• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Celestant-Prime

About Squirrelmaster

  1. Or maybe the majority are happy to play RAW if their opponent wants to, and respect thier right to want and expect to, but prefer base-to-base if their opponent is like-minded or just doesn't care, resulting in only about 10% of games involving one or both players expecting or wanting to play model-to-model.
  2. 10 skeletons is pretty much a throwaway unit — they can grab objectives and get in the enemy's way for a turn, but don't expect them to achieve much else. Personally I'd take 10 zombies to do the same for less, but some people like that 10 skeletons can occasionally kill something, which zombies don't have. 20 skeletons is the worst of both worlds — too small to be a threat, too big to be expendable. 30 skeletons is a glass hammer — potentially hard hitting, but tricky to use. Spears are a must. 40 skeletons is a decent in unit. Spears a must. Can be buffed well. 60 zombies cost about the same as 40 skeletons, but don't hit anywhere near as hard, no matter what buffs you give them. They may be a slightly better tarpit, but even that's debatable. The advantage is that you can take them as 3 units of 20, filling your battleline requirements. One unit of 60 zombies will hit harder than 4 units of 10 skeletons. Zombies are also the cheapest option to fill your minimum battleline, and easier to summon. Summoning 10 then merging them into an existing unit has uses, but they're kinda situational. Personally I would count the number of models actually on the table when you merge as the new unit's starting strength, not the combined starting strengths of the “parent” units. It's a little open to interpretation. Corpse carts are decent in my opinion, especially if you are running zombies.
  3. @Countmoore has is right about still having access to the generic death traits — it's clarified in the General's Handbook Official FAQs and errata, found on the GW website: I wouldn't bother with a Black Coach — sadly, it's massively over-pointed at present (and not that great, even at a lower points cost). As for MSU vs larger groups: A larger group means you can attack with all of them as a single activation, potentially allowing you to kill more enemies before they get to strike back. You are also more resilient to spells that effect 'each enemy unit within X"'. When charging, you guarantee that either all of them will move, or none of them will, so you don't risk fighting the enemy piecemeal. When you take casualties, you get more choice over where to remove them from. Smaller groups means you can split them up to deal with different threats. They are more resistant to spells & effects that target all models in one unit (especially things that give -1 to hit, etc.) It's easier to get some of them in cover, boosting their save. You can more reliably have some of them successfully charge, since you get multiple attempts at it. They are (slightly) harder to kill, since excess wounds on one unit won't carry over to the other. On balance, I'd consider MSU to be more effective, since you don't really have any command abilities or spells that boost a single large unit. For the jump up to 1500, your options will be very restricted if you go pure nighthaunt — basically it's just more of the same. I'd consider branching out to a more generic "death" army, getting some zombies to fill up your battleline, and then looking for other stuff to support my existing units. You can still have a heavy nighthaunt "theme". But that's a matter of personal taste.
  4. This was the mechanism behind a making dual Tomb Heralds invulnerable, before they errata'd it (because Tomb Heralds don't roll — they just transfer the wound automatically). With Necromancers, sooner or later you'll fail an "Undead Minions" roll, if you don't pass a "Deathless Minions" roll first. The odds of passing an "Deathless Minions" roll first will be 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27… I believe that converges on 50/50. Which is pretty good, but not game-breaking, and it means you can't pass the wound off to a zombie instead.
  5. At present, yes — any model can be your general. Note that some tournaments may rule otherwise, and it's rumoured that the second General's Handbook will rule against this in Matched play, when it comes out.
