Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

AlphaKennyThing

Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

Recommended Posts

Oh man that's ridiculous if true cos the roll off is something that a lot of people in the matched play community have been asking for and I was really pleased to see if in the rules.

Real shame if they backtrack on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PJetski said:

The community team has made mistakes before

The White Dwarf team has played their own rules incorrectly fairly often for a couple decades now.

Rule of thumb is to read the rules and the FAQs and ignore mechanics specifics from battle reports.  The rule as it is currently written seems pretty clear and not open for syntactical/grammatical interpretations.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah the way i read it. it seems to be the person who wins the roll goes first and finishing deployment first just means you get the tie break??? that is the bit that had me the most jazzed.

Also excited about the split unit bit. Not for any particular reason, but it will effect casualty removal. You can no longer have 2 models accross the table from each other counting as 1 unit. It will also effect how we pull casualties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

yeah the way i read it. it seems to be the person who wins the roll goes first and finishing deployment first just means you get the tie break??? that is the bit that had me the most jazzed.

Also excited about the split unit bit. Not for any particular reason, but it will effect casualty removal. You can no longer have 2 models accross the table from each other counting as 1 unit. It will also effect how we pull casualties. 

Yeah, that is exactly how it is worded right now.  If that is not the intention then expect that it will be altered in an FAQ. 

Personally, I prefer the roll-off, but honestly I don't think it is too big of a deal either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever the intent, go with the rules as written since you just published tens of thousands of copies. 

The grammar is clear. And the rule seems like a great change.

I can see battalion costs going up because of the extra command point. Thats worth 50 points. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cerlin said:

What ever the intent, go with the rules as written since you just published tens of thousands of copies. 

The grammar is clear. And the rule seems like a great change.

I can see battalion costs going up because of the extra command point. Thats worth 50 points. 

That is probably the smartest plan for GW.  As you mentioned, they just published the full initial print run with that rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like my assumption was wrong about allies being the only way to get the new Nighthaunt stuff in Legions of Nagash. There is a small limited list(because Nighthaunt is getting lots of new stuff) that works in the LoN. They are as follows:

Chainrasp Horde

Glaivewraith Stalker

Grimghast Reaper

Guardian of Souls

Knight of Shroud on Steed

Lord Executioner

Spirit Torment

 

And with the chainrasp horde being generic battleline, it looks like my LoN army won't be going away for me and I get to drop my Zombie battle line tax for a unit I actually want to bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cerlin said:

I can see battalion costs going up because of the extra command point. Thats worth 50 points. 

A quick glimpse of point changes from belloflostsouls' overview says otherwise. (like no point changes to idoneth deepkin) 

13 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

That is probably the smartest plan for GW.  As you mentioned, they just published the full initial print run with that rules. 

We shall see in the upcoming FAQ. The video by GW and miniwargaming preview videos seems to suggest that 'finish first, start first'. They claimed to have directly asked GW regarding that. 

On Another note: the new SUMMONING RULES for Tzeentch… looks ok (and not broken). You need 10 successful casts or unbindings from both players to summon 3 screamers so that's 2 turns of casting... The new 6 battleplans look fun. 

Edited by Qaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Looks like my assumption was wrong about allies being the only way to get the new Nighthaunt stuff in Legions of Nagash. There is a small limited list(because Nighthaunt is getting lots of new stuff) that works in the LoN. They are as follows:

Chainrasp Horde

Glaivewraith Stalker

Grimghast Reaper

Guardian of Souls

Knight of Shroud on Steed

Lord Executioner

Spirit Torment

 

And with the chainrasp horde being generic battleline, it looks like my LoN army won't be going away for me and I get to drop my Zombie battle line tax for a unit I actually want to bring.

Are we sure we can use them as battleline in LON? If so then yes, I can more than likely see them replacing even my skellies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, smucreo said:

Are we sure we can use them as battleline in LON? If so then yes, I can more than likely see them replacing even my skellies.

In the spoiled points page, they were unconditional battleline, unlike the Hexwraiths, Sprithosts and one more new one that are Nighthaunt only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. Considering they share the same save but they are immune to rend, with arguably a better attack profile, flying, faster movement and save bravery for the same point cost I don't see any point in not running skeletons over them unless you are doing a deathrattle synergy list. Dire wolves are still the better choice imo, but still.

Edited by smucreo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Looks like my assumption was wrong about allies being the only way to get the new Nighthaunt stuff in Legions of Nagash. There is a small limited list(because Nighthaunt is getting lots of new stuff) that works in the LoN. They are as follows:

Chainrasp Horde

Glaivewraith Stalker

Grimghast Reaper

Guardian of Souls

Knight of Shroud on Steed

Lord Executioner

Spirit Torment

 

And with the chainrasp horde being generic battleline, it looks like my LoN army won't be going away for me and I get to drop my Zombie battle line tax for a unit I actually want to bring.

As an addemdum to this I think this list is in the starter box, so it makes all the starter box stuff LoN legal. Don't know if they'll continue that going forward with other new stuff. It would be weird to have Nighthaunt as an ally if that were the case(unless allies were able to use allegiance abilities or something).

