Jump to content

Let's chat : Blades of Khorne!


Arkiham

Recommended Posts

I've come into two starter sets worth of BB.. I got it for $9 total! New on sprue. Now.

i like the dark feast with the add of two blood secrators... I think it's like death by 1000 cuts. 

Blood warriors seem too costly for efficiency. 

So do I add a blood letter bomb (30) with sayl?? 

Im looking for punch. I plan to add two warp lighting cannons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, WSDdeloach said:

I've come into two starter sets worth of BB.. I got it for $9 total! New on sprue. Now.

i like the dark feast with the add of two blood secrators... I think it's like death by 1000 cuts. 

Blood warriors seem too costly for efficiency. 

So do I add a blood letter bomb (30) with sayl?? 

Im looking for punch. I plan to add two warp lighting cannons

i mean you could put sayl in the list and lightning cannons, but then you'd be one of those chaos players. 

 

if you're going bloodreavers you really got to go reavers. like 90 of them. 

i noticed something with the dark feast that you just gain attacks. every combat phase they attack in they gain attacks, so by the 4th turn theyll have like 9 attacks each. 

1 start + 2 for blood secrator, id put in wrathmongers so another +1 = 4. first combat +1 = 5. 2nd combat ( their turn ) +1 = 6. next turn +1 7 etc etc. and these attacks stay for as long as he is alive, so hide him ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competitive list for the theoryhammerists: 

Battalions:

Dark Feast (100)

Bloodstorm (140)

Leaders:

Aspiring Deathbringer (80) - General

Slaughterpriest (100) - Dark Feast

Slaughterpriest (100)

Slaughterpriest (100)

Bloodsecrator (120)

Bloodstoker (80) - Dark Feast

Battleline:

Bloodreavers x20 (120) - Dark Feast

Bloodreavers x20 (120) - Dark Feast

Bloodreavers x10 (60) - Dark Feast

Wrathmongers x5 (180) - Bloodstorm

Wrathmongers x5 (180) - Bloodstorm

Wrathmongers x5 (180) - Bloodstorm

Skullreapers x5 (140)

Chaos Warshrine (200)

Thoughts?

The idea: Wrathmongers march up front providing a protective screen for the Bloodreavers behind them from shooting. Slaughterpriests cover the magic, all three would likely have the axe. 

Between the Totem, Portal of Skulls, Aspiring Deathbringer, Three Wrathmongers and their stacking Dark Feast, the Bloodreavers have an unlikely, but possible, 11 potential attacks per model by turn 4. Let that sink in.

Combined with buffs from the Warshrine and Bloodstoker, these could be incredibly accurate as well.

Revision: I also tweaked it to include a version with 10 more Reavers for the third unit, Warhounds to chaff and intercept nasties, and losing the superflous Skullreapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arkiham said:

i mean you could put sayl in the list and lightning cannons, but then you'd be one of those chaos players. 

I get your other points but this?? You mean running a competitive list??? I have no shame running a "tuned" list. If you've played events.. you'd know building a list that's balanced is important 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, WSDdeloach said:

Blood warriors seem too costly for efficiency.

I don't think so. They have a decent save, 2 wounds each and 2 attacks each. What really makes them cool is that they get to attack when killed in melee. Gorefists are not reliable, but when they work, it is nice to deal out mortal wounds against an enemy unit when it attacks. I find that Blood Warriors are good for jamming up the opponent and putting him into damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situations.  He cannot attack the Blood Warriors without risk, but he cannot really ignore them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WSDdeloach said:

I get your other points but this?? You mean running a competitive list??? I have no shame running a "tuned" list. If you've played events.. you'd know building a list that's balanced is important 

It's just that is quickly turning into the goto net list for competitive chaos, the goto strategy and win which boils down entirely down to dice rolls (funny but you know my meaning.)

Which is something that GW didn't want, where people just turn up and go through the motions.

