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.

str00dles1 wrote:
Anyone keen based on the stormhost pics what the 3 other chapters are?

Left to Right:
Hammers of Sigmar
Hallowed Knights
Celestial Vindicators
Celestial Warbringers or possibly the Astral Templars. Both have the candied red and both had rules in the current book.
Anvils of the Heldenhammer
Knights Excelsior maybe?

Why aren’t the abilities called “battle traits” like they are in every other Battletome?

 Mymearan wrote:
Why aren’t the abilities called “battle traits” like they are in every other Battletome?

I don't know, but it's the same setup as Idoneth.

Knights Excelsior maybe?

That or the Maelstrom of the Light.

Battle traits are the allegiance stuff that the army always get, these are optional.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW have never told anyone what to do with their models.

But GW events ...

I'm throwing GeeDub under the bus for the playerbase's occasional lack of imagination and difficulty with abstraction in gaming. I've been on Dakka for a long time and can always remember people using The Dub as a boogeyman for policing other people's hobbying. This is just another step down that same road. My point was that these events where GW has the right to dictate what models may be used (as all company's do at their own events) hardly exist themselves, and in fact did not for many years.

That's why they've been pretty clear over the decades that players should feel free to change the rules to their liking, and that FAQs are simply the designers' house rules.

It seems quite clear to me that one of the attractions of playing GW games is that the rules are the rules wherever you go, even as clunky as the updating process has always been. It's somewhat foolish of people to argue that FAQs published by the company itself are simply house rules that can be placed to the side, when one of the very values of these games is that we all use the same, most up to date rules to speak a common language across thousands of gaming tables.

Anyway, letting the point rest until it inevitably comes up again. In regards to the new Stormcast, here's dreaming that every army gets the same treatment, and that GW avoids giving out any blanket buffs like the -1 to hit in 40k, which has had the opposite effect on army comp that they likely intended.

- Salvage

How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

Their version of Stormhosts are called Enclaves and are all reasonably balanced except one (More'Fan) which is clearly OP.

 Kanluwen wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
Anyone keen based on the stormhost pics what the 3 other chapters are?

Left to Right:
Hammers of Sigmar
Hallowed Knights
Celestial Vindicators
Celestial Warbringers or possibly the Astral Templars. Both have the candied red and both had rules in the current book.
Anvils of the Heldenhammer
Knights Excelsior maybe?

Celestial Warbringers rather than Astral Templars (they're specifically called out in the article), and the last one is Tempest Lords.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

Their version of Stormhosts are called Enclaves and are all reasonably balanced except one (More'Fan) which is clearly OP.

Mor'phann is (in my opinion) balanced by the fact that their Tidecasters can't take anything from the "Lore of the Deeps", necessitating a player to bring an Aspect of the Sea to have access to the signature lores of the army.

What Ninth is likely referring to is the ability of Soulrenders to return an additional 3 Namarti during the Battleshock Phase when using their "Lurelight" ability(which is a D3 natively, with +1 to the D3 roll for each model slain by the Soulrender's Talunhook during the preceding Combat phase). When coupled with a Namarti Corps Warscroll Battalion(2 units of Thralls, 2 of Reavers, 1 Soulrender), it's a guaranteed amount of models returned since the Namarti Corps counts the D3 roll to return models as always being a 3(which is...interestingly written and I'm submitting to the FAQ line. Is it 3 models being returned or a D3 roll of a 3--meaning 2 models returned?).

It can get gross quickly, provided someone just stacks a big block of Thralls and keeps them as being immune to Battleshock(meaning they'd only suffer casualties from the fighting they're engaged in).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

By and large, they're okay. A few really stand out(Ionrach and its ability to grant Tides of Death to allies while also taking an extra Tidecaster and Soulscryer in the Royal Council Battalion, Mor'phann and its Namarti synergy) but for the most part they're nothing to really write home about. A couple of them(Mor'phann and Nautilar) have to take a signature spell on their Tidecasters rather than allowing for them to take a spell from the Lore of the Deeps.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

Their version of Stormhosts are called Enclaves and are all reasonably balanced except one (More'Fan) which is clearly OP.

Mor'phann is (in my opinion) balanced by the fact that their Tidecasters can't take anything from the "Lore of the Deeps", necessitating a player to bring an Aspect of the Sea to have access to the signature lores of the army.

Tidecasters would take up hero slots that could be soulrenders anyways, though. At any rate, after playing against a unit of thralls getting d3+9 guys back every round (from just two soulrenders...) I'd say it's an issue.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

Their version of Stormhosts are called Enclaves and are all reasonably balanced except one (More'Fan) which is clearly OP.

Mor'phann is (in my opinion) balanced by the fact that their Tidecasters can't take anything from the "Lore of the Deeps", necessitating a player to bring an Aspect of the Sea to have access to the signature lores of the army.

