Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[bsharitt]

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.

[Qaz]

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. 

[chord]

Maybe Finish First Start First is in the GHB, not the core rules

[smucreo]

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.

[daedalus81]

3 hours ago, AeyonsBlade said:

All the endless spells are here. 

https://www.facebook.com/Lazy-Gamers-1307472359333000/

Pallisade is AWESOME!

[bsharitt]

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.

[smucreo]

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.

[bsharitt]

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.

[bsharitt]

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).

[amysrevenge]

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.

[smucreo]

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.

[bsharitt]

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.

[bsharitt]

GMG's review of the Soulwars box mentions the problem with weird unit counts.

 

[Turragor]

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

[TheOtherJosh]

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.

[smucreo]

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.

[Drib]

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 .. 

[Infeston]

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.

[amysrevenge]

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.

[WatcherintheWater]

Seems like a lot of people are in favor of the roll off for turn 1. Anyone care to share why? I sort of like that there is a benefit to being the first to deploy, but can't say I feel that strongly. I like that it balances out the benefits of seeing where all your opponent's stuff is if you have more drops.

[Enoby]

1 minute ago, WatcherintheWater said:

Seems like a lot of people are in favor of the roll off for turn 1. Anyone care to share why? I sort of like that there is a benefit to being the first to deploy, but can't say I feel that strongly. I like that it balances out the benefits of seeing where all your opponent's stuff is if you have more drops.

I'm not sure if this is how most people feel, but I think it's because it gives some armies without the ability for a low number of drops to have a chance of getting the choice. Armies like Slaanesh and Moonclan have very few/no battalions and need a lot of units, so they're nearly always forced to go on the least beneficial turn - a roll off (with low drops winning snap) gives all armies a chance, but still has an advantage to low drops. 

[Nick907]

Anyone seen a review of new point cost changes?

[Enoby]

I saw a leaked photo of Stormcast point changes.  Not all were clear, but I'll share the ones I can see (the ones with a star next to their name):

Knight heraldor = 100

Knight Vexilor = 120 

Lord Ordinator = 140

Lord Relictor = 100

Drakesworn Templar = 460 

[Infeston]

The new Stormcast podcast mentioned that Stonehorn and Thundertusk got reduced by 40 points. And as far as I have understood Thundertusk can now run and shoot? It was mentioned by Ben. Maybe I have misheard that bit, but can anyone confirm?

[grungolah]

12 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

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.

Not only is it out of place, the second (third) paragraph appears to be directly contradictory to the first (second).  The first makes it clear anything can be an ally. "Allied units are treated as part of your army, except that they are not included when working out your army’s allegiance, and can therefore be part of a different Grand Alliance or faction."

Now, maybe they are going to get inventive with their allies and break up the GA mentality, but I am doubting that.