Lets Chat Wanderers / Wood Elves compendium

[tea_wild_owl]

5 minutes ago, Hoseman said:

Sorry but this means for each 4 units I can put 1 more or 1 of those 4 can be ally? 4 + 1 or 3 + 1

one out of every four units. so basically 25%, but counted as units instead of points now.

[Trayanee]

10 minutes ago, tea_wild_owl said:

one out of every four units. so basically 25%, but counted as units instead of points now.

That rule should be open/narrative play only according to info from other threads.

[tea_wild_owl]

12 minutes ago, Trayanee said:

That rule should be open/narrative play only according to info from other threads.

yeah, that's why we need to wait if there'll be any point restrictions in matched^^ but these are core rules at least

[GM_Monkey]

On the points from that video you can see the asterisk next to the unit that have changed. The image is very blurry but these are what I think they are

These are:

SpellWeaver 100

Waywatcher 120

Eternal guard ??? (I think they loose the massive unit discount)

Sister of the watch 180 

Wild riders 120???

Wildwood rangers 140 (also loose the massive unit discount)

Waystone Pathfinders ???? (really can't see that)

The rest stay the same.

[GM_Monkey]

3 hours ago, Cambot1231 said:

Well the nerf bat has dropped... one unit dissapearing off board edge instead of all. Hopefully we still get the artifact that lets us teleport the general plus one unit. Pretty dissapointing if no other points dropped other than sisters too.

Looks like the artifacts remain the same expect the Splinterbirch Blade has +1 rend now instead of the old rule

[EMMachine]

49 minutes ago, GM_Monkey said:

On the points from that video you can see the asterisk next to the unit that have changed. The image is very blurry but these are what I think they are

These are:

SpellWeaver 100

Waywatcher 120

Eternal guard ??? (I think they loose the massive unit discount)

Sister of the watch 180 

Wild riders 120???

Wildwood rangers 140 (also loose the massive unit discount)

Waystone Pathfinders ???? (really can't see that)

The rest stay the same.

Spellweaver, Sisters of the Watch and Wildriders are definitly correct, I posted there point changes somewhere in the thread. But those three were the only units I remembered for them.

 

And if Wildwood Rangers are correct they got 40 Points cheaper and even without max Bonus whey would be cheaper than the old ones with the max Bonus.

[GM_Monkey]

1 minute ago, EMMachine said:

....

And if Wildwood Rangers are correct they got 40 Points cheaper and even without max Bonus whey would be cheaper than the old ones with the max Bonus.

The points make sense, brings them back inline with the Idoneth Thralls which are almost the same stats wise (despite having a way stronger ability).

[Cambot1231]

8 minutes ago, GM_Monkey said:

The points make sense, brings them back inline with the Idoneth Thralls which are almost the same stats wise (despite having a way stronger ability).

 Rangers get the smaller base size and longer reach weapons for two rows of attacks as opposed to the idoneth one row 32 mm of attacks. (A little silver lining at least)

[TheWolf]

Spellweaver +20

Waywatcher +20

Eternal Guard -10

Sisters of the Watch -40

Wild Riders -20

Wildwood Rangers -40

Battalion -40

[GM_Monkey]

So with the Waywatcher up 20 points (maybe) anyone else thinking of having wayfinder instead. That once a game 3D6 attacks average as 9 once per game and he also has the additional hawk attack.

[WABBIT]

8 hours ago, Orsino said:

Again, your opponent may agree to make such compromises or they may not, if you build a matched play list that contains units that aren't legal in matched play you're relying on other people to be willing to bend the rules, and a lot of players will quite reasonably decline to do so. In which case you cant use your list. Does that make sense to you?

The facts are what they are, GW decides what units are legal for matched play and playing by the game's rules in matched play isn't unfriendly or "pushing people into a corner".

I'm not overly interested in how you relate to my opinion, I've done you the courtesy of responding to your argument because you quoted me directly and you've then decided to claim I'm "arguing for the sake of it". Would you prefer people ignore your comments? 

 

The facts are also - Match play rules are only "enforced" in tournaments. The vast majority of players play at home with their friends and family or at local clubs. The rules are whatever WE want them to be. If you want to stop people playing the models they spent all that time painting and collecting then go ahead I was actually commenting for Hosemans sake and using your statement as a quote for one side of the discussion which, I might add, I agreed with. I was simply stating if you're not playing in a tournament with enforced Match play rules you can agree whatever you want. for example It's a good compromise to agree one game with compendium units and another without that way both players get what they want.

ANother Fact - Matched play points are never balanced across all armies anyway so clinging on to the belief using Matched play = a fair game is a fantasy   It's only a guide and GW state this themselves. Matched play is there to help players build similar strength armies using a shared framework of rules and points. In competitions and tournaments rules are essential and must be strictly applied but at home with yer mates do what is fun. The games I've enjoyed most are when my opponent has fun too and that often means it's when I lose.  .