 

I fully expect to see sayl receive a nerf this year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Arkiham said:

They didn't,  but consensus seems to include him in the faq because of the principle of the ability in general. 

I expect TOs will side with them also so people can't cry foul and life is easier

The difference is the Ring is an item you give to another warscroll. Skarr's is built in to his warsroll, and the cost of him should reflect this ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

The difference is the Ring is an item you give to another warscroll. Skarr's is built in to his warsroll, and the cost of him should reflect this ability.

i know i agree.

hes not removed from play as per the normal process either so it doesnt count as a new model as it literally isnt a new model. but id rather not go into all of that on this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

The difference is the Ring is an item you give to another warscroll. Skarr's is built in to his warsroll, and the cost of him should reflect this ability.

I completely agree with this and am hoping GHb2 clarifies which units require summoning points and which don't.  Currently the justification is that Skarr is destroyed when you take him off the board, thus as per the GHb you require reinforcement points to bring him back.  My argument is that his ability brings back the same model and he's costed as such.

Very hotly debated too, so best to simply hold off until GHb2 :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mikeboll said:

Are the extra attack from the feeding frenzy stacking up the attacks for reavers so they get more attacks for every combat round or is it allways just +1 attack? 

as per the battalion it stacks. 

 

normally it says " until the end of the phase " but it does not. so they stay. this is why you need like 90 blood reavers as those units are going to take along time to die and will stack those attacks up so high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arkiham said:

as per the battalion it stacks. 

 

normally it says " until the end of the phase " but it does not. so they stay. this is why you need like 90 blood reavers as those units are going to take along time to die and will stack those attacks up so high

You know, I read through the thread that you posted on this previously, and I think you are wrong about this.

Leaving aside the whole "spirit of the rules" argument, the bonus reads, "[A]dd 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion whenever it is selected to attack." (emphasis added).  It seems to me that this means that this bonus triggers even in out-of-phase combat, not that it stacks each turn.  In other warscroll battalions, GW is pretty clear when it makes bonuses permanent.  For example, in the Red Headsmen and Vengeful Skullhunt warscroll battalions, a permanent buff is made clear by the language "for the rest of the battle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ANevskyUSA said:

You know, I read through the thread that you posted on this previously, and I think you are wrong about this.

Leaving aside the whole "spirit of the rules" argument, the bonus reads, "[A]dd 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion whenever it is selected to attack." (emphasis added).  It seems to me that this means that this bonus triggers even in out-of-phase combat, not that it stacks each turn.  In other warscroll battalions, GW is pretty clear when it makes bonuses permanent.  For example, in the Red Headsmen and Vengeful Skullhunt warscroll battalions, a permanent buff is made clear by the language "for the rest of the battle."

It is also pretty clear when the bonuses gained end. 

See pretty much anything which buffs "until the end of" /"  until your next "

This is also pretty clear "as long as he is alive add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion whenever it is selected to attack "

It's not permanent as the guy dies and they're lost 

That's pretty clear to me, it has an obvious start condition and an obvious end condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

It is also pretty clear when the bonuses gained end. 

It reads, "Whenever it is selected to attack."  Therefore, the bonus goes away when not attacking.  C.f. e.g. the Gorechosen warscroll battalion that gives +1 attack to all melee weapons with no conditions whatsoever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ANevskyUSA said:

It reads, "Whenever it is selected to attack."  Therefore, the bonus goes away when not attacking.  C.f. e.g. the Gorechosen warscroll battalion that gives +1 attack to all melee weapons with no conditions whatsoever.  

That could also be inferred as only gettong the additional attacks when they attack. 

Example: One unit of Reavers is involved in combat for four turns (dont ask how they lived that long). While another picks its nose at the back. The one involved in combat gets four bonus attacks because it was involved in combat four times. The other only gets one added attack because it didnt attack anything until the last turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ANevskyUSA said:

It reads, "Whenever it is selected to attack."  Therefore, the bonus goes away when not attacking.  C.f. e.g. the Gorechosen warscroll battalion that gives +1 attack to all melee weapons with no conditions whatsoever.  