Tidecasters would take up hero slots that could be soulrenders anyways, though.

Fair play, but with Endless Spells being a thing now--Tidecasters are going to get used at least for dispelling/unbinding. One of the biggest discussions I've been involved in elsewhere has been around Mor'phann and the Command Abilities changes plus the fact that you can tag in multiple units now with your CAs. It makes a Royal Council basically a 'must have' for Mor'phann, which means at least one Tidecaster is in play.

At any rate, after playing against a unit of thralls getting d3+9 guys back every round (from just two soulrenders...) I'd say it's an issue.

How are they getting +9 guys back from 2 Soulrenders? Mor'phann gives you +3 to the amount returned; you'd need 3 to get that--or the Soulrenders have to kill at least 3 models with their Talunhooks.

Not saying it didn't happen, just unclear as to the situation. I should also add that I did submit to the FAQ line a question as to whether or not it's intentional that the same Namarti unit can have units returned to it by multiple Soulrenders since the FAQs yesterday put a lot of caps on similar "pick a unit" abilities.

Thommy H wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
Anyone keen based on the stormhost pics what the 3 other chapters are?

Left to Right:
Hammers of Sigmar
Hallowed Knights
Celestial Vindicators
Celestial Warbringers or possibly the Astral Templars. Both have the candied red and both had rules in the current book.
Anvils of the Heldenhammer
Knights Excelsior maybe?

Celestial Warbringers rather than Astral Templars (they're specifically called out in the article), and the last one is Tempest Lords.

Hard to tell for last one. Could be either really, Tempest or Knights as both use red plumes, have white and blue

The article mentions the Tempest Lords and all the others are accounted for.

Thommy H wrote:
The article mentions the Tempest Lords and all the others are accounted for.

Tempest Lords are a midnight blue armor color. The faceplates are that color with a bronze/silvered gold 'detailing' for the lightning bolts, and then silver backing it.

I mean, it's possible that they changed the colors on them--but there might be more than 'just' those.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

Aren73 wrote:


You can complain that's stifling creativity, but there are many plenty of places you can be creative, such as custom chapters, it's only when you want to play a defined chapter but use not the defined colour scheme that it's wrong. If anything, it shows you don't really care about the chapter you're playing, you just want the rules because they're good. If that's the case, I could happily play against you but only using drinks cans as my vehicles.

Comparing a different paint scheme to playing with drinks can? Honestly that’s a bit of an insult to every player who spends a huge amount of time, effort and money doing interesting and creative things in the hobby.

I was talking mainly about all the people who paint their army as X but then use them as Y because Y has tastier rules. I happen to play Legion of Blood in my Legions of Nagash army, putting in as you say a huge amount of time, effort and money to make sure my army looks the part. Because having my army look like the army I'm playing matters, I actually feel like they're a part of the universe we all enjoy. I love seeing new and crazy colour schemes and conversions, they're great especially when the person not only cares about a whacky idea but also about making it look lore appropriate. My main gripe is with people who don't care. Who say dunk their marines into a pot of green and call the Dark Angels but then grab a green Guilliman and use Ultramarine rules in tournaments, the sort of people who couldn't care less about the lore, the setting...I think that's a pretty bad way to hobby. I am a fan of people who genuinely love their army and faction, not so much of people who don't care, that's all.

Pretty sure it’s Knights Excelsior

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Knight wrote:
How are the traits balanced for the deepkin? Assume I'm living under the rock and have no idea what sort of madness is going on in 40k?

Their version of Stormhosts are called Enclaves and are all reasonably balanced except one (More'Fan) which is clearly OP.

Mor'phann is (in my opinion) balanced by the fact that their Tidecasters can't take anything from the "Lore of the Deeps", necessitating a player to bring an Aspect of the Sea to have access to the signature lores of the army.

Tidecasters would take up hero slots that could be soulrenders anyways, though.

Fair play, but with Endless Spells being a thing now--Tidecasters are going to get used at least for dispelling/unbinding. One of the biggest discussions I've been involved in elsewhere has been around Mor'phann and the Command Abilities changes plus the fact that you can tag in multiple units now with your CAs. It makes a Royal Council basically a 'must have' for Mor'phann, which means at least one Tidecaster is in play.

Good point.

At any rate, after playing against a unit of thralls getting d3+9 guys back every round (from just two soulrenders...) I'd say it's an issue.

How are they getting +9 guys back from 2 Soulrenders? Mor'phann gives you +3 to the amount returned; you'd need 3 to get that--or the Soulrenders have to kill at least 3 models with their Talunhooks.

Not saying it didn't happen, just unclear as to the situation. I should also add that I did submit to the FAQ line a question as to whether or not it's intentional that the same Namarti unit can have units returned to it by multiple Soulrenders since the FAQs yesterday put a lot of caps on similar "pick a unit" abilities.