 

[Orsino]

8 minutes ago, WABBIT said:

The facts are also - Match play rules are only "enforced" in tournaments.

That's not a fact is it, many players won't want to play a matched game against units that aren't legal in matched play. Your suggeated compromise is fine but only if your opponent agrees, and it's that contigency that creates the problem. You end up with a list that sometimes you'll be able to use and sometimes you won't.

Personally I wouldn'the want to have to negotiate with everyone I play with before every game to include units that aren't legal. That might put my opponent in a difficult position where they feel like they have to agree.

So if you know the people you play with are fine with it you can still have a dragon, but including scrapped units makes it a list that you can't just turn up with.

I think there's probably not much more to be said on this point. Personally I'm planning to scratch build a twillight sisters on forest dragon and use the war scroll for the drakesworn templar. 

[WABBIT]

It is a fact. When you enter a comp you sign up to rules being enforced. Anything outside a competition is a choice rules wise. If someone won't let you play the models you want to use then they probably care more about winning than enjoying a good game and maybe best avoided.

[Orsino]

16 minutes ago, WABBIT said:

It is a fact. When you enter a comp you sign up to rules being enforced. Anything outside a competition is a choice rules wise. If someone won't let you play the models you want to use then they probably care more about winning than enjoying a good game and maybe best avoided.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If you decide to play a game that has rules with someone they're going to expect you to play by those rules, and they're going to "enforce" those rules by declining to play with you when you break them. They might be willing to give you a pass on stuff but you can't expect or demamd it. This is true whether the game is basketball, poker, chess or age of sigmar.

Would you be happy to play a matched play game of AoS against someone who used models from a different game (Malifaux for example) and their own made-up rules? By your logic anyone who objects to this must only care about winning.

Surely you understand what rules and norms are and why it's necessary for two people playing a game to be playing the same game.

[Aelfric]

Looks like the single unit that can teleport has to be wholly within 6" of the board edge in order to do it.   This will make the ability even trickier to make use of.  Slightly perplexed by this change as it was such a thematic ability without being that strong, but it appears that Wanderers are back to foot-slogging across the table again. However, I will wait until the book is in my hands before making any decisions.  Have just started building 10 more SotW, but at 180 per ten they will be useful in mixed Order or as allies elsewhere.  May try them in a local tournament on July 7 to see whether they are still fun to play.

[WABBIT]

2 hours ago, Orsino said:

That doesn't make any sense at all. If you decide to play a game that has rules with someone they're going to expect you to play by those rules, and they're going to "enforce" those rules by declining to play with you when you break them. They might be willing to give you a pass on stuff but you can't expect or demamd it. This is true whether the game is basketball, poker, chess or age of sigmar.

Would you be happy to play a matched play game of AoS against someone who used models from a different game (Malifaux for example) and their own made-up rules? By your logic anyone who objects to this must only care about winning.

Surely you understand what rules and norms are and why it's necessary for two people playing a game to be playing the same game.

 You are assuming the person who wants to play by matched play rules to the letter has the high ground. You are wrong. "All rules are optional". Don't believe me? GW wrote that not me.  Read what GW they say over and over in their books. AoS is not just for Tournament players it for everyone so allow them to play the way they want to. If you don't want to allow changes then don't play them, no one if forcing you. 

If you wont allow someone else to have an opinion without attacking it then maybe you will trust GW when they say the same thing as what I am saying. Read the Generals handbook (both of them) sections "The Many Faces of War" (Its right at the start) and maybe then you will see people are entitled to play the game the way they want to. Especially the last two sentences. "There is no Right or Wrong way to play Age of Sigmar so long as everyone adheres to the most important rule. We are all here to have fun!".

You just have to find like minded players who will agree to the same parameters and we both agree on that. I like to promote fun play over rules tyranny and if you can't relax and have fun you can come across as a rules bully which isn't fun to play against. GW have streamed narrative games (They normally use matched play rules within the story) and they change or break rules quite often because its not a competition game it's purely because its more FUN to do so - like a What if "x" Happened?

Fun >Story >Rules. It's the reverse in competitions but all are important and I find it's good rule to play games by. Of course you don't have to agree or follow it, its optional.

As for allowing models from other systems in the game, yeah why not? sounds cool many people use models from other systems - only GW ban them from their hosted events because - well it's obvious.

Would I allow someone to make up New rules/warscrolls? sure sometimes if they discussed them with me first and they sounded ok or fun. Many people do it already and there is even a Warscroll designer to make them look authentic.  See https://runebrush.pa-sy.com//warscroll/

[Orsino]

1 hour ago, WABBIT said:

 You are assuming the person who wants to play by matched play rules to the letter has the high ground. You are wrong. "All rules are optional". Don't believe me? GW wrote that not me.  Read what GW they say over and over in their books. AoS is not just for Tournament players it for everyone so allow them to play the way they want to. If you don't want to allow changes then don't play them, no one if forcing you. 

