Lets Chat: Legions of Nagash

[Sception]

4 hours ago, Burf said:

Your previous comments have heavily implied that Deathly invocation was your primary problem with this book in regards to character sniping, it would stand to reason that comments related to character dependence would be primarily related to Deathly Invocation as well. I'm simply of the opinion that DI is a largely irrelevant change unless there's more tricks to it(or unless you're bloodknights). Behemouth dependence is real though, and Tzeentch is broken stupid bulls**t.

 

That changed, and I made some posts admitting such,  with the gravesites reveal.  Multiple, unkillable (if static) sources of deathly invocation are enough to alleviate the character dependence of that system, imo.  The offensive side still begs for character support - which to be clear I don't object to.  Or, as you point out, behemoths to skip the support business and just beat on things directly.  But while that's a neat option to have, I hope it doesn't become the only or even primary way of playing death competitively.

TBH, I'm already kind of sick of the Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon.

[Sception]

31 minutes ago, smucreo said:

@Killax A few thoughts I'd add on top of what you said (great analysis btw!):

- According to what we know for now, Legion of Night and Legion of Blood seem a bit less competitive than Legion of Sacrament and Grand Host purely based on allegiance bonuses, though artifacts, traits and battalions that we don't know of could change that. Plus, I feel Legion of Night has a lot of potential synergies that may be escaping me, so I won't say it's outright bad.

I'm not sure about that.  Grand host is a beast both for hordes (extra regen and deathrattle synergy) and elites (extra attacks go a long way on those morghast halberds), but Legion of Sacrament?  If their unit returning requires reserve points, I see it as a gimmick at best, and while their casting buff seems great, it's actual value will depend heavily on the spell lores.  So far the previewed spells aren't bad, but they're not that much to write home about, certainly not without arkhan running your army, which comes with its own limitations (he's the least killy mortarch, he can't take command traits, etc).  The wristbands are great on the too-ubiquitous dragon lord, but I'm not sure that alone is enough to put sacrament on top if the rest of the spells come out looking like those already previewed - which are again not bad, but not amazing either.

If the spells aren't amazing, then Blood's extra fear penalty and extra attack on our hurtiest units (blood knights, VLoZD) could end up being as good.  And night might end up as good regardless, with their infiltration ability, extra save on our most defensively efficient units, and artefact for a +2 to cast bubble, potentially beating out LoS's casting boost, albeit in a small, static area.

A lot of it comes down to how good the spells are, and whether the other legions have defensive artefacts on par with the wristbands, but at the moment I wouldn't try to call any of the mortarch legions as strongest overall.  Grand host looks strongest to me regardless, but that's almost certainly because it plays into my own subjective unit preferences more than any actual reason.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, smucreo said:

@Killax A few thoughts I'd add on top of what you said (great analysis btw!):

- According to what we know for now, Legion of Night and Legion of Blood seem a bit less competitive than Legion of Sacrament and Grand Host purely based on allegiance bonuses, though artifacts, traits and battalions that we don't know of could change that. Plus, I feel Legion of Night has a lot of potential synergies that may be escaping me, so I won't say it's outright bad.

- I'd say that the choice between zombies and skeletons will largely depend on good their respective supporting characters are. Both benefit from mostly the same stuff, but two changes to specific units that synergize with one but not the other stick out to me and could mean the difference between grabbing zombies or skellies, Wight Kings and Corpse Carts. It remains to be seen how the changes affect them both, but for now my money is on Corpse Carts being better in general, specially in casting builds, which could translate into more zombie usage, at least in those lists. Again, it remains to be seen how everything plays out, and I'd prefer Wight King to be viable since I already own him and 40 skeletons haha 

- As I said in previous posts, I do agree that VLoZD (unless his points get drastically changed) still seems like a go-to. It's a great unit overall and the model looks fantastic, so you can look cool and unleash some hell while you are at it

Overall though, I like the way they've gone with this book even though I was super negative at first (I apologize for that), and will enjoy reading it and trying to find cool and powerful lists so that I can someday beat my Changehost using friend (although I'm not counting too much on that hahah). I'm still not one hundred percent convinced with Gravesites summoning, but just like with Legion of Night, I'm sure someone will come up with a sneak attack build that could be really strong.

