Jump to content

Let's chat Stormcast Eternals


Requizen

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ah, found it. I feel wary using it since the Realmgate doesn't have points (look at all the kerfluffle that came up over Wyldwoods and the Vortex), and also you end up having to use Reinforcement points, which is not great for us, and only on a 4+. So... would be interesting for Narrative but I don't see it working that well in a Matched game.

 

Edit: forgot that the Realmgate has it's own rules lol. That's not bad, but past turn 1 anything worth protecting is going to be far away from the edge of the board, making the Realmgate mobility a bit wasted except to get the Liberators onto objectives. Which is not a bad idea, still, but I don't know the overall usefulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that's given me an idea for an army that runs 2-3 copies of that formation. With 3 Realmgates, you can cover a good amount of the board with teleport-able bubbles, and use them to threaten objectives and the like. Placing one right on top of an objective and you can guarantee get into combat with anything that goes near it. 

I hadn't considered it but that could be quite powerful. Would require a lot of models I don't have though, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you can only use the Gate if you're within 6" in the start of the Movement phase. So you could set up the first one in your area, with the units you want to teleport around it, and the other ones, say, 7" away from their area, or  -if you're playing Border War, Three Places of Power, or Escalation - right on the objectives in No Man's Land. You can use it on your turn 1, they can't. 

Still, it's probably not better than SS or WB, given the restrictions and what not, just a fun list to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone converted Liberators into Judicators? I got the December Battalion and have no use for the 10 Liberators, but I do have Bows and Crossbows left over from my Judicator boxes. The arms are a bit incorrect for the bows, but I wonder how hard it is to cut them into shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Requizen said:

Anyone converted Liberators into Judicators? I got the December Battalion and have no use for the 10 Liberators, but I do have Bows and Crossbows left over from my Judicator boxes. The arms are a bit incorrect for the bows, but I wonder how hard it is to cut them into shape.

Just converted Liberators into Justicators with crossbows.  Check out my post on the painting and modelling section of the forum.  Not the best but can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks interesting! I'm pretty garbage at using Green Stuff, though, which is a bit of a pain, but I'm thinking the bows might be a bit easier since I don't have to put them in an aiming pose.

 

As an aside, does anyone use ranged support from other factions in their armies? I was thinking of getting some stuff from Ironweld to help camp the backfield. Bow Judicators are great, but you can get stuff longer than 24" or harder to kill. The other idea was to pick up a Bastilidon or two to have a rock-hard firebase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a quick FYI guys; I've noticed people have been chatting about Dropping units with the lightning strike rule within 3" of enemy units using the Knight Azyros as a conduit for this. (Warrior Brotherhood ect,)

 

That is not the case. You must remain outside of 3" (So 3.1 inches away) from opponent and cannot drop into combat and must still charge.

 

While the FAQ, particularly "what is set-up" has been called into question and used a reason for you to be able to drop "into combat" without charging, the Lightning strike rule specifically states it counts as that units Move for the turn. Therefore, as it counts as a move you cannot end your move within 3" of an enemy unit or model.

 

While this has been discussed and ruled both ways at tournaments and other events; I would highly recommend discussing with the TO if they rule this as a legal move or not. To my mind there is no discussion; you cannot drop into combat and must remain 3" away, despite me myself going on record and playing it the wrong way at events due to this confusion.

 

@Nico I've not lost to Kunnin' Rukk with my Warrior Brotherhood.

 

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, while I can understand that interpretation, I think it's clear that you are supposed to be able to do it. Lightning Strike is called out by name in the same section that says "Models can set up within 3" of the enemy, even if they are setup in the movement phase". The rule specifically calls this out as a "set up", which would be in line with the FAQ answer. I believe the final sentence in the rule simply is to clarify that you do not get an extra move on top of the Lightning Strike. 

 

That said, I agree that you should check with your TO. It's a super powerful ability, so I would be fine with either interpretation. 





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Requizen said:

I believe the final sentence in the rule simply is to clarify that you do not get an extra move on top of the Lightning Strike.

In these discussions, this is the most important thing to remember. It's setup but also a move so there is no subsequent movement.

