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.

Aspiring Deathbringer
- General
- Goreaxe and Skullhammer
- Trait: Disciple of Khorne
- Artefact: Mark of the Destroyer

Bloodsecrator
- Banner of Khorne: Banner of Rage

3 x Bloodcrushers

5 x Blood Warriors
- Goreaxe & Gorefist

20 x Bloodreavers
- Reaver Blades

20 x Bloodreavers
- Meatripper Axes

5 x Wrathmongers

1 x Khorgorath

One big block with Heroes and Wrathmongers in the middle and Bloodreavers on the flanks (they go to 5 attacks each), Warriors, Bloodcrushers and Khorgorath in front of the block

Banners from the battletome count toward the maximum allowed artefacts in your army. As you have no battalion which grants you an extra artefact, you have to either give up the Banner of Rage or the Mark of the Destroyer.

Personally, with 2 units of Reavers, I would see that I can buff them to the max.
Which would mean: inlcude a Slaughterpriest and a Bloodstoker.
This would be 180 pts, so I would probably leave the Bloodwarriors and the Khorgorath at home.

Keep everything together as close as possible to benefit from the Command Ability and roll up the enemy in one big blob.

So I suppose this is not an attempt for a competitive list? Otherwise you should look into gore pilgrims and/or a heavy hitter (like a blood thirster, play 2 if you feel mean at 1000 pts) . (But might be a little bit expensive in 1000 pts games.. have not tested it yet...)

I would in any case split one of the reaver blocks up in 2 units of 10. When needed it gives you objective grabbers/holders or bubblewrap for harder hitting unit.

Crushers seem to me like a waste of pts. As you have nothing fast to back them up. They will not stay with your main force and if they go off alone they will die a lonely useless death. 3 of them will not be enough to put pressure on an opponent.

Axes on the warriors for re-roll 1's if you really are going to take them. It will trigger more often then the 6 on saves.

If you are going to play the buff game, consider adding in a daemon hero. They can have mark of the slayer. That would give all your units within 8" re-roll 1's re-roll to hit and re-roll 1 to wound on the charge.

Slaughter priests give access to some awesome prayers. (And with gore pilgrims you can re-roll the prayers for a 75% chance of them going off). The extra prayer "Killing Frenzy" for +1 to hit is awesome and you would also have something to break open enemy formations with blood bind.

Bloodcrushers do really need a daemon hero around for their locus effect; re-roll all hits (even just on the charge) is a big deal.

The list is for a campaign, unfortunately I haven't other unit to replace except for 30 bloodletter or a skullcannon (no, I haven't the Herald)

I like Gore Pilgrims but I think battallions are now too expensive for small games

I swap Disciple of Khorne and Mark of the Destroyer for Violent Urgency for the Aspiring (thanks Hanskrampf) and I consider Slaughterpriest and Herald for a 1500 points list, thanks




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile I have consider another list:

Skullmaster, Herald of Khorne
Bloodsecrator
- Banner of Khorne: Banner of Rage
Aspiring Deathbringer
- General

30 x Bloodletters

10 x Bloodreavers
- Reaver Blades

10 x Bloodreavers
- Reaver Blades

20 x Bloodreavers
- Meatripper Axes

1 x Chaos Spawn
1 x Chaos Spawn
1 x Chaos Spawn

Herald and Secrator buff the Letters mob, the others are screens or obj holders

the spawn has a fixed tzeentch keyword these days, so you cannot play them within khorne allegiance not even as allies. Lame I know...

 minisnatcher wrote:
the spawn has a fixed tzeentch keyword these days, so you cannot play them within khorne allegiance not even as allies. Lame I know...

What are you talking about? Blades of Khorne can have StD allies with TZEENTCH keyword, only units with Mark of Slaanesh are forbidden.

Chaos spawn can have any mark, and taken out of slaves to darkness they don't even need to be allies since they can have the khorne keyword.

Hanskrampf wrote:

 minisnatcher wrote:
the spawn has a fixed tzeentch keyword these days, so you cannot play them within khorne allegiance not even as allies. Lame I know...

What are you talking about? Blades of Khorne can have StD allies with TZEENTCH keyword, only units with Mark of Slaanesh are forbidden.

Hanskrampf wrote:

 minisnatcher wrote:
the spawn has a fixed tzeentch keyword these days, so you cannot play them within khorne allegiance not even as allies. Lame I know...