As you said I believe it to be quite likely that the spells and Artefacts will be ever so slightly more powerful also in the Legions that have general abilities that seem 'less good' logical also because I really feel we're looking at the options to play elite and thus because of that I expect some better spells and Artefacts in there. Such as healing and having ward saves.

I think that going with GH2017 will spell out the differences. I also think that while Zombies might end up being slightly better as Skeletons with all kinds of buffs included it also makes the "packages" more expensive to include. I personally like the Corpse chart variants but am not blow away by either of them. Plus if you want to thake them Zombies arn't required (AoS has updated Warscrolls on the both of them). 

For those who don't want to run the VLoZD the kit still offers the Terrorgeist and Zombie Dragon as a stand alone and yeah I pretty much feel every player will like to include the kit regardless of what they want to build from it. As pretty much is always the case, anvils are nice and reliable but do require some hammers and I feel those pieces are the hammers  

What I think has become somewhat typical on the Death sub-forums (with respect to all of you) is the general pessimistic vibe, but I get it. I mean GH2017 litterly put Death into a very strange corner. In retrospect:
Death 1.0 (GH2016) was capable of presenting a competitive army.
Death 1.1 (GH2017) was severly handicapped with how Allegiances where suggested but functionally unplayable due to Keywords on Warscrolls.
Death 2.0 (Legions of Nagash) at least in theory seems very capable of presenting a competitive army again because it very much feels like Death 1.0 but improved on all fronts.

31 minutes ago, Sception said:

I'm not sure about that.  Grand host is a beast both for hordes (extra regen and deathrattle synergy) and elites (extra attacks go a long way on those morghast halberds), but Legion of Sacrament?  If their unit returning requires reserve points, I see it as a gimmick at best, and while their casting buff seems great, it's actual value will depend heavily on the spell lores.  So far the previewed spells aren't bad, but they're not that much to write home about, certainly not without arkhan running your army, which comes with its own limitations (he's the least killy mortarch, he can't take command traits, etc).  The wristbands are great on the too-ubiquitous dragon lord, but I'm not sure that alone is enough to put sacrament on top if the rest of the spells come out looking like those already previewed - which are again not bad, but not amazing either.

If the spells aren't amazing, then Blood's extra fear penalty and extra attack on our hurtiest units (blood knights, VLoZD) could end up being as good.  And night might end up as good regardless, with their infiltration ability, extra save on our most defensively efficient units, and artefact for a +2 to cast bubble, potentially beating out LoS's casting boost, albeit in a small, static area.

A lot of it comes down to how good the spells are, and whether the other legions have defensive artefacts on par with the wristbands, but at the moment I wouldn't try to call any of the mortarch legions as strongest overall.  Grand host looks strongest to me regardless, but that's almost certainly because it plays into my own subjective unit preferences more than any actual reason.

 The way I see Legion of Sacrament is that the spell bonus and spell depth are their main attraction. I personally don't see the combat phase summon as a gimmick but a minor bonus to the other mentioned large bonusses. What I don't think is that one Legion will be ****** better as the others, that just doesn't seem like post GH2017 design to me.

The spells will not all be amazing, I can tell you as much right now. What I do think is that there is enough in there to make it viable, if I had to make a guess I think we will see a 6+ on to wound causing mortal wounds. This in combination with the massive attack numbers the hordes have will lead to a competitive viability.
I certainly believe that the whole intend of the book is to very much play into subjective unit preferences and then picking the right Legion on top of that to flesh out the list basically  

If I had to make a guess on how Summonning works I also think it will spell out something like being able to do it once per turn per gravesite and have summonning occur in the end of the Movement phase on a 4+. Then have that unit be able to place compeletely within 9" of the gravesite and 9" away from enemy units. 
In addition I think some Legions will have to tools to improve this, indeed confirmed moving the gravesites or have the gravesites obtain additional effects (such as X mortal wounds). If I had to make a guess on how they will cap summoning I don't deem it unlikely for LoS to be able to summon up to 4 units.

Looking forward to more offcourse but I believe LoN will be able to be part of the competitive meta with these alterations/boosts. The articles also mention that using the Gravesites near objectives and castle up around them is a good idea and I couldn't dissagree more. If anything what makes Death different from Chaos and Destruction here is that their Objective game seems extremely solid.

 

[lare2]

Book and warscroll cards preordered over the weekend at my FLGS and I'm wetting myself with anticipation for Saturday! 