Then it would say "until the end of that phase " like it does with everything else...

The bloodbound warband end condition is "in any turn that they charged "

 

You aren't going to agree and my point is clearly made and unarguable tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arkiham said:

You aren't going to agree and my point is clearly made and unarguable tbh.

Well, you certainly stated you position clearly, but it is far from inarguable.  What you have done is inferred from silence a permanent and recursive buff on the grounds that GW usually states when a buff ends, but you have ignored the fact that GW also usually states when a buff is permanent.  Moreover, you ignore the reality than an attack is a distinct temporal block of game time that starts and ends.  Aspirant Snaeper's example illustrates the folly of this.  If your interpretation is correct, then you would have to do unit-by-unit bookkeeping for which units in the battalion have attacked and haw many times, but as we see from stuff like Skullreapers and the Darkoath Champion, GW is clear when bonuses require this sort of bookkeeping, and such language is not present in the Dark Feast battalion.  Do you seriously believe that an escalating permanent buff was actually intended?  Or are you trying to find loopholes from ambiguous language and wish fulfillment?  

I wouldn't have bothered to reply to this, except for the irony of your suggestion in this very thread that WSDdeloach would be "one of those players" if he chose to include warp lightning cannons in his list.  Let's not do the pot calling the kettle black thing by disparaging a player for min-maxing a list while simultaneously engaging in tortured rules-lawyering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, if you could say that it stacks based on the particular wording, you would also be able to say that it does not perish with the Slaughterpriest dying. You see:

"As long as he is alive, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion whenever it is selected to attack."

Nothing said about neither an end of the effect after selection for attacking nor an end of the effect after the Slaughterpriest has died. Firstly, this would mean it stacks everytime you select a unit for attacking, secondly, it would mean the units keeps its bonus attacks after the Slaughterpriest has died.

However, that seems very unbalanced to me. I found the battalion balanced playing it as flat +1 to Attacks as long as the Slaughterpriest lives. You can argue for both positions, I think.

Clearly, yet another example of the imprecise wording of AoS rules. Meaning, keep calm everybody. This thread is far to good an idea to die down from escalation about GW's wording. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Surtur said:

I guess, if you could say that it stacks based on the particular wording, you would also be able to say that it does not perish with the Slaughterpriest dying. You see:

"As long as he is alive, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion whenever it is selected to attack."

Nothing said about neither an end of the effect after selection for attacking nor an end of the effect after the Slaughterpriest has died. Firstly, this would mean it stacks everytime you select a unit for attacking, secondly, it would mean the units keeps its bonus attacks after the Slaughterpriest has died.

However, that seems very unbalanced to me. I found the battalion balanced playing it as flat +1 to Attacks as long as the Slaughterpriest lives. You can argue for both positions, I think.

Clearly, yet another example of the imprecise wording of AoS rules.

Hmm, I see. So there is no end condition to the Attacks. Just and end condition to gaining attacks. 

 

And as @ANevskyUSA pointed out the wording is clearly permanent as it's identical to the wording in the Gorechosen, "add one to the Attacks characteristic of any melee weapons used by a unit from this battalion" 

except, that this clearly does stack due to the additional words "whenever it is selected to attack "

If they meant it to be just once,  they wouldn't have added that additional line of text and if they meant it to be temporary they wouldn't have used that initial like of text, and they would have clearly stated the end condition, for example "end of phase/end of turn/until your next...whatever"

They've not added it either by mistake or on purpose, so by what is written.

it stacks, and it sticks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WSDdeloach said:

well, only one thing left to do. Present this on the AoS page to see if we can get a GW ruling on the subject. 

About as useful as asking a store manager, they've said a few times they are not the rule makers or faq team so their choice in how they play it doesn't carry more or less weight than yours or mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...