What are you talking about? Blades of Khorne can have StD allies with TZEENTCH keyword, only units with Mark of Slaanesh are forbidden.

sorry. my mistake idd it is slaanesh, not tzeentch.
But still, why would you play a tzeentch unit in a BoK army if they can not use any of your buffs due to not having khorne keyword.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Chaos spawn can have any mark, and taken out of slaves to darkness they don't even need to be allies since they can have the khorne keyword.

not on the latest version of there warscroll, this is from the GW website :

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-chaos-spawn-en.pdf

it is the same on the app.

I guess they updated it with the Tzeentch book... I find it completely ridiculous. But it cannot be ignored. Otherwhise we would have to allow all old versions of warscrolls.

It's just the app being weird as always. There are warscrolls in the app that haven't been updated since the start, even when those warscrolls received changes in the grand alliance books. The important part is that the slaves to darkness chaos spawn warscroll from the grand alliance book is still current. Even that aside, no one but TFG would actually enforce that chaos spawn MUST be Tzeentch anyways.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's just the app being weird as always. There are warscrolls in the app that haven't been updated since the start, even when those warscrolls received changes in the grand alliance books. The important part is that the slaves to darkness chaos spawn warscroll from the grand alliance book is still current. Even that aside, no one but TFG would actually enforce that chaos spawn MUST be Tzeentch anyways.

No, nothing weird with the app.
The posted Chaos Spawn with TZEENTCH keyword is the newest version. It's found in the Disciples of Tzeentch battletome and replaced the Grand Alliance version in both webstore and app.
The warscroll from the Grand Alliance book is outdated and, imo, no longer valid.

I agree with Hanskrampf.

This is just enforcing the latest version of a warscroll. Not TFG stuff. You cannot say use the latest version there, but here I do not like it, enforcing it is being tfg, so we use the old version. That does not make sense.

=> In this topic https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740755.page you seem to agree with this line of thinking.

They have that faq that you are allowed to use older versions of warscrolls, but in my playgroup, and most that I know of, this is not allowed. Most tournament rules specifically state the use of latest version of warscrolls.

But that does not change the fact that in case of the spawn it really does not make any sense...

Azyr allows you to take a non-Tzeentch Chaos Spawn, so I'd say Ninth is right here.

 EnTyme wrote:
Azyr allows you to take a non-Tzeentch Chaos Spawn, so I'd say Ninth is right here.

Azyr allows all kind of stuff not covered in the rules, erratas or FAQs, e.g. choosing Khorne-marked Slaves to Darkness units as Blades of Khorne units and not allies. Not really the best place to look for rules clarification.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Azyr allows you to take a non-Tzeentch Chaos Spawn, so I'd say Ninth is right here.

Azyr allows all kind of stuff not covered in the rules, erratas or FAQs, e.g. choosing Khorne-marked Slaves to Darkness units as Blades of Khorne units and not allies. Not really the best place to look for rules clarification.

Khorne-marked Slaves to Darkness are fine in a Blades of Khorne army. Note that the allegiance is just the Khorne keyword, which marked units have.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Azyr allows you to take a non-Tzeentch Chaos Spawn, so I'd say Ninth is right here.

Azyr allows all kind of stuff not covered in the rules, erratas or FAQs, e.g. choosing Khorne-marked Slaves to Darkness units as Blades of Khorne units and not allies. Not really the best place to look for rules clarification.

Khorne-marked Slaves to Darkness are fine in a Blades of Khorne army. Note that the allegiance is just the Khorne keyword, which marked units have.

Yeah, allegiance is fine if you don't take any other allies. But allies are defined on the GH lists. Khorne-marked units from StD have to count against the allies point limit for a Blades of Khorne list without an errata/FAQ. In the Azyr builder, they don't. Which, according to every official written GW rule, is wrong. (obviously this only matters if you include any units without KHORNE keyword)

 minisnatcher wrote:
I agree with Hanskrampf.

This is just enforcing the latest version of a warscroll. Not TFG stuff. You cannot say use the latest version there, but here I do not like it, enforcing it is being tfg, so we use the old version. That does not make sense.

=> In this topic https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740755.page you seem to agree with this line of thinking.