It's great to see so much life in Death!  

[Jamopower]

I'm pretty sure that the summoning will require a character within 9" of the gravesite you are summoning from, as it was so strongly implied in the Legion of Night preview:

 

Quote

This ability also works when deploying your gravesites offensively – bring on a Death hero from a table edge within 9″ of a gravesite, then summon another unit you’ve kept in reserve from that! The Legion of Night promises to be a deadly weapon in the hands of a canny general.

 

[Sception]

I don't at all mean to put down sacrament, just that I don't necessarily think it will be the strongest mortarch legion.  If there are one or two best spells per lore, then the extra known spells of sacrament might not matter that much, in which case nights ability to produce a +2 cast bonus where they need it might prove just as effective on the casting front as sacrament's +1 to cast everywhere, while night's outflank anything when you want strikes me as just better than sacrament's maybe bring a unit back if you started the game a unit down and a variety of specific circumstances - some under your opponents control - happen to align and you succeed on a 4+ roll, one that you don't get to just try again later if you fail.

On the other hand, the wristbands remain, in my eyes, the best artifact previewed by a a good stretch.

I'm looking forward to the battalions.  Admittedly, I was hoping for more of them.  FEC got a bunch of battalions, one or more for nearly every type of unit, and a super big battalion-of-battalions for big big games.  The battalions we've heard sound cool, especially as they seem designed to address the vulnerability issues of our named characters, especially as army commanders, which is definitely something I wanted to see.  But only six total is a little disappointing.  It means only two battalions potentially not locked to specific legions or special characters, and I'm willing to bet one of them uses the new named vamp lord on dragon, while the other is just the skeleton legion again.  Oh, well.

Again, though, the battalions we are getting seemed designed to cover some of the difficulties with running a named character as your general, which is something I specifically hoped to see given the thematic focus of this book.  Hopefully they're not too expensive to run in matched play.

[Jamopower]

It's good to remember that some of the casts will go to good old arcane bolt, mystic shield, vanhel's dance macabre and the curse of years as well.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

It's good to remember that some of the casts will go to good old arcane bolt, mystic shield, vanhel's dance macabre and the curse of years as well.

Especially Mystic Shield and Vanhel's are certainly two spells I deem very relevant here. Because Hammers need to have the armour to actually reach their targets aswell.

Come to think of it, the more I think about Grave markers the more likely your point comes and I wouldn't even count out the option to have them be removed the moment you've used them. Basically litterly having the unit summoned from their grave and leave the graves empty as a result. We'll see how it works  out... lots of design potential here. Could also have been the prime reason why GW went for tokens instead of actual scenery pieces as the effect then wouldn't have an additional reason to stick around, like Ferulent Gnarlmaws for example.

In terms of Battalions... We'll see what GW has planned for them this time. Nurgle's wern't too much either, with basically only 1 relevant Battalion. But then again I'd much rather see the game evolve without them... That's just my opinion on it.

[WoollyMammoth]

If you look at chaos knights, you start to get a feel for how bad Blood Knights really are, and how much worse they are about to be
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-chaos-knights-en.pdf

Same

• 3 wounds
• 10" move
• 4+ save
• 2 standard steed attacks
• Can be battleline in certain armies

Very Similar

• 5+ to mortals instead of +1 save against non rend
• +1 to run/charge instead of always moving 6"
• -1 bravery in battelshock v -1 bravery within 6"
• 2 damage on charge v D3 (both have rend -1)

Blood Knights are better:

• +3 bravery
• +1 to wound
• heal a wound after killing models

Essentially, these are all highly comparable to the point where the units basically are the same. The only really relevant difference is +1 to wound.

Chaos Knights are 160/32ppm. Blood Knights are 260/52ppm.

Currently BK have regen. Does the regen and the +1 to wound justify 20 points per model? Most likley not.

A key point - Chaos Knights are not good. I almost never see them. Last time I saw someone play them, they were complaining about them. They have the potential to be in any chaos army, yet they are just rarely seen.

The thing that makes Blood Knights exciting is the idea you are paying a lot but you can get your points back if they die. In realty with double turns and being focused down, its very often not enough. I've seen Soulblight lists melt time and time again. The reality is, Blood Knights are just not that good at cost. You play them and you get a sexy high roll on the damage, and one comes back and it feels good, but that doesn't mean you could not be doing a lot more with your 260 points.