Battalion gave an auto-3, d3 from the second soulrender, +3 to each from More'Fan. We commented afterward that it would probably be stronger just to drop the battalion in favor of at least one more soulrender for 3d3+9 instead.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
The article mentions the Tempest Lords and all the others are accounted for.

Tempest Lords are a midnight blue armor color. The faceplates are that color with a bronze/silvered gold 'detailing' for the lightning bolts, and then silver backing it.

I mean, it's possible that they changed the colors on them--but there might be more than 'just' those.

Again, the article specifically mentions Tempest Lords as one of the options.

Thommy H wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
The article mentions the Tempest Lords and all the others are accounted for.

Tempest Lords are a midnight blue armor color. The faceplates are that color with a bronze/silvered gold 'detailing' for the lightning bolts, and then silver backing it.

I mean, it's possible that they changed the colors on them--but there might be more than 'just' those.

Again, the article specifically mentions Tempest Lords as one of the options.

And, again, he was specifically asking about the ones in the picture I posted.

I'm not arguing that Tempest Lords are not mentioned. I'm simply saying that in the picture that he was inquiring about, they might not have been represented.

On paintjobs and rules.

Not a problem - Following the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Deviating from the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Inventing one’s own colour scheme, and then choosing which army bonus suits one’s play style.

Not a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but fielding as Army Bonus B.

Really very a much a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but waiting to see what your opponent is fielding before choosing your army bonus to best counter that specific game.

Really very much a problem - as above, but with your own invented paint scheme.

Not a problem - Painting it in any colours (strict or otherwise), and then finding that, after a few games, perhaps another Army Bonus will suit your collection, and giving that a whirl instead

Basically, everyone be flexible, but don’t be a Phallus.

Intention definitely matters. If someone playing one stormhost wants to use the rules for another because it's a game experience they want or it matches what goes on in the stories better or whatever, I'm cool. If they do it because it makes their army stronger, I'm less interested. Like the one local guy who plays Imperial Fists but uses the Ravenguard rules. Right...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Really very a much a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but waiting to see what your opponent is fielding before choosing your army bonus to best counter that specific game.

Really very much a problem - as above, but with your own invented paint scheme.

I thought we are suppose to have lists already made before hand so this type of thing doesn't happen? I mean are not most people who are serious about this have lists that are already pre made or do people really need an edge when making a list?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On paintjobs and rules.

Not a problem - Following the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Deviating from the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Inventing one’s own colour scheme, and then choosing which army bonus suits one’s play style.

Not a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but fielding as Army Bonus B.

Really very a much a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but waiting to see what your opponent is fielding before choosing your army bonus to best counter that specific game.

Really very much a problem - as above, but with your own invented paint scheme.

Not a problem - Painting it in any colours (strict or otherwise), and then finding that, after a few games, perhaps another Army Bonus will suit your collection, and giving that a whirl instead

Basically, everyone be flexible, but don’t be a Phallus.

Yup. The only thing actually made illegal by the rules is painting the army using the scheme for a specific stormhost then using it as a different one. Or in other words your marines painted as blood angels cannot be ultramarines. It's not any different than these things were in the last edition, nor is it really a problem.

Aren73 wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

Aren73 wrote:


You can complain that's stifling creativity, but there are many plenty of places you can be creative, such as custom chapters, it's only when you want to play a defined chapter but use not the defined colour scheme that it's wrong. If anything, it shows you don't really care about the chapter you're playing, you just want the rules because they're good. If that's the case, I could happily play against you but only using drinks cans as my vehicles.

Comparing a different paint scheme to playing with drinks can? Honestly that’s a bit of an insult to every player who spends a huge amount of time, effort and money doing interesting and creative things in the hobby.

I was talking mainly about all the people who paint their army as X but then use them as Y because Y has tastier rules. I happen to play Legion of Blood in my Legions of Nagash army, putting in as you say a huge amount of time, effort and money to make sure my army looks the part. Because having my army look like the army I'm playing matters, I actually feel like they're a part of the universe we all enjoy. I love seeing new and crazy colour schemes and conversions, they're great especially when the person not only cares about a whacky idea but also about making it look lore appropriate. My main gripe is with people who don't care. Who say dunk their marines into a pot of green and call the Dark Angels but then grab a green Guilliman and use Ultramarine rules in tournaments, the sort of people who couldn't care less about the lore, the setting...I think that's a pretty bad way to hobby. I am a fan of people who genuinely love their army and faction, not so much of people who don't care, that's all.