They have that faq that you are allowed to use older versions of warscrolls, but in my playgroup, and most that I know of, this is not allowed. Most tournament rules specifically state the use of latest version of warscrolls.

But that does not change the fact that in case of the spawn it really does not make any sense...

I don't feel this situation is analogous. This isn't like, say, the Warlock Engineer where the app version is obviously outdated vs the one in the grand alliance book. The chaos spawn is a unit that we all know is supposed to be useable by all four gods, and we all know that it was included in the Tzeentch book for convenience since several effects from there summon them. Even the description on the warscroll references the Tzeentch spawn being a subtype of spawn overall. And like EnTyme said, Azyr lets you do it. We are left thinking is this GW changing spawn to be Tzeentch only, unprecedented in Warhammer history, or the app being weird, which has and still does happen all the time.

The analogue was only that Azyr should not be counted as a source of credibility, as it has interpretations of the rules and list building that are not based on any written information.

The Mutalith Vortex Beast is also in the Disciples of Tzeentch battletome, but was renamed Mutalith Vortex Beast of Tzeentch. The GH 2017 has two entries for the Mutalith Vortex Beast, so it's obviously not the same or updated unit.
Chaos Spawn has one entry.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but as it stands, the Chaos Spawn has one entry and only one warscroll is still provided via webshop/app.
Units from the Grand Alliance books have been replaced by newer warscrolls since the books came out. My Desctruction book has a lot of outdated warscrolls, as battletomes Bonesplitterz and Beastclaw Raiders came after and replaced a lot of warscrolls.

My interpretation of all this is: the Tzeentch warscroll is the updated one and should always be used.

On a technical level, yes. But on a technical level every model in a unit can be both a musician and standard bearer. On a technical level all Stormcast battalions using prosecutors can't be taken since that isn't an actual warscroll. And numerous other examples. This would be far from the only place where playing AoS required some application of common sense.

Also what interpretations does Azyr have that aren't based on written info? Genuinely curious.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
On a technical level, yes. But on a technical level every model in a unit can be both a musician and standard bearer. On a technical level all Stormcast battalions using prosecutors can't be taken since that isn't an actual warscroll. And numerous other examples. This would be far from the only place where playing AoS required some application of common sense.

Also what interpretations does Azyr have that aren't based on written info? Genuinely curious.

True.
But you can't get the warscroll for the unmarked Chaos Spawn anymore, aside from a 2 year old book.

As said before, it counts Khorne-marked StD units not as allies but as Blades of Khorne units.
Allegiance is built on a shared keyword, no problem here.
But allies are defined in the lists. This becomes a problem when someone tries to take 400pts of Khorne-marked Chaos Knights (not on the Blades of Khorne list - so they are allies) and idk, 400pts of anything else without KHORNE while wanting to retain the Khorne allegiance.
Azyr allows it. Based on every written rule how allies and allegiances work, this is wrong.

It is not. The Blades of Khorne battletome is very clear that all the allegiance abilities within are for a Khorne army and every unit must have the Khorne keyword. Khorne-marked StDs fall within that category. What a player can do is ally in StDs WITHOUT the mark of Khorne, but those with it do not need to be allied. If we go off the 'Blades of Khorne' keyword then it's a faction without any units.

Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?
Allies are not based on keywords or missing keywords but on the lists in the GH.
Allegiances are based on keywords.
This clashes when you take units from other lists but with the corresponding allegiance keyword.

That's a fault of how they did allies, not a fault of Azyr itself. 'Blades of Khorne' is just a title for Khorne allegiance; an army that declared 'Blades of Khorne' allegiance would not be able to include any units in the game. Ditto for Disciples of Tzeentch. The fact is that Khorne-marked units will not disrupt Khorne allegiance even when they are not allied in. You could make an army of just Slaves to Darkness units and take the allegiance benefits from Blades of Khorne if they were all marked appropriately.

But it seemed like you were referencing multiple issues with Azyr, what are the other ones? Because the above is just interpretation of the rules rather than them being objectively wrong.

Hanskrampf wrote:Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?
Allies are not based on keywords or missing keywords but on the lists in the GH.
Allegiances are based on keywords.
This clashes when you take units from other lists but with the corresponding allegiance keyword.

This is not entirely correct (RAW).

The GHB states that first to pick an army you need to choose an allegiance. All units in the army must either have that allegiance or be allied to that allegiance.