2 hours ago, TDK said:

Lightning strike rule specifically states it counts as that units Move for the turn.

That it 'counts as their move' does not necessarily mean 'it is a movement action' (for me).

To get that you have to add something (such as 'and a move is a movement action' or 'if it counts as their move then it must be a movement action and that overrides setup rules'). You've to reach further,  creating extrapolation.

That said, TO's decisions (or a dice roll due to opponent disagreements) are final and I personally have no trouble with outside or inside 3" (when I play these formations at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

While this has been discussed and ruled both ways at tournaments and other events; I would highly recommend discussing with the TO if they rule this as a legal move or not. To my mind there is no discussion; you cannot drop into combat and must remain 3" away, despite me myself going on record and playing it the wrong way at events due to this confusion.

As discussed individual TOs can decide it either way for their events and your advice is sensible in that regard.

 The fact that they didn't touch the FAQ regarding set-up Warrior Brotherhood in the recent iteration of the FAQ is very strange if they mean for it to be played the other way - why wouldn't they clarify it then when they had the chance? I was half expecting them to do so (ruling it either way), but nothing was changed.

As I've said, I don't care about the WB (and it's marginal as to whether it even helps that Battalion), but I hate seeing other mechanics being messed around with (and other things being nerfed) for balance reasons that are specific to one Warscroll or one Battalion. I do think that muddying the water between moves and set ups is a bad idea and that any given ability can and should be one or the other (based on the operative wording, i.e. the bit that says "set-up the unit within X of Y". 

At the risk of repetition, it's worth bearing in mind that GW literally promotes the Warrior Brotherhood Battalion plus Azyros combo on their Community website as being able to deploy models even within 3". I cannot see how you can say to someone using that combo that they cannot do it unless the TO has ruled it the other way (and ideally I would say in the pack itself, not at the event).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Turragor said:

In these discussions, this is the most important thing to remember. It's setup but also a move so there is no subsequent movement.

That it 'counts as their move' does not necessarily mean 'it is a movement action' (for me).

To get that you have to add something (such as 'and a move is a movement action' or 'if it counts as their move then it must be a movement action and that overrides setup rules'). You've to reach further,  creating extrapolation.

Therein lies the problem though; people like to create a game term it justify a perceived interpretation of the rule. It is a movement action Isn't anything in the rules, it is a categorization that's been fabricated. 

Factually counting as a Move, means yes A) you cannot move anymore and B) you must adhere to movement rules (i.e the 3" Rule.) So over complication only furthers the discussion. This leads on to the next point:

 

15 hours ago, Nico said:

The fact that they didn't touch the FAQ regarding set-up Warrior Brotherhood in the recent iteration of the FAQ is very strange if they mean for it to be played the other way - why wouldn't they clarify it then when they had the chance? I was half expecting them to do so (ruling it either way), but nothing was changed.

At the risk of repetition, it's worth bearing in mind that GW literally promotes the Warrior Brotherhood Battalion plus Azyros combo on their Community website as being able to deploy models even within 3". I cannot see how you can say to someone using that combo that they cannot do it unless the TO has ruled it the other way (and ideally I would say in the pack itself, not at the event).

 

I don't think GW needs to touch it in the FAQ; it is pretty clear. In the lightning Strike rules you must adhere to Set-Up and Movement Rules.

Also; pretty sure @Ben Johnson has gone on record to say that the within 3" comment was an oversight by the author of the piece and not how he actually played the list or his interpretations of the rule. You're treading that fine line by often mistaking an article (whether Youtube, Tactica on Wiki Pages or an article on the Warhammer Community Pages) for written rules and FAQ.

That's the bigger risk of reputation, you're likely to fall down a rabbit hole citing Facebook response comments and Bar Chat with Gamesworkshop Employees as quotable rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TDK said:

Therein lies the problem though; people like to create a game term it justify a perceived interpretation of the rule. It is a movement action Isn't anything in the rules, it is a categorization that's been fabricated. 

Factually counting as a Move, means yes A) you cannot move anymore and B) you must adhere to movement rules (i.e the 3" Rule.) So over complication only furthers the discussion. This leads on to the next point:

 

I don't think GW needs to touch it in the FAQ; it is pretty clear. In the lightning Strike rules you must adhere to Set-Up and Movement Rules.

