AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion

[jeanfluflu]

Just now, PJetski said:

I'm starting to think maybe they will come in squads of 1 because a double reinforced battleline unit of 6 sounds like a balancing nightmare

this would solve mainy issues, starting with the wonky kit that would leave you with one lonely drake rider if you decide to create the knight with the custom parts.

[PJetski]

Since the battletome isn't being released until at least the 21st and theres no signs of errata to the errata, Im going to take this list to a RTT later this month

Stormcast Eternals - Stormkeeps

Warlord

• Drakesworn Templar
  • General: Staunch Defender
  • Artefact: Amulet of Destiny
  • Mount Trait #1: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #2: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #3: Storm-winged
• Knight-Heraldor
• Knight-Azyros
• 5x Liberators

Warlord

• Battlemage (Ghur: Wildform) (Spell: Levitate)
• Knight-Incantor (Spell: Azyrite Halo)
• Runelord (Prayer: Heal)
• 5x Liberators

Hunters of the Heartlands

• 5x Evocators (Spell: Celestial Blades)
• 4x Concussors
• 5x Liberators

Misc. 

• Grand Strategy: ??
• Triumph: Inspired (+1 to wound rolls)

1995/2000

Should I do Prized Sorcery (keep a WIZARD alive) or Beast Master (keep a MONSTER alive)?

Edited August 3, 2021 by PJetski

[Lucur]

Did you check in with the TO? Because 3 times the same trait on one single mount might raise the occasional eyebrow ^^

Other than that this might be a fun list, 5 Evocators seem to underperform to me, but with a drake and the concussors as primary threats they might live for a turn to walk up.

[Nizrah]

36 minutes ago, PJetski said:

 

• Drakesworn Templar
  • General: Staunch Defender
  • Artefact: Amulet of Destiny
  • Mount Trait #1: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #2: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #3: Storm-winged
•  

God bless that we in Poland have tournament legue board that coardinate all tournaments and masters in entire country... This ****** will will not be allowed on any serious tournament in my country...

[PJetski]

16 minutes ago, Lucur said:

Did you check in with the TO? Because 3 times the same trait on one single mount might raise the occasional eyebrow ^^

Other than that this might be a fun list, 5 Evocators seem to underperform to me, but with a drake and the concussors as primary threats they might live for a turn to walk up.

Yeah the 5 evocators are there because they can cast Empower on themselves and then Celestial Blades on the Concussors in the same turn. They're also another unbind, and they get +1 to casting and unbinding while near the Stardrake.

15 minutes ago, Nizrah said:

God bless that we in Poland have tournament legue board that coardinate all tournaments and masters in entire country... This ****** will will not be allowed on any serious tournament in my country...

What other house rules do you guys use out there?

[PrimeElectrid]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

Since the battletome isn't being released until at least the 21st and theres no signs of errata to the errata, Im going to take this list to a RTT later this month

Stormcast Eternals - Stormkeeps

Warlord

• Drakesworn Templar
  • General: Staunch Defender
  • Artefact: Amulet of Destiny
  • Mount Trait #1: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #2: Storm-winged
  • Mount Trait #3: Storm-winged
• Knight-Heraldor
• Knight-Azyros
• 5x Liberators

Warlord

• Battlemage (Ghur: Wildform) (Spell: Levitate)
• Knight-Incantor (Spell: Azyrite Halo)
• Runelord (Prayer: Heal)
• 5x Liberators

Hunters of the Heartlands

• 5x Evocators (Spell: Celestial Blades)
• 4x Concussors
• 5x Liberators

Misc. 

• Grand Strategy: ??
• Triumph: Inspired (+1 to wound rolls)

1995/2000

Should I do Prized Sorcery (keep a WIZARD alive) or Beast Master (keep a MONSTER alive)?

Beast master. Your wizards are fragile foot heroes that will get sniped out, and 5 Evocators that will probably be in the thick of things. On the other hand the Templar is the toughest thing on the table and if he dies well it’s probably a loss anyway.

Could also try dominating presence.

[Nizrah]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

Yeah the 5 evocators are there because they can cast Empower on themselves and then Celestial Blades on the Concussors in the same turn. They're also another unbind, and they get +1 to casting and unbinding while near the Stardrake.

What other house rules do you guys use out there?

1. None. 
2. Its just to prevent using exploit thats crearly should't be in game and will be patched asap. 

[Mark Williams]

How do you make evocators cast two spells in one turn?

[PJetski]

6 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

How do you make evocators cast two spells in one turn?

RAW you can cast Empower and then any spell from the Lore of Invigoration

[mystycalchemy]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

RAW you can cast Empower and then any spell from the Lore of Invigoration

They can only attempt to cast one spell per hero phase. The exception only changes the highlighted portion. RAW this doesn't work. 1 spell, nothing says they can cast LoI spells in the same phase as empower.

[PJetski]

32 minutes ago, mystycalchemy said:

They can only attempt to cast one spell per hero phase. The exception only changes the highlighted portion. RAW this doesn't work. 1 spell, nothing says they can cast LoI spells in the same phase as empower.

It literally says "can attempt to cast 1 spell from the lore" and "this is an exception to the rule that they cannot attempt to cast spells other than Empower". It's cut and dry.

Cast empower first, then cast Celestial Blades

Edited August 3, 2021 by PJetski

[Zamik]

It just gives Evocators another option for their one cast, not a second cast.

[mystycalchemy]

22 minutes ago, PJetski said:

It literally says "can attempt to cast 1 spell from the lore" and "this is an exception to the rule that they cannot attempt to cast spells other than Empower". It's cut and dry.

