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.

https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/3268

Battletome review

That was a nice review. Though I don't see why people are getting confused by the god specific battalions. Not all allies flow both ways. These battalions aren't ment for you to bring god specific units to your Beasts but for you to bring your Beasts to your god specific armies.

I believe it is both.

The allied battalion thing is strange. We have a rule that says all units in an allied battalion count as allies--cool, that is probably for the best. But then we have a rule in certain battletomes saying that if every unit in a battalion has X keyword then the battalion can be included in X allegiance and is NOT an ally. Thus if all units in a battalion are Khorne, that becomes a Khorne battalion even if it is not listed as such. This rule is isolated to certain battletomes, yet also not overturned anywhere in the main rules. To confuse matters further we have clear RAI from the FAQ saying that the mono-god everchosen battalions are allies even for those armies; so all units in a battalion being Khorne does not let it be a Khorne battalion, going against the above rule (which is only RAW in certain battletomes).

Hopefully GW can clarify.

As a would-be Disciples of Tzeentch player... Tzaangor blobs got hit pretty hard with the nerf bat. OTOH our shaman gets access to the Endless Spells.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I believe it is both.

The allied battalion thing is strange. We have a rule that says all units in an allied battalion count as allies--cool, that is probably for the best. But then we have a rule in certain battletomes saying that if every unit in a battalion has X keyword then the battalion can be included in X allegiance and is NOT an ally. Thus if all units in a battalion are Khorne, that becomes a Khorne battalion even if it is not listed as such. This rule is isolated to certain battletomes, yet also not overturned anywhere in the main rules. To confuse matters further we have clear RAI from the FAQ saying that the mono-god everchosen battalions are allies even for those armies; so all units in a battalion being Khorne does not let it be a Khorne battalion, going against the above rule (which is only RAW in certain battletomes).

Hopefully GW can clarify.

From the Core Rules Designer Commentary:

Q: Many older battletomes have a page of rules for warscrolls,
warscroll battalions and allegiance abilities. Are these rules
replaced by the new core rules for warscrolls, warscroll battalions
and allegiance abilities?
A: Yes.

These battletome rules are overturned.

Quick question, think I missed something - how are Tzaangors nerfed?

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I believe it is both.

The allied battalion thing is strange. We have a rule that says all units in an allied battalion count as allies--cool, that is probably for the best. But then we have a rule in certain battletomes saying that if every unit in a battalion has X keyword then the battalion can be included in X allegiance and is NOT an ally. Thus if all units in a battalion are Khorne, that becomes a Khorne battalion even if it is not listed as such. This rule is isolated to certain battletomes, yet also not overturned anywhere in the main rules. To confuse matters further we have clear RAI from the FAQ saying that the mono-god everchosen battalions are allies even for those armies; so all units in a battalion being Khorne does not let it be a Khorne battalion, going against the above rule (which is only RAW in certain battletomes).

Hopefully GW can clarify.

From the Core Rules Designer Commentary:

Q: Many older battletomes have a page of rules for warscrolls,
warscroll battalions and allegiance abilities. Are these rules
replaced by the new core rules for warscrolls, warscroll battalions
and allegiance abilities?
A: Yes.

These battletome rules are overturned.

Looks like I was reading an older version of the FAQ--thanks for correcting me.

UltraPrime wrote:
Quick question, think I missed something - how are Tzaangors nerfed?

Friend was telling me they only get +1 Attack max now instead of multiple extra attacks for bigger blobs.

Here's something, if you go to the GW website(the shop not the community sight) they have all the updated warscrolls for the Beast Of Chaos units.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Here's something, if you go to the GW website(the shop not the community sight) they have all the updated warscrolls for the Beast Of Chaos units.

The app has the updated warscrolls too.

 AduroT wrote:

UltraPrime wrote:
Quick question, think I missed something - how are Tzaangors nerfed?

Friend was telling me they only get +1 Attack max now instead of multiple extra attacks for bigger blobs.

Blobs of 9-17 actually got buffed - the ability now adds +1 attack to each weapon, including their beaks, not only their hand-held weapon as before. However, as you say, it doesn't get better with larger units.

The warscroll on the online store got updated, but only on the 40k Tzaangor box (the one with chainswords and autopistols), not the AoS Tzaangor box.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG_AoS_BeastsOfChaos_Tzaangors.pdf

in the French warhammer forum someone says that in a few months there will be a new fyreslayer codex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Dd5D-3yq4

Interesting. That would be the first replacement battletome other than Stormcast (no, Blades of Khorne does not count!)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Interesting. That would be the first replacement battletome other than Stormcast (no, Blades of Khorne does not count!)

Blades of Khorne does count if you're counting Stormcast.

Sylvaneth, Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, the Wannabe bretonian stinky boys could all receive a new Battletome.

And Seraphon. A new battletome to nerf them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Interesting. That would be the first replacement battletome other than Stormcast (no, Blades of Khorne does not count!)

Blades of Khorne does count if you're counting Stormcast.

Blades of Khorne =/= Khorne Bloodbound. The former includes all daemons and all marked units: it tripled the roster. It would be like saying Beasts of Chaos is just a Brayherd battletome; yes Brayherd are in it and an important part at that but to call the army by that name is inaccurate. The second Stormcast battletome did wrap in the Extremis battletome but that was a subsequent release after the original Stormcast battletome. The models did not exist before to be included. The circumstance is different.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Interesting. That would be the first replacement battletome other than Stormcast (no, Blades of Khorne does not count!)

Blades of Khorne does count if you're counting Stormcast.