If you wont allow someone else to have an opinion without attacking it then maybe you will trust GW when they say the same thing as what I am saying. Read the Generals handbook (both of them) sections "The Many Faces of War" (Its right at the start) and maybe then you will see people are entitled to play the game the way they want to. Especially the last two sentences. "There is no Right or Wrong way to play Age of Sigmar so long as everyone adheres to the most important rule. We are all here to have fun!".

You just have to find like minded players who will agree to the same parameters and we both agree on that. I like to promote fun play over rules tyranny and if you can't relax and have fun you can come across as a rules bully which isn't fun to play against. GW have streamed narrative games (They normally use matched play rules within the story) and they change or break rules quite often because its not a competition game it's purely because its more FUN to do so - like a What if "x" Happened?

Fun >Story >Rules. It's the reverse in competitions but all are important and I find it's good rule to play games by. Of course you don't have to agree or follow it, its optional.

As for allowing models from other systems in the game, yeah why not? sounds cool many people use models from other systems - only GW ban them from their hosted events because - well it's obvious.

Would I allow someone to make up New rules/warscrolls? sure sometimes if they discussed them with me first and they sounded ok or fun. Many people do it already and there is even a Warscroll designer to make them look authentic.  See https://runebrush.pa-sy.com//warscroll/

I don't think continuing to go over the same point is going to add much to this thread.

[Graftonianman]

Anyone noticed that, in the new rules, reserves cannot be a part of a battalion? This removes a lot utility from wanderers’ only battalion. 

[GM_Monkey]

5 minutes ago, Graftonianman said:

Anyone noticed that, in the new rules, reserves cannot be a part of a battalion? This removes a lot utility from wanderers’ only battalion. 

It says "Reinforcements cannot be part of a warscroll battalion" not reserves.  "REINFORCEMENTS Units that are added to your army once a battle is under way can be allies. They do not count against the limit on the number of allied units you can include in the army."

Think the battelions still all good as reserves.

[Graftonianman]

1 hour ago, GM_Monkey said:

It says "Reinforcements cannot be part of a warscroll battalion" not reserves.  "REINFORCEMENTS Units that are added to your army once a battle is under way can be allies. They do not count against the limit on the number of allied units you can include in the army."

Think the battelions still all good as reserves.

Oh I see. Thx. I was confused

[Aezeal]

21 hours ago, Aelfric said:

Looks like the single unit that can teleport has to be wholly within 6" of the board edge in order to do it.   This will make the ability even trickier to make use of.  Slightly perplexed by this change as it was such a thematic ability without being that strong, but it appears that Wanderers are back to foot-slogging across the table again. However, I will wait until the book is in my hands before making any decisions.  Have just started building 10 more SotW, but at 180 per ten they will be useful in mixed Order or as allies elsewhere.  May try them in a local tournament on July 7 to see whether they are still fun to play.

Why does it look like that? I know arriving we had to be completely in 6" but do we have to start completely in 6" too?

[GM_Monkey]

1 hour ago, Aezeal said:

Why does it look like that? I know arriving we had to be completely in 6" but do we have to start completely in 6" too?

I think they've done it for everything to try and nerf the massive units getting a ton of buffs, or to stop the whole stringing out of units between features or heros and the unit they're in combat. however I'm not sure of this.

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, GM_Monkey said:

I think they've done it for everything to try and nerf the massive units getting a ton of buffs, or to stop the whole stringing out of units between features or heros and the unit they're in combat. however I'm not sure of this.

What exactly did they change in the rules?

[GM_Monkey]

Just now, Aezeal said:

What exactly did they change in the rules?

From what I've seen on some early preview on youtube, they've changed the wording from "units with X" " to "units wholly within X" " which means if you want to get a buff the whole unit has to be within the range.

Now I have no evidence for this other then the change to hidden pathways and what some people are saying on youtube, but it kinda makes sense to me to prevent this whole stringing out that occurs. But this could all be false so don't trust me on this.

[Thalandor]

from now on, you can only teleport one unit per turn using Realm Wanderers. This makes Stalker of the Hidden Path obsolete as it would take you four turns to teleport a single unit to where it's needed and back to safety away from enemy retaliation.

1. turn: unit A teleports.

2. turn: general teleports next to unit A.

3. turn: Unit A teleports back to safety.

4. turn: general teleports back to safety.

Wanderer went back from "Hit and Run" to "Stand and Die".

The only ray of hope we have left is the removal of the Rules of 1, a Waywatcher keeps generating attacks with his double shot now. Masterful Archer, standing still, Celestial Hurricanum for +3 to Hit could propably take care of anything within 22''