Last year, BK were in a great place. You could take a unit of 10, use the VLoAT to double their move, have a  VLoZD with the Cloak for a free 10" move. Next thing you know they are charging across the board and keeping a 5++ save. This justifies their 240 point cost. Due to their popularity and the fact that they have a good punch, GW decided to up their points in the GH2017, while killing all of these pieces that made them good at the same time. All this nerf when death was really not even doing well in the competitive scene.

Now, BK aren't charging anything first turn, and they are about to lose their regen. At this state, I would not pay more than 180 points for them, and even then they are not that great. With +1 attack, they might be worth throwing one unit in. This whole book is heavily resting on how good the spells are. If there is a new movement spell and a spell to heal your BK, they move into a much better place. Otherwise, +1 attack or no - don't be fooled, BK are not a good unit.

Black Knights in contrast now have 2 attacks, on the charge are 3+/3+ w/ 2 damage. Its no rend but they are coming back a XD3, easily restoring several models every turn. Black Knights also have a 12" move, and can get the double pile in from the Necromancer, which would give them the same number of attacks as BK with the +1. Black knights are only 120 points, so you could literally take  15 for the price of 5 BK. If there is a good movement spell in this book, I think that 15 Black Knights is a much better investment for your points, but we will have to see how the points look in the new book. Rending tends to be hard to come by in Death, so we might be forced to use BK, regardless of how overcosted they are. 

 

[Killax]

Uhm yeah go Black Knights for sure. Gh2016 changes arnt comming back, can't worry about it either. Gh2016 Bloodsecrator stacked, Gh2017 doesnt.

Plus its a good excuse to not worry about super expensive finecast. 

Sure would have been neat to see them drop in cost but this way its much easiet to validate.

If you want your mind blown on bad cav look at Bloodcrushers and compair those knights and skullcrushers and blood knights

Not all grass is greener elsewhere. But Chaos Knights are considered decent. Id say Blood Knights in Legion with the add attacks are decent too.

[S133arcanite]

14 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

If you look at chaos knights, you start to get a feel for how bad Blood Knights really are, and how much worse they are about to be
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-chaos-knights-en.pdf

Same

• 3 wounds
• 10" move
• 4+ save
• 2 standard steed attacks
• Can be battleline in certain armies

Very Similar

• 5+ to mortals instead of +1 save against non rend
• +1 to run/charge instead of always moving 6"
• -1 bravery in battelshock v -1 bravery within 6"
• 2 damage on charge v D3 (both have rend -1)

Blood Knights are better:

• +3 bravery
• +1 to wound
• heal a wound after killing models

Essentially, these are all highly comparable to the point where the units basically are the same. The only really relevant difference is +1 to wound.

Chaos Knights are 160/32ppm. Blood Knights are 260/52ppm.

Currently BK have regen. Does the regen and the +1 to wound justify 20 points per model? Most likley not.

A key point - Chaos Knights are not good. I almost never see them. Last time I saw someone play them, they were complaining about them. They have the potential to be in any chaos army, yet they are just rarely seen.

The thing that makes Blood Knights exciting is the idea you are paying a lot but you can get your points back if they die. In realty with double turns and being focused down, its very often not enough. I've seen Soulblight lists melt time and time again. The reality is, Blood Knights are just not that good at cost. You play them and you get a sexy high roll on the damage, and one comes back and it feels good, but that doesn't mean you could not be doing a lot more with your 260 points.

Last year, BK were in a great place. You could take a unit of 10, use the VLoAT to double their move, have a  VLoZD with the Cloak for a free 10" move. Next thing you know they are charging across the board and keeping a 5++ save. This justifies their 240 point cost. Due to their popularity and the fact that they have a good punch, GW decided to up their points in the GH2017, while killing all of these pieces that made them good at the same time. All this nerf when death was really not even doing well in the competitive scene.

Now, BK aren't charging anything first turn, and they are about to lose their regen. At this state, I would not pay more than 180 points for them, and even then they are not that great. With +1 attack, they might be worth throwing one unit in. This whole book is heavily resting on how good the spells are. If there is a new movement spell and a spell to heal your BK, they move into a much better place. Otherwise, +1 attack or no - don't be fooled, BK are not a good unit.