Also; pretty sure @Ben Johnson has gone on record to say that the within 3" comment was an oversight by the author of the piece and not how he actually played the list or his interpretations of the rule. You're treading that fine line by often mistaking an article (whether Youtube, Tactica on Wiki Pages or an article on the Warhammer Community Pages) for written rules and FAQ.

That's the bigger risk of reputation, you're likely to fall down a rabbit hole citing Facebook response comments and Bar Chat with Gamesworkshop Employees as quotable rules.

I do see what you mean. I just don't feel a 100% agreement.

I'm not really invested enough in the warscroll or inside 3 inches to debate further. I'm all for the simplest interpretation myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I'm not really invested enough in the warscroll or inside 3 inches to debate further. I'm all for the simplest interpretation myself.

The simplest explanation by far is to say that any given rule is either a move or a set-up. That's one of the points for doing it this way. I've explained elsewhere why the 3" rule doesn't need to be on a totem.

Quote

Also; pretty sure @Ben Johnson has gone on record to say that the within 3" comment was an oversight by the author of the piece and not how he actually played the list or his interpretations of the rule. You're treading that fine line by often mistaking an article (whether Youtube, Tactica on Wiki Pages or an article on the Warhammer Community Pages) for written rules and FAQ.

I don't think you can equate those things. The FB page make clear that they aren't providing a rules question answering service. Publishing an article promoting an army on the basis of a specific combo is quite different. 

I'm sure he probably did say that and I gather he didn't play it in the way you did originally way back when.  Nevertheless, you do seem to be relying on a hearsay conversation (where is this record - is it a private WhatsApp group?) and suggesting that's more concrete than a public website article on the community website which anyone can go and look at.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/29/top-5-lists-from-blood-glory/

As I've said in the other thread, it makes relatively little difference to WB, (not least because Reckless will be used as it's the no-brainer command trait). The real strength of WB is flexibility (versus all at once Skyborne Slayers). However, ruling this the other way would have other effects elsewhere. 

I'm going to an event where I've cleared this rule (and other rules) with the TO in advance (partly because I'm expecting to face plenty of WB lists - I'm certainly not planning to object when they deploy models next to mine); and I also got full blessing for my list and mechanics - i.e. I've done the right thing, explained a list and checked it all works with the TO (who kindly took the time to respond in detail). I think this is pretty much what you suggested doing in your earlier post. I've submitted a list and I've invested in models etc.. on the basis of that. I do not want to suddenly have the rug suddenly pulled out from under my feet (and indeed the feet of any WB opponents), when this could have been clarified in the FAQ just published in late December (and people will have built lists on the basis of that FAQ). Obviously for any other event (e.g. The Masters which I'm really looking forward to watching on the Livestream), the rule can be whichever way the TO decides.

The FAQ itself could be updated in due course. As I said, it's not a big deal for WB. It's not the reason why the WB is overpowered (flexibility of when to drop). My solution to this one would be a cost increase. Clearly distinguishing moves and set up rules (i.e. nothing can be both) strikes me (and others) as being a good thing for the game in general. You could even just list the contentious ones in the FAQ if necessary, WB is a set-up; Clan Skryre is a set-up; Rampaging Destroyers is a move etc..

Quote

It is a movement action 

Just to be clear we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Articles are maybe not the best information, as I have seen the article on the list by Ben and the notion of dropping within 3"

This article with the same formation build up says the opposite

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/12/20/martin-goes-to-the-gt-part-2-writing-the-list/

My first choice was a Knight-Azyros, which would allow me to Ride the Lightning inside of the usual 9″ limit when I deploy the army. That would mean I could land just outside of 3″ of an enemy with my Paladins and complete a charge on a 3+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chord said:

I'm new to the hobby but it seems that GW does not do a good job keeping track of all the interactions between the warscrolls.  Is this new with AoS or common to the company?

What examples are you thinking of? There are very few that I've seen confuse people and they've been FAQed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the above example of the Asyros or any of the faq stuff. I would think (again new to this) that if things were worded better or interactions planned the need for the faq would be removed? Could be that this is common in the hobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...