunks of flesh from their prey with their
Ferocious Bites and cut them to pieces with their
Scythed Fins.

Or

DESCRIPTION
A unit of Akhelian Ishlaen Guard has 3 or more
models. The riders fight with Helsabres in one
hand and carry shields with the other. They ride
serpentine Fangmora Eels that bite at their enemies
with Fanged Maws and batter them with their
Lashing Tails.

Turtle

DESCRIPTION
An Akhelian Leviadon is a single model. The
ma’harr strikes at enemies with his Twinpronged Spear, while the crew unleash volleys
of long-range attacks from the two Razorshell
Harpoon Launchers mounted on the Leviadon’s
back, and fight in close combat with Razorshell
Harpoons. The Leviadon snaps at its enemies with
its Crushing Jaws and mows them down with its
Massive Scythed Fins

EVERYONE says the Akhelian Allopex aka Shark is Mounted, but the description says it is crewed, the same for the Akhelian Leviadon.

The community on the shark and turtle is weird b.c there are players that say the turtle doesn't get the mount rule, but then why would the shark get it?

For me it seems like its RAI to in all armies and not IDK to be, CREW =/= Mount and RIDE(R) = MOUNT,

But again i know many that argue they all are mounts b.c they are named "Akhelian" and that shows they are mounted as a Leviadon wouldn't normally fight without someone on board telling it too blah blah.

B.c GW didn't add in a word for mount in ANY warscroll for Deepkin, its all RAI and no RAW. How freaking hard is it honestly to add the Mount keyword to something?

I feel the AoS ruleset would very much benefit from bringing (back) in keywords for infantry, beast, cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beast, and monstrous cavalry.

Unrelated note, does anyone else miss the battleshock phase? I remember back in the early days when it really meant something. Now I just see just an exercise in making sure one's list includes a mechanic to effectively skip it.

While I do wish battleshock was more of a concern for some armies, I suppose it can lead to some bad feelies on devastating battleshocks. I would prefer one of two solutions. Everyone has battleshock be a real concern, even my precious Ossiarchs who don't take it at all, or just remove the mechanic wholesale from the game. I could see army morale not meaning much in a high fantasy setting, and while I don't really advocate for more simplification, as it stands its a mechanic that means little unless you 'build wrong'

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel the AoS ruleset would very much benefit from bringing (back) in keywords for infantry, beast, cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beast, and monstrous cavalry.

Unrelated note, does anyone else miss the battleshock phase? I remember back in the early days when it really meant something. Now I just see just an exercise in making sure one's list includes a mechanic to effectively skip it.

The battleshock thing is a huge issue for me.

Army wide immunity for Bonereapers is a huge blunder of game design in my opinion. They're a popular army, and there are so many game mechanics rendered utterly worthless by it. Being strong against a particular tactic is one thing, but being completely immune across a whole army is really dumb in my opinion.

It's like an entire army being immune to shooting damage.

IMO, battleshock immunity isn't a big deal, since there's plenty of ways that other armies are functionally immune to battleshock through various means. Ossiarchs just cut out the middleman.

Edit: But, like I said earlier, I'd rather it be an issue for everyone, or just drop battleshock altogether.

 Thadin wrote:
IMO, battleshock immunity isn't a big deal, since there's plenty of ways that other armies are functionally immune to battleshock through various means. Ossiarchs just cut out the middleman.

Battleshock is supposed to be something that keeps big units in check. Yeah, you can stack buffs on your 40 model blob, but there are risks. Except for Mortek Guard, there aren't.

Yeah, there are some abilities that can get there, but having that "middleman", that tradeoff, is super important.

Alternatively, just get rid of the whole mechanic then. Just give everything that had a bravery related ability some alternative instead.

To be honest, Battleshock Immunity is more common amongst the battletomes now. They're giving more tricks to players in that way, from what I have seen.

It was indeed supposed to be the "counterpart" of big units, but it's been toned down bit by bit.

Nowadays, the clear incentive is to push players towards big units, given the clearer advantages for lower disavantages in comparison to before, IMHO.

I can't really think of any army that's particularily prone to battleshock… The units hit the worst by a bad battleshock role is when you don't have immunity on a small, elite unit and have a few die, then the owning player rolls a spicy 6 for battleshock and loses a 50-point or more Model. That's what I meant when earlier I said that battleshock leads to bad feelies, the units that shouldn't be immune are, while small elite units are hurt the most by it.

An idea for a change or house-rule I came up just now was something in relation to Charges. A unit that charges in to melee gains a bonus to Bravery for the turn, while the unit that's a victim of the charge gets a malus to theirs. Sort of like WHFB Battle Resolution actually. This would then be coupled with removal of battleshock immunity mechanics and a rebalancing of Bravery Scores throughout the game. Why hardcap it at 10 (from what ive seen) and for something like Ossiarchs, just make their Bravery especially high, along with other units it makes sense for from a lore/mechanics stand point.

 Stux wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel the AoS ruleset would very much benefit from bringing (back) in keywords for infantry, beast, cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beast, and monstrous cavalry.

Unrelated note, does anyone else miss the battleshock phase? I remember back in the early days when it really meant something. Now I just see just an exercise in making sure one's list includes a mechanic to effectively skip it.

The battleshock thing is a huge issue for me.