  6. The "Vampire Counts" and "Tomb Kings" compendiums both listed both options for their skeletons, but the newer "Grand Alliance: Death" book only lists crypt shields. The "Skeleton Warriors" pdf on the GW website also only lists crypt shields. Given that the Tomb Kings have been discontinued, and aren't in GA:D, and given the name, it's generally assumed that "Tomb Shields" are the "Tomb Kings" variant (though so far as I know this has never been officially stated). Since "Tomb King" skeletons were sold with different, more rectangular, shields, it's generally assumed that those are "Tomb Shields" and the circular ones are "Crypt Shields". I would personally have no objections to my opponent using either one, though if you wanted to use both in the same army I'd expect a clear visual difference. Tomb Shields are definitely more defensive, but on balance I'd say Crypt Shields are better. Against rend "-" (which is the most common anyway), they allow you to run and charge without restriction, and function before your first turn starts, if your opponent goes first. Tomb Shields are only really useful against rend -1, and only if you didn't run or charge, and even then only give you a 6+ save. They may also be more useful combined with cover and/or Mystic Shield, but personally I've found that I don't get those bonuses often anyway.
  7. @rokapoke I don't think that would help. The problem as I understand it is that although people are reading "an" as "one or more", they are arguing that there are multiple copies of this effect in play — each copy checks for "one or more", and applies the bonus if it is met. If GW wanted to add clarification, something along the lines of "multiples of this rule have no additional effect" would probably be the easiest way to stop these arguments.
  8. Yes, but I'm asking why abilities don't stack but spells do — where in the rules does this difference come from? Comparing RS to Bloodreavers, both have a single trigger clause and a single effect — so why is it that two castings of RS will trigger separately, but two Bloodreavers will not? Aside from "it's just common sense" or "it would be horribly OP", or "don't be a d**k" — assume a complete newbie with no experience of the game balance, trying to make sense of the game from the rules-as-written alone.
  9. The only one of the rules that we've quoted in this thread to use the phrase "you may immediately" is Righteous Smiting — which is the only one GW have explicitly FAQ'd does stack. You have just argued that the one-and-only rule from this entire thread to have received an explicit ruling from GW, does not work the way the official GW FAQ explicitly states that it does. Because of wording that is not found in any of the other rules we're discussing. As a basis for claiming that those other rules also do not work the way GW have explicitly ruled that Righteous Smiting does. Then claimed that the understanding required for this is so basic as to be akin to explaining how to walk.
  10. @Arkiham It has nothing to do with understanding English. OK, let's look at "Righteous Smiting" as an example. The wording is: "each time you roll a hit roll of 6 or more for one of these models, it can immediately make one extra attack using the same weapon." That's one trigger, one effect. But if I case Righteous Smiting on the same unit twice (assuming we're playing open, narrative, points-only or whatever - no rules of one), the FAQ states that for each 6+ I roll, I get two extra attacks. Why? Because there are two copies of that spell in play. The wording only specifies one trigger, one effect, but there are two copies of that rule in play. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that if I have two Infernal Standard bearers on the table, I have two copies of that rule in play — the rule only has one trigger and one effect, but each copy of that rule could be evaluated separately. Indeed, the Righteous Smiting FAQ is the closest thing we have to an official ruling on this. @BaldoBeardo Sure, and if someone had said that from the start, I wouldn't have a problem. Instead the OP was repeatedly told that the rule is "cut and dried", and that his failure to understand this meant was either he was an idiot who didn't understand English, or a troll. That's what irks me, here.
  11. I agree that's true; But I don't think it's spelled out clearly in the rules-as-written.
  12. And that's kinda the real point here, isn't it? It must be interpretation X, because interpretation Y would be stupidly overpowered/broken. I don't actually disagree with that reasoning, but I think we should be honest about it (and maybe mention it sooner). But that's exactly the point of confusion: You have multiple copies of that rule. It makes a lot of sense to assume that each "copy" would apply separately, that if you have 5 of these guys on the table, that's 5 copies of this ability, and each of those copies tests for that trigger condition and applies that single bonus — causing the bonus to be applied 5 times if the condition is met. The only arguments I can see against that interpretation are how ridiculous / overpowered it would be — not in the wording/grammar of the rules themselves.
  13. It's not what the ability does that's in question; It's how many instances of that ability are in effect.
  14. Imagine a model had the ability “At the start of your turn, pick an enemy unit. That unit suffers a mortal wound.” Imagine I had three of that model on the table. Would that be one mortal around per turn, or three?