Not everyone enjoys the universe. I personally don't care much for the fluff of AoS, and the two friends I go to tournaments with couldn't name the 4 chaos gods between them. We like the models and we like the game, the 'lore' or whatever isn't something we care about. Across multiple editions of both 40k and AoS I've never read so much as a codex, and as much as that isn't how you enjoy the hobby, it works for me.

What your army looks like matters to you, the narrative matters to you, and that's fine. You have every opportunity to build your army in a way that fits the narrative and paint them to match, and when you meet like-minded people who make armies that really impress you that's great too. But the narrative doesn't matter to everyone. A fair chunk of people who play AoS could give a rats arse about what character is doing what where in the whoever realm, and that's fine. People enjoy the game in different ways, and should be allowed to enjoy the game in different ways.

Think of it this way, how you feel when you play someone with a super tricked out tournament army just barely 3 colors with some sand sprinkled on the base is EXACTLY how I feel when someone tells me I shouldn't use Hammers of Sigmar because my stormcasts have purple shoulder pads instead of blue, or that I can't use Ravenguard because my marines are painted Blood Ravens.(telling me I CAN'T use the rules I want because of the paintjob makes me far angrier than this.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On paintjobs and rules.

Not a problem - Following the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Deviating from the exact paint scheme for a specific army bonus.

Not a problem - Inventing one’s own colour scheme, and then choosing which army bonus suits one’s play style.

Not a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but fielding as Army Bonus B.

Really very a much a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but waiting to see what your opponent is fielding before choosing your army bonus to best counter that specific game.

Really very much a problem - as above, but with your own invented paint scheme.

Not a problem - Painting it in any colours (strict or otherwise), and then finding that, after a few games, perhaps another Army Bonus will suit your collection, and giving that a whirl instead

Basically, everyone be flexible, but don’t be a Phallus.

Yup. The only thing actually made illegal by the rules is painting the army using the scheme for a specific stormhost then using it as a different one. Or in other words your marines painted as blood angels cannot be ultramarines. It's not any different than these things were in the last edition, nor is it really a problem.

That's a huge change, and a major problem. Basically all you're doing is massively discouraging people from painting their armies using any of the official schemes, and hugely punishing anyone who did so already.

For example, Anvils of Heldenhammer. Their CA is busted but that's going to be FAQed so you can't have 12 longstrikes shooting 10-15 times in your first hero phase so let's assume they do what they did for every other version of a CA like this and they FAQed it to only work once per unit.

Once that FAQ goes through, anyone who painted their army Anvils of Heldenhammer is getting massively f***ed by their paintjob, because the rest of the rules are dogshit. Reroll battleshock is worthless, -bravery is very close to worthless and the soulthief is terrible for a relic. It actively make your army worse to use the anvils of heldenhammer scheme.

If you have a bunch of judicators, longstrikes and ballista in your collection and you painted your army Celestial Vindicators you're getting punished for what you chose to collect, because those units are pretty gak in a celestial vindicators army and since you already have to take one of the worst command traits in the game and a relic that is absolutely awful compared to the generic relics stormcasts had available to them in the old battletome, you're going to need to squeeze every possible ounce of advantage out of the reroll 1s on the charge and the command ability you possibly can, just to break even on Staunch+Mirrorshield or Consumate Commander+Armor of Silvered Sigmarite.

So your argument is they'd be better off generic Stormcasts than stormhost focused?

Because the preview implies you can do that despite how you paint them.

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!

Davor wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Really very a much a problem - Really liking and following Paint Scheme A, but waiting to see what your opponent is fielding before choosing your army bonus to best counter that specific game.

Really very much a problem - as above, but with your own invented paint scheme.

I thought we are suppose to have lists already made before hand so this type of thing doesn't happen? I mean are not most people who are serious about this have lists that are already pre made or do people really need an edge when making a list?

Of course there's people who do that. Where there's even a hint of competition in any medium a overboard try-hard is sure to show up somewhere.

One concept that Warmachine has that is pretty good is that most tournaments are two-list things. It's an idea that might do a lot of good in 40K and AOS.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, you would for example pick your faction (Stormcast, in example) and write up two separate army lists that both need to be that faction. Before you play someone, you both get to see the other's lists and then secretly choose one of your two. That way, if a certain faction is a really bad matchup for you, you can have a list to counter it and swap to that one if needed.

It is kind of list tailoring, but with rules and limits so that everything is above board instead of it being something people sneakily do in secret.

My Hammers of Sigmar will only ever be fielding with the Hammers of Sigmar rules even if they are clearly and obviously the worst ones. If I can handle it with Iron Warriors for 40k, I think I'll have no problem here.

Same with me and Hallowed Knights and every other army I play. I go for what looks cool and fluff I enjoy and build around.

If I lose so be it but that just goes into my personal narrative history for them and the times I win are made all the sweeter.

New rules from FW

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-DE/searchResults?N=119945383+1114623960