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.

That's really good for sylvaneth.

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

Wyldwoods consist of 1-3 Citadel Woods so yes they do, at least in my opinion

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?

"A battalion can still be part of any allegiance that all its units have on their warscrolls"

-Maggotkin of Nurgle, pg. 76 (and others)

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!

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I'm really not seeing what the point of contention here 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.

auticus wrote:

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.

Would you get the digital copy of the core rulebook or the physical one? I would get the physical, but digital for the GHB.

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?

The concept of reserve points are gone. They don't exist anymore.