Blades of Khorne =/= Khorne Bloodbound. The former includes all daemons and all marked units: it tripled the roster. It would be like saying Beasts of Chaos is just a Brayherd battletome; yes Brayherd are in it and an important part at that but to call the army by that name is inaccurate. The second Stormcast battletome did wrap in the Extremis battletome but that was a subsequent release after the original Stormcast battletome. The models did not exist before to be included. The circumstance is different.

That's the point though:
When Bloodbound dropped, the Daemon stuff wasn't new or unreleased like the Extremis stuff. It was purportedly going to be in a Daemons of Chaos army book.

Cut to a time later when Daemons and Extremis get rolled into new combined books rather than being separate.

Khorne Bloodbound -- Battletome for the Bloodbound keyword
Blades of Khorne -- Battletome for the Khorne keyword

Stormcast -- Battletome for the Stormcast keyword
Stormcast 2 -- Battletome for the Stormcast keyword

So Stormcast is the only army to receive a replacement battletome.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Khorne Bloodbound -- Battletome for the Bloodbound keyword
Blades of Khorne -- Battletome for the Khorne keyword

Stormcast -- Battletome for the Stormcast keyword
Stormcast 2 -- Battletome for the Stormcast keyword

So Stormcast is the only army to receive a replacement battletome.

And in between Stormcast books there was the Extremis Chambers, which got rolled into Stormcast v2...much like how Blades of Khorne incorporated Daemons of Khorne in addition to the Bloodbound.

Those are not equivalent to each other.
-Daemons existed before the Bloodbound battletome, Extremis did not
-Extremis is 6 warscrolls. Non-Bloodbound Khorne (at the time) was 30.
-Bloodbound are a minority in the Blades book, pre-existing Stormcast are a majority in the second battletome.
-The keyword that Blades covers is not the same as the keyword Bloodbound covers, they are not the same army in the most literal sense.
-All Stormcast battletomes cover the exact same keyword, they are the same army in the most literal sense
-Khorne did not recieve and new model releases between Bloodbound and Blades so if we factor those out we see that the Stormcast battletomes are the exact same units, whereas the Khorne side is not.

The Blades of Khorne battletome is not a second edition of the Bloodbound battletome.

Not going to watch a three and a half hour video just for that, so I guess I'll take it for what it is. Exactly how poorly did the Fyreslayers sell? Would this be an attempt to revitalize them into something more attractive?

From what I have seen Fyreslayer armies were scarce to non-existent until the start collecting box made it financially practical to build an army (barely). Reboxing their infantry to reasonable prices would boost popularity tremendously I expect.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Those are not equivalent to each other.
-Daemons existed before the Bloodbound battletome, Extremis did not
-Extremis is 6 warscrolls. Non-Bloodbound Khorne (at the time) was 30.
-Bloodbound are a minority in the Blades book, pre-existing Stormcast are a majority in the second battletome.
-The keyword that Blades covers is not the same as the keyword Bloodbound covers, they are not the same army in the most literal sense.
-All Stormcast battletomes cover the exact same keyword, they are the same army in the most literal sense
-Khorne did not recieve and new model releases between Bloodbound and Blades so if we factor those out we see that the Stormcast battletomes are the exact same units, whereas the Khorne side is not.

The Blades of Khorne battletome is not a second edition of the Bloodbound battletome.

Just so we're clear:

You're arguing that Khorne when they got a revised book, incorporating elements that hadn't been available in an army book at release, as not being a redone book...by saying that Stormcast getting a revised book incorporating elements that hadn't been available in an army book at release means they were a redone book?

If you want to argue that "the keyword" being covered is not the same, then it's important to note that a similar circumstance was in play with the Extremis book and likely would have been with Vanguard(another 6 Warscroll subfaction... ) and the Sacrosanct Chamber(13 Warscrolls, 3 of which are Lord Arcanums and 2 are named characters) would have had the same thing provided GW hadn't swapped to full books rather than mini-books.

They changed the way they did books. It doesn't mean that Khorne Bloodbound wasn't redone, because it was--to match the Tzeentch Arcanites faction that had come out not long before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
From what I have seen Fyreslayer armies were scarce to non-existent until the start collecting box made it financially practical to build an army (barely). Reboxing their infantry to reasonable prices would boost popularity tremendously I expect.

They also have issues with the fact that they're a "horde" army that can't really horde thanks to prices of the models and the points themselves.

 Tim the Biovore wrote:
Not going to watch a three and a half hour video just for that, so I guess I'll take it for what it is. Exactly how poorly did the Fyreslayers sell? Would this be an attempt to revitalize them into something more attractive?

Sorry i dont understand french. I only read it in the forum

http://www.warhammer-forum.com/index.php?/topic/231038-calendrier-des-sorties-aos/&page=178

@Kan, I do see what you are saying. I am going to agree to disagree at this point, though, as this is getting a bit off topic.

Have there been any rumors around darkoath/slaves to darkness? Just got stuffed on an order of knights that I needed to keep building that force out and marauders of all flavors have been out of stock for weeks. Kinda hoping they're just being repacked with new rules, with no rational basis what so ever.

Check it out. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/20/sep20warhammer-underworlds-nightvault-the-loregw-homepage-post-2/

One the one hand, this seems off-topic. On the other hand, There is a chance one of those experiments might find it's way out of the city...

Video for y'all

 parakuribo wrote:
One the one hand, this seems off-topic. On the other hand, There is a chance one of those experiments might find it's way out of the city...

Age of Sigmar is a setting as well as a game, so I'd say it's on topic. The warbands also get rules for the tabletop.