Army wide immunity for Bonereapers is a huge blunder of game design in my opinion. They're a popular army, and there are so many game mechanics rendered utterly worthless by it. Being strong against a particular tactic is one thing, but being completely immune across a whole army is really dumb in my opinion.

It's like an entire army being immune to shooting damage.

Armies being immune to battleshock in one form or another has been a staple of warhammer and 40k since last decade unfortunately, because it makes people feel bad when their guys run away and thats not fun. I know... in a wargame , a game that plays war, morale should be a huge deal since in war it is a huge deal, but... here we are. On release I actually really liked how they added battleshock compared to their old leadership checks. Then everyone started being immune to it just like in 40k or old whfb with steadfast and it became another notch in the pole of things that I really didn't like them doing.

Oh yeah, that's another slight issue I have with the game. They went to all the trouble creating this (quite good) morale mechanic and yet the meta is geared towards ignoring it as much as possible. It reminds me of 7th ed. 40k...rules stacked upon rules to cancel each other out. I'd look towards reducing ignores battleshock too.

EDIT: Somebody mentioned a new CP system that acts as a unit activation mechanic? I'm really liking this idea. For starters, it might actually help cut down on mini maxing. Oh, you took 4 minimum sized units for shenanigans? Too bad you've only got 2 CP points left...looks like half of them will be standing around scratching themselves this turn.

Ultimately no matter what mechanics are in place, min maxing will still always happen within the confines of whatever the system is.

Changing the system to a CP activation system would interest me greatly, but that wouldn't cut down on min maxing, people would just find a new way to min max within the confines of that system.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Oh yeah, that's another slight issue I have with the game. They went to all the trouble creating this (quite good) morale mechanic and yet the meta is geared towards ignoring it as much as possible. It reminds me of 7th ed. 40k...rules stacked upon rules to cancel each other out. I'd look towards reducing ignores battleshock too.

EDIT: Somebody mentioned a new CP system that acts as a unit activation mechanic? I'm really liking this idea. For starters, it might actually help cut down on mini maxing. Oh, you took 4 minimum sized units for shenanigans? Too bad you've only got 2 CP points left...looks like half of them will be standing around scratching themselves this turn.

But that just means few units of large size are the problem, and armies that can cram the most points into a single unit have a massive advantage.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
Yeah.

And as a heads up, there's going to be lots of FAQs with the Seraphon Battletome. Lots of little weird rules interactions that need clarification.

Like the Bastilidons 1+ Armor Save. Lots of argument over it at the moment. Or the Engine treating it's crew as the mount and itself as the hero, meaning it can take weapon relics...

What is unclear about the 1+ armor save? The rules are quite clear that unmodified rolls of 1 always fail. This is far from the first instance of a 1+ statistic, or even a 1+ save.

I agree. But as far as I know, it's the only printed 1+ save on a unit Warscroll. Some parties are saying that overrides the Rule of 1, others are saying it means it's basically immune to rend until it goes to a 2+, but still fails on a roll of one, adhereing to the Rule of 1.
It's causing arguments, so it needs to be clarified.
Several interactions just need to be cleared up is all. Same with any other Battletome really.
I guess it just feels different because they should know better by now. But they don't. And probably won't.

Yeah, it will need to be clarified, but in this case not due to GW writing the rule/stat in an unclear manner.

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
Yeah.

And as a heads up, there's going to be lots of FAQs with the Seraphon Battletome. Lots of little weird rules interactions that need clarification.

Like the Bastilidons 1+ Armor Save. Lots of argument over it at the moment. Or the Engine treating it's crew as the mount and itself as the hero, meaning it can take weapon relics...

What is unclear about the 1+ armor save? The rules are quite clear that unmodified rolls of 1 always fail. This is far from the first instance of a 1+ statistic, or even a 1+ save.

I agree. But as far as I know, it's the only printed 1+ save on a unit Warscroll. Some parties are saying that overrides the Rule of 1, others are saying it means it's basically immune to rend until it goes to a 2+, but still fails on a roll of one, adhereing to the Rule of 1.
It's causing arguments, so it needs to be clarified.
Several interactions just need to be cleared up is all. Same with any other Battletome really.
I guess it just feels different because they should know better by now. But they don't. And probably won't.

So? The rules are clear, all rolls of 1's for save fail regardless of the stat, the only way it will work is if the unit has a rule that says it overrides its.

PS can you show the warscroll? Or at least what unit is it?

All available via the GW store site; go to the pre-order section and click Bastiladon, then scroll down to where there's a "rules" tab.

I didn't know it was released up on the website.


https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls//Seraphon_warscroll_Bastiladon-en.pdf

Yup, once they hit pre-order.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, it will need to be clarified, but in this case not due to GW writing the rule/stat in an unclear manner.

Well if the rule were clear it wouldn't need clarifying....

If the rule legit just says they have a 1+ save, nothing in there negates the rule of 1.

Thats just rules lawyers being rules lawyers hoping for a leg up for a few weeks.

I would like more support for TK. Or have Death have generic battalions that they can use.

 auticus wrote:
If the rule legit just says they have a 1+ save, nothing in there negates the rule of 1.

Thats just rules lawyers being rules lawyers hoping for a leg up for a few weeks.

and then the faq gets bloaded because people try to interperted the rules wrong