• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

227 Celestant-Prime

About Squirrelmaster

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard
  1. @Bademeister Yes, that's how it works. It doesn't actually take very long, most of the time (I find that the time I spend rolling one-at-a-time is about the same as the time I would have spent counting out my dice if I'd rolled them all together).
  2. Hmm… I think 380 for the Slaanesh one would be too little, only a 36% increase over the KoS (though granted, the KoS may be a little over-pointed in the first place). What they had was about a 70% increase, which is a little excessive but closer to the mark imo. I mean, you're getting at least a 38% increase in melee hitting power (with better average rend), a 50% increase in wounds even against mortal wounds, a base 125% increase in effective wounds against rend "-". With a couple of easy buffs you can get it to a 2+ re-rollable save, which is something the regular KoS can't get. It could maybe be around 420pts, that would be a 50% increase.
  3. I'm basing it on GH Pg 107: "Any Artillery unit that needs a crew receives the associated crew at no additional cost in points". I agree it's not clearly laid out in the rules, but I think that's the best interpretation.
  4. I would've thought GW would want to avoid releasing AoS GHII and 40K 8th ed around the same time, it seems to me that would hurt sales overall. So, they'll probably wait for the 40K hype to die down before they start building hype for the GHII release.
  5. I would say it is creating a new unit (the crew and the machine are two separate units), but the crew cost nothing because they come free with the machine, so you pay zero points.
  6. Well obviously you need a horn that makes no sound to lead a regiment that has no ears…
  7. Yes, but if you didn't have the re-roll, you would have failed anyway. It's not “using this interpretation makes having a re-roll detrimental (compared to not having a re-roll)”, it's “having a re-roll makes using this interpretation detrimental (compared to using the other interpretation)”. Do you see the difference?
  8. The re-roll isn't detrimental; If you have a 4+ save and are hit with a -1 rend then a natural 4 falls anyway.
  9. Hmm… negative modifiers are meant to be "bad", though, and having a re-roll in this situation is still "good". You're still never going to encounter a situation where re-rolling failures is bad for you, or a situation where having negative modifiers to your roll is actually good for you, so I think it still makes sense. It's just a question of balance - one interpretation makes rend more powerful, the other makes re-rolls more powerful. Both still make sense to me, though.
  10. This is one place where the rules-as-written don't really "work". In particular, Slaanesh Dæmonttes have a rule that you re-roll "6 or more", which makes no sense if you apply it before modifiers. Most people I've met seem to play: If it says to re-roll a specific number (eg. re-roll 1s, re-roll 6s), do that before modifiers - i.e. look at how many dots are actually on the dice. If it says to re-roll "successes" or "failures" or "6 or more", do that after modifiers. That's what makes most sense to me, and how I'd house-rule it.
  11. Yep. There was never any requirement for a pile-in to end within 3" of an enemy. Bear in mind, even if your unit does have to be within 3" of an enemy to pile-in, there's still plenty of situations where individual models end up moving to within 3" of an enemy unit that wasn't within 3" beforehand.
  12. I'm gonna second @wayniac here - given that it's only an "FAQ", not an errata/amendment, and the main rules say 'has charged or has models within 3" of an enemy', it would seem really weird to me if that answer was meant to effectively erase the bit about charging. I would think most people would understand it to mean that the second part (about being within 3") is not changed bu the increased pile-in movement. Failing that, if you insist on treating it as a rules amendment and on taking it literally, I could argue that it only applies to models with the ability to pile in 6", and not to anyone else. If you're going to start arguing about what "makes sense", I don't think you can only half-apply that approach. The context makes it quite clear that they are only talking about how a 6" pile in move modifies (or does not modify) the core rules. 1. Actually, he's only travelled 18", he just has a 2" range. 2. Morghast Harbingers can travel 21" in the charge and combat phase combined, and have a 1" range on top of that. I've not heard anyone try to argue that this isn't the case. 3. If you think he shouldn't ever be able to move 18" in these phases combined, you're either suggesting that he can't move 12" on the charge, or that he can't ever actually move 6" on the pile-in. If so, why do you think he has a rule that lets him pile-in up to 6", if you think it's a p-take for him to ever actually use it?
  13. Yes, if you have some warcrolls that aren't Stormcast, you don't have Stormcast allegiance. Yes, you can always pick the battle traits, command traits, and artefacts of your grand alliance. Note that you cannot mix-and-match, though (so you can't take an "Order" battle trait and a "Stormcast" artefact. More generally "have X allegiance" is just another way of saying "every warscroll in your army has the X keyword". So if every warscroll in your army has the "Stormcast" keyword and the "Order" keyword, your army has "Stormcast" allegiance and "Order" allegiance. Battle traits, command traits, and artefacts are collectively referred to as "allegiance abilities". You must pick one of your allegiances to use the allegiance abilities of. That doesn't affect "battleline if X allegiance", because that's not an "allegiance ability".
  14. Just a thought here, but what if GW released multiple different points systems, designed to encourage different meta-games. For instance, you could create a version where heroes are cheaper for players who want to play a very herohammer-esque game. Might that not also encourage players to experiment with their own homebrew points systems more, and maybe discourage min-maxing while still providing a framework for pick-up games and the like?
  15. But you could run 40 skeletons buffed with Vanhels, without dropping 900pts on Nagash. In fact he doesn't really add much to that mix. Nagash is about as strong as Alarielle, but costs almost 300pts more. Unless you're running a really big game where his command ability has a decent-sized army to buff, he's just not worth it.