Black Knights in contrast now have 2 attacks, on the charge are 3+/3+ w/ 2 damage. Its no rend but they are coming back a XD3, easily restoring several models every turn. Black Knights also have a 12" move, and can get the double pile in from the Necromancer, which would give them the same number of attacks as BK with the +1. Black knights are only 120 points, so you could literally take  15 for the price of 5 BK. If there is a good movement spell in this book, I think that 15 Black Knights is a much better investment for your points, but we will have to see how the points look in the new book. Rending tends to be hard to come by in Death, so we might be forced to use BK, regardless of how overcosted they are. 

 

Plus, the outrageous price differences: £35 for ten chaos knights VS £62 for five blood knights ~

price of 20 chaos = price of five blood

[Sception]

20 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Black knights are only 120 points, so you could literally take  15 for the price of 5 BK.

You might want to double check your math on this particular point.  15 black knights id 360 points, considerably more than 5 blood knights at 260.

I do agree with your overall point though, that the combinstion of significant points hike plus multiple nerfs to everything that made the unit good in the first place has really hurt the unit.  Much more than I realized before you laid it out, as I didn't really use them to begin with.

[Killax]

Luckily there is no must include rule on them

[smucreo]

Wow didn't realize they were that bad. Thank god I prefer Black Knights anyway haha

[AverageBoss]

Yep, just compare 1 unit of Blood Knights to 2 units of Skullcrushers or Goregruntas and they don't look very appealing. Compare them to something directly in their points range, like Dracothian Guard (with Fulminators and Tempestors actually being a bit cheaper), and they look downright terrible.

[swarmofseals]

@WoollyMammoth

 

Chaos Knights with Glaives

WDR when charging: .0758

WDR when not  charging: .0388

Defensive efficiency (vs r0/r1/r2/mw): 5.33/7.11/8.88/7.11

 

Blood Knights

WDR when charging: .0819

WDR when not charging: .046

Defensive efficiency (vs r0/r1/r2/mw): 5.77/11.56/14.44/17.33

Defensive efficiency with 6+ ward (vs r0/r1/r2/mw): 4.81/9.03/12.04/14.44

 

Legion Blood Knights

WDR when charging: .111

WDR when not charging: .063

Defensive efficiency (vs r0/r1/r2/mw): 5.77/11.56/14.44/17.33

Defensive efficiency with 6+ ward (vs r0/r1/r2/mw): 4.81/9.03/12.04/14.44

 

___________________________________________________________

NOTE: with WDR higher numbers are better, with defensive efficiency lower numbers are better

Offensively, Blood Knights have a clear edge. Regular BKs are 8% more efficient than CKs charging and 19.5% more efficient when not charging. Remember, this is a measure of efficiency so it factors on the cost of both units. Defensively though Chaos Knights are far better. They are similar against rend 0, but against rend 1, 2 and mw Chaos Knights are vastly superior. So I pretty much agree with you, regular Blood Knights are pretty mediocre compared to Chaos Knights.

Legion of Blood BKs, however, are even better on offense -- 46% more efficient when charging and 62% more efficient when not charging. They have the same defensive shortcomings, but this magnitude of offensive edge makes it much more interesting. Legion Blood Knights are a far better hammer than Chaos Knights. I don't think you can just spam them and have success because their defensive efficiency is poor, but they are VERY good at what they do. 

 

Just another comparison --

Legion of Blood Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon

WDR with Deathlance charging, using command ability on self: .062

Defensive efficiency (vs. r0/r1/r2/mw) with shield counting chalice use: 8.38/12.57/16.76/25.14

 

These numbers are assuming +1 to the dragon's attacks as well. The much vaunted VLOZD which people are calling mandatory upthread from here with Legion of Blood attack bonus AND his own command ability used on himself has worse offensive efficiency when charging than Legion Blood Knights do when they aren't charging, and he has markedly worse defensive efficiency against every damage type even counting the chalice heal (which he won't get to use if he gets killed in a single turn). 

 

Regarding Black Knights, 15 Black Knights costs 360. 5 Blood Knights costs 260. I'll do the math on Black Knight efficiency later today.

 

[smucreo]

What is your formula for WDR? I ask because you may be looking at things in a void. How often will both units get a charge off when faced with enemy fire? Will they arrive at full force? Will they make up for their cost in points? After all a unit with similar offensive efficiency but which costs way less points will have an easier time paying back their price. Specially if they remain at full force for a longer time like CK should be able to do. 