Cast empower first, then cast Celestial Blades

 

6 minutes ago, Zamik said:

It just gives Evocators another option for their one cast, not a second cast.

Just like Zamik says, it adds the option to cast. The part that says "attempt to cast" is only there to clarify that they are eligible to cast the spells. For instance, Curseling from Tzeentch would not be able to cast it as he is not an EVOCATORS unit. Doesn't mean they get a cast that "doesn't count"

[PJetski]

24 minutes ago, Zamik said:

It just gives Evocators another option for their one cast, not a second cast.

This would be the case if it only said they could learn a spell from the lore, but it says "learn and cast 1 spell from the lore". 

Learning a spell does not give you more casts normally, but no other spell lore in the game is worded this way.

In general if a rule says you can cast a spell then it overrides other rules that would prevent you from doing so normally. For example the Whitefire Tome from Hallowheart:

Normally you have to be a WIZARD in order to cast spells (as per the core rules) and this does not grant the WIZARD keyword, but this artefact still lets you cast a spell even though they are not a WIZARD.

Since the Lore of Invigoration says you can cast 1 spell from the lore and since it also specifies that it is an exemption to the normal rule that they can only cast empower, then you can cast one of those spells in addition to Empower. There is also a clause that specifies the order (Empower first, then the Lore spell).

They could have worded the ability something like "They can cast this spell instead of casting Empower". They chose not to do that.

Edited August 3, 2021 by PJetski

[Lengthster]

What's the controversy? It literally says above the highlighted part that Evocators are a wizard that can cast and unbind 1 spell. 1 spell. They can choose to either cast empower, or the other spell they know. Evocator warscroll says they can't cast any spells other than empower, the lore of invigoration is an exception to that, I mean it would suck for your Evocators to know a spell but not be able to cast it.

[mystycalchemy]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

This would be the case if it only said they could learn a spell from the lore, but it says "learn and cast 1 spell from the lore". 

Learning a spell does not give you more casts normally, but no other spell lore in the game is worded this way.

This is correct. Also, no other unit in the game says "This unit can only cast <spell>." Which is likely why games workshop worded it this way. Why didn't they just remove that sentence from Evocators? Who knows.

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

In general if a rule says you can cast a spell then it overrides other rules that would prevent you from doing so normally. 

Since the Lore of Invigoration says you can cast 1 spell from the lore and since it also specifies that it is an exemption to the normal rule that they can only cast empower, then you can cast one of those spells in addition to Empower. There is also a clause that specifies the order (Empower first, then the Lore spell).

Technically, there's nothing implying they get an extra cast in here either. The sentence exempting the normal rule refers only to the sentence that they can only cast empower (and nothing else) as if it didn't specify that, nothing would work. If the last sentence is trying to specify order, why doesn't it say outright? And why would GW write a rule that FORCES players to cast spells in a specific order? There's no reasoning for that lore-wise or anything.

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

They could have worded the ability something like "They can cast this spell instead of casting Empower". They chose not to do that.

They could've, but GW also thought Vanguard-Hunters were okay until 3rd edition changed their stats.

[PJetski]

3 minutes ago, mystycalchemy said:

This is correct. Also, no other unit in the game says "This unit can only cast <spell>." Which is likely why games workshop worded it this way. Why didn't they just remove that sentence from Evocators? Who knows.

That's not correct. Off the top of my head there's the Horrors of Tzeentch. They cannot learn or cast additional spells through their spell lore. The Lore of Invigoration is a totally unique phrasing, so it's not unreasonable to think it doesn't act like a typical spell lore.

I'm not going to waste trying to figure out the writers intent or make house rules to fit my vision of the game. Until they errata their errata, RAW they can cast Empower then cast Celestial Blades.

23 minutes ago, Lengthster said:

What's the controversy? It literally says above the highlighted part that Evocators are a wizard that can cast and unbind 1 spell. 1 spell. They can choose to either cast empower, or the other spell they know. Evocator warscroll says they can't cast any spells other than empower, the lore of invigoration is an exception to that, I mean it would suck for your Evocators to know a spell but not be able to cast it.

See my previous post 

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

They could have worded the ability something like "They can cast this spell instead of casting Empower". They chose not to do that.

 

[Lengthster]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

They could have worded the ability something like "They can cast this spell instead of casting Empower". They chose not to do that.

They don't need to because it says they can cast 1 spell. The rule says nothing about allowing them to cast additional spells. "Each EVOCATORS unit in your army can know and attempt to cast 1 spell from the Lore of Invigoration." It's worded badly but it doesn't circumvent the 1 cast limit.

[mystycalchemy]

7 minutes ago, PJetski said:

-snip-

You got me on horrors, but they didn't also try to add more spells to them after the fact. And while I disagree with your interpretation, it'll all probably change in a month

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, Lengthster said:

They don't need to because it says they can cast 1 spell. The rule says nothing about allowing them to cast additional spells. "Each EVOCATORS unit in your army can know and attempt to cast 1 spell from the Lore of Invigoration." It's worded badly but it doesn't circumvent the 1 cast limit.

There is a special rule that says "They can cast 1 spell from this lore". If it counted as one of their regular spells it would just say "learn a spell from this lore" like every other spell lore in the game. This is obviously a different mechanic.

Read my post about the Whitefire tome again. I'm not going to repeat myself any more; my argument is laid out clear and has yet to be disputed.

Just now, mystycalchemy said:

You got me on horrors, but they didn't also try to add more spells to them after the fact. And while I disagree with your interpretation, it'll all probably change in a month

I have no