Another correction from my earlier post the reported points where I said that the weird size units fit the points, I actually had the Grimghast reapers and glaivewraith stalkers mixed up with their point sizes and what's coming in the starter. The reapers come are groups of 10 for points, but 4 in the box(I counted 5 as an okay starter size) and the stalkers are 4 for points and 5 in the box. Now I'm almost hoping the leaked GHB page is an elaborate fake(but I don't think it is). I guess it wouldn't be GW if they didn't get nearly everything right and then make one boneheaded move that left everyone scratching their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, smucreo said:

Amazing. Considering they share the same save but they are immune to rend, with arguably a better attack profile, flying, faster movement and save bravery for the same point cost I don't see any point in not running skeletons over them unless you are doing a deathrattle synergy list. Dire wolves are still the better choice imo, but still.

The chainrasp bravery is worse (6 instead of 10), and I think the new inspiring presence could hurt horde armies(which these are going to be good in hordes, it's in the name). While you've got more versatility to use it only when you need it, not being able to make it last for the next hero phase could be painful, especially if you get double turned(don't forget command points generate in your hero phase).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like there is all sorts of conflicting information out there, from official sources, for all sorts of rules.  Best bet is to sit tight, make no conclusions, and seek out clarification.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

The chainrasp bravery is worse (6 instead of 10), and I think the new inspiring presence could hurt horde armies(which these are going to be good in hordes, it's in the name). While you've got more versatility to use it only when you need it, not being able to make it last for the next hero phase could be painful, especially if you get double turned(don't forget command points generate in your hero phase).

Well if the leader is alive they have bravery 10 so I don't feel it's that big of a deal honestly. Anything that deals with hordes will deal with both units equally unless you can specifically take out the leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, smucreo said:

Well if the leader is alive they have bravery 10 so I don't feel it's that big of a deal honestly. Anything that deals with hordes will deal with both units equally unless you can specifically take out the leader.

Ah, I didn't notice that(just glanced at the stats), so yeah compared to base skeletons or zombies they may be better by base warsscroll, especially for 10. I haven't see much with skeletons, so I don't know how they get better. Zombies are probably better if you play them as a zombie army with max units, corpse carts and the whole nine yards, but there maybe a Nighthaunt unit hero that super buffs them too. I'm still going to use them as my LoN battleline because I don't play a real zombie list(and don't want to) and 3 min units of zombies just suck and are literally a battleline tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Best bet is to sit tight, make no conclusions, and seek out clarification.

If only the internet worked like that! Bliss :D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, smucreo said:

Well if the leader is alive they have bravery 10 so I don't feel it's that big of a deal honestly. Anything that deals with hordes will deal with both units equally unless you can specifically take out the leader.

And all units get +1 bravery for each increment of 10 models in the unit. So ... a unit at 20 models gets +2 to their bravery.

So 10 because their leader still exists ... +2 for 20 still alive, effectively bravery 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already ran 6 to 9 spirit hosts and sometimes a cairn wraith in my lists, so I'm probably going to switch 40 skellies for 40 chainrasps and maybe try to fit the Spirit torment instead of the cairn wraith. In a list with Arkhan and some other necros (Sacrament most likely) protecting them from mortal wounds from spells they may be quite good as screens for the necros and to pass wounds, and in turn they can deal some damage as well.

EDIT: Spirit Torment or Guardian of Souls, both may be quite good. One makes them essentially re-roll 1s to hit and 1s to wound but I'd rather make him go with the Hosts, and the other is a mage (which would mean he gets the +1 to cast in sacrament) and makes them re-roll 1s to wound and have a +1 on top of that.

Edited by smucreo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

And all units get +1 bravery for each increment of 10 models in the unit. So ... a unit at 20 models gets +2 to their bravery.

So 10 because their leader still exists ... +2 for 20 still alive, effectively bravery 12.

When taking the battleshock test, there are less than 20 left .. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Sounds like there is all sorts of conflicting information out there, from official sources, for all sorts of rules.  Best bet is to sit tight, make no conclusions, and seek out clarification.

Funny thing if the german rules-writing-team is lesser informed than some streamers and YouTube channels. 😄 But maybe they hired random dudes to translate the rules and never gave them instructions on how the rules were meant to be played. But I don't really know. 

I really hope that all the statements turn out to be false and we also get a turn 1 priority roll. But one can only hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the one thing that really leaps out at me as strange, now that I've gone over the whole core rules document.

Allies.

The first paragraph makes it look like there is no guidance or restriction on ally selection, other than the 1/4 units limit.  This is as it should be in the core rules - ally restriction should be either a balance issue (ie. Matched Play) or a story issue (ie. Narrative Play), and the base rules have no place limiting both of these at once.

But then the second paragraph.  Oh, that second paragraph.  This is the ONLY TIME in the whole core rules that the General's Handbook, pitched battles, and by implication Matched Play, are invoked.  It seems so out of place.

I would expect the core rules to be just that first paragraph, delete the second entirely.  Then Matched Play in the GH can come along and say "disregard the Allies section of the core rules, and use these restrictions instead".  I was NOT expecting matched play/pitched battle profile talk in the core rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×