How do you factor in abilities, possible synergies, etc? I'm just curious as to how you obtain the number.

[Ashtyn]

Some of the war scrolls are on the app!

Coven thrones got a cool new command ability. Reroll hits wounds and saves of 1. May work well, may be worthless lol

[smucreo]

http://www.mengelminiatures.com/2018/02/review-legions-of-nagash_5.html

A review for the book. Looks like Mortarchs have to be generals if included in your Legion lists.

EDIT: Deathmages lore seem to focus on debuffs, Vampires lore seems to focus on damage. Seems like deathmages can reduce damage, attacks, to hit, to wound and bravery characteristics. If you squint really hard in one of the images it says to roll a D6 to randomly choose a spell for Deathlords, so looks like we are getting 3 spells for each lore. A bit dissapointing honestly.

The article contains an image of the artifacts. The artifacts are for GA:Death

@Sception was right, one battalion for the Prince and the Deathrattle one renamed.

Seems like most units retain their point costs, so potentially bad news for GG.

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, smucreo said:

What is your formula for WDR? I ask because you may be looking at things in a void. How often will both units get a charge off when faced with enemy fire? Will they arrive at full force? Will they make up for their cost in points? After all a unit with similar offensive efficiency but which costs way less points will have an easier time paying back their price. Specially if they remain at full force for a longer time like CK should be able to do. 

How do you factor in abilities, possible synergies, etc? I'm just curious as to how you obtain the number.

Great as the theory is I feel AoS has a much simpler rule of tumb. It either can attrition for 30+ wounds for 250+ points or can do a good chunk of Mortal Wounds and otherwise it's just not that interesting. I feel Black Knights will be an optimal choice for so many reasons that the only reason to consider Blood Knights must come from the Allegiance.

Other than that though, yes I don't play Death, but I wouldn't let a tear for this because the third party market for them isn't great and the GW cost on them is ridiculous since WFB.
So yeah I'd happily use Black Knights/Hex Wraiths all the time, every time. 

[smucreo]

8 minutes ago, Killax said:

Great as the theory is I feel AoS has a much simpler rule of tumb. It either can attrition for 30+ wounds for 250+ points or can do a good chunk of Mortal Wounds and otherwise it's just not that interesting. I feel Black Knights will be an optimal choice for so many reasons that the only reason to consider Blood Knights must come from the Allegiance.

Other than that though, yes I don't play Death, but I wouldn't let a tear for this because the third party market for them isn't great and the GW cost on them is ridiculous since WFB.
So yeah I'd happily use Black Knights/Hex Wraiths all the time, every time. 

Yeah, I'd do it too honestly. I was just asking about his method because he posts the WDR stat occasionally and I was curious about it's formula  

[Xasz]

Damn am I happy I sold my Blood Knights last year.

[Ashtyn]

25 minutes ago, smucreo said:

http://www.mengelminiatures.com/2018/02/review-legions-of-nagash_5.html

A review for the book. Looks like Mortarchs have to be generals if included in your Legion lists.

EDIT: Deathmages lore seem to focus on debuffs, Vampires lore seems to focus on damage. Seems like deathmages can reduce damage, attacks, to hit, to wound and bravery characteristics. If you squint really hard in one of the images it says to roll a D6 to randomly choose a spell for Deathlords, so looks like we are getting 3 spells for each lore. A bit dissapointing honestly.

The article contains an image of the artifacts. The artifacts are for GA:Death

@Sception was right, one battalion for the Prince and the Deathrattle one renamed.

Seems like most units retain their point costs, so potentially bad news for GG.

Randomly choosing a spell!! 

Is that normal in other battletomes? I thought you could always choose your spell. 

[Xasz]

1 minute ago, Ashtyn said:

Randomly choosing a spell!! 

Is that normal in other battletomes? I thought you could always choose your spell. 

It's an option that is always mentioned in Battletomes, besides just picking them.

Nothing to read into that, normal procedure.

[Ashtyn]

Just now, Xasz said:

It's an option that is always mentioned in Battletomes, besides just picking them.

Nothing to read into that, normal procedure.

Cool cool, worried we'd have to randomly pick spells on the mortarchs.