Then for allies it says
A player can spend some of their points on allied units. The Piched battle profile for each faction lists the allegiances of the allied units you can take. Allied units can have a different allegiance to the rest of the army.

So you could argument that if your army is not a faction (1 of the lists in the book) you cannot take allies. But not that a khorne army with shared allegiance needs to ally in its std units with MoK as you do not need allies to do so. as the factions do not come into play here because your army has a shared allegiance. It is the same if you would take a CHAOS army. No need for allies at that point.

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 minisnatcher wrote:
I agree with Hanskrampf.

This is just enforcing the latest version of a warscroll. Not TFG stuff. You cannot say use the latest version there, but here I do not like it, enforcing it is being tfg, so we use the old version. That does not make sense.

=> In this topic https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740755.page you seem to agree with this line of thinking.

They have that faq that you are allowed to use older versions of warscrolls, but in my playgroup, and most that I know of, this is not allowed. Most tournament rules specifically state the use of latest version of warscrolls.

But that does not change the fact that in case of the spawn it really does not make any sense...

I don't feel this situation is analogous. This isn't like, say, the Warlock Engineer where the app version is obviously outdated vs the one in the grand alliance book. The chaos spawn is a unit that we all know is supposed to be useable by all four gods, and we all know that it was included in the Tzeentch book for convenience since several effects from there summon them. Even the description on the warscroll references the Tzeentch spawn being a subtype of spawn overall. And like EnTyme said, Azyr lets you do it. We are left thinking is this GW changing spawn to be Tzeentch only, unprecedented in Warhammer history, or the app being weird, which has and still does happen all the time.

But Azyr allows also allowed taking a khorne sorcerer last time I checked... And allows taking a glave on a unit of 5 blood warriors etc. So the functionality of Azyr is hardly a rules source. Only warscrolls and rulebooks are. The latest version of a warscroll on the other hand, is the latest version of a warscroll...

BTW scrollbuilder that is GW powered these days says the spawn are Mortal Tzeentch.
It is not only the app it is all sources were you can download warscrolls.

The change to AOS is also unprecedented in Warhammer history. And GW will hide for this behind there FAQ that it is allowed to use old verions warscrolls so asking them would not really be an option. And to quote you:

At any rate, if an opponent disagrees with your interpretation all it takes is a 4+ to force use of the updated version anyway.

Being a (small) TO, I would not allow it and force use of the Tzeentch version. Stupid as it is. I cannot start making exceptions in which case you can and cannot use an old version of a warscroll. Fluff and rules don't mix. In that case (before the errata) in 40k you could take a World Eater psycher as in the fluff World eaters use psychers to travel through the warp. Every poorly written non-thought-through novel becomes a possible rules excuse at that moment.

Furthermore there have been errata since, so they had the option to change it. I am certain this is not the first time this has been noticed.

And I know rule technical there is a lot of stuff that can be interpreted on a ridiculous level (like the command all on one model) but here the problem is different. It is a rules update, and rule technical you can take the old version of a scroll (always) if there are still pts for a scroll with that name. But Tournaments and events tend to houserule the use of the latest version warscroll.

The problem is that GW does not admit its mistakes and fixes them, but just puts a bit of text in the GHB that most tournaments will have houserules with a couple examples of them. There they just make it the TO problem, with a DIY attitude.
They reckognized the problem in 40k where they instantly made errata for the chaos legions "elites that count as troops". so they know how the community picks up the latest version of a warscroll as the current way to play a model.

So i am affraid these problems will arrize until there is a second edition AOS where they have hopefully learned from 1st edition AOS and 8th edition 40k and give more support to Matched play in terms of having rules a TO can work with out of the box.

 minisnatcher wrote:

Hanskrampf wrote:Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?
Allies are not based on keywords or missing keywords but on the lists in the GH.
Allegiances are based on keywords.
This clashes when you take units from other lists but with the corresponding allegiance keyword.

This is not entirely correct (RAW).

The GHB states that first to pick an army you need to choose an allegiance. All units in the army must either have that allegiance or be allied to that allegiance.

Then for allies it says
A player can spend some of their points on allied units. The Piched battle profile for each faction lists the allegiances of the allied units you can take. Allied units can have a different allegiance to the rest of the army.

So you could argument that if your army is not a faction (1 of the lists in the book) you cannot take allies. But not that a khorne army with shared allegiance needs to ally in its std units with MoK as you do not need allies to do so. as the factions do not come into play here because your army has a shared allegiance. It is the same if you would take a CHAOS army. No need for allies at that point.

Yes, if you only have Khorne-marked units from other sources in the army, it's no problem because you need no allies.
But it becomes relevent the second you include any unit from another list without the KHORNE keyword. RAW suddenly the Chaos Knights have to count against the point limit for allies, because now you need to honour the restrictions on allies. Which are based on the lists represented in the GH and not allegiance keywords.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 minisnatcher wrote:

Hanskrampf wrote:Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?
Allies are not based on keywords or missing keywords but on the lists in the GH.
Allegiances are based on keywords.
This clashes when you take units from other lists but with the corresponding allegiance keyword.

This is not entirely correct (RAW).

The GHB states that first to pick an army you need to choose an allegiance. All units in the army must either have that allegiance or be allied to that allegiance.

Then for allies it says
A player can spend some of their points on allied units. The Piched battle profile for each faction lists the allegiances of the allied units you can take. Allied units can have a different allegiance to the rest of the army.

So you could argument that if your army is not a faction (1 of the lists in the book) you cannot take allies. But not that a khorne army with shared allegiance needs to ally in its std units with MoK as you do not need allies to do so. as the factions do not come into play here because your army has a shared allegiance. It is the same if you would take a CHAOS army. No need for allies at that point.

Yes, if you only have Khorne-marked units from other sources in the army, it's no problem because you need no allies.
But it becomes relevent the second you include any unit from another list without the KHORNE keyword. RAW suddenly the Chaos Knights have to count against the point limit for allies, because now you need to honour the restrictions on allies. Which are based on the lists represented in the GH and not allegiance keywords.

I think we are saying the same thing now.

 minisnatcher wrote:


But Azyr allows also allowed taking a khorne sorcerer last time I checked... And allows taking a glave on a unit of 5 blood warriors etc.

There is no rule that states Khorne is not allowed to take any sorcerers. If at some point in the future, a sorcerer is released with the ability to take a Mark of Khorne or gain the Khorne keyword in some other way, it would be perfectly legal to take that unit in a Khorne army. Also, a unit of 5 warriors can absolutely take a glaive. The restriction is that only 1 in 10 models in a Blood Warriors unit may do so. As long as you only take one glaive, it is legal a legal unit.

 EnTyme wrote:

 minisnatcher wrote:


But Azyr allows also allowed taking a khorne sorcerer last time I checked... And allows taking a glave on a unit of 5 blood warriors etc.

There is no rule that states Khorne is not allowed to take any sorcerers. If at some point in the future, a sorcerer is released with the ability to take a Mark of Khorne or gain the Khorne keyword in some other way, it would be perfectly legal to take that unit in a Khorne army. Also, a unit of 5 warriors can absolutely take a glaive. The restriction is that only 1 in 10 models in a Blood Warriors unit may do so. As long as you only take one glaive, it is legal a legal unit.

A chaos sorcerer cannot take a mark of Khorne, Azyr allows it which is wrong at this point in time. https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-chaos-sorcerer-lord-en.pdf

For the blood warriors: The condition to unlock the gore glaive is having 10 models. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is played and sanctioned this way. This is the case for every ability 1 in every x can take a y. The X is the condition to get the Y.

I have looked around on the internet and different fora, having no FAQ on the subject and can only find examples that support this to be the case like this one:
http://www.tga.community/forums/topic/6080-blood-warrior-with-goreglaive-can-i-field-one-in-a-5-men-group/

You're misunderstanding the condition for unlocking the glaive. You have it backwards. You don't not have to have 10 models to have a glaive, You can't have more than 1 glaive if you have 10 or few models. In either case, I will continue to consider an app produced by the company that makes the game to be a primary source.

 EnTyme wrote:
You're misunderstanding the condition for unlocking the glaive. You have it backwards. You don't not have to have 10 models to have a glaive, You can't have more than 1 glaive if you have 10 or few models. In either case, I will continue to consider an app produced by the company that makes the game to be a primary source.

the primary source is the rulebook and the scrolls. I only say that the programmed mechanics in that APP are by no means a rule source as there are enough mistakes in it to discard it..


For the bloodwarriors it is worth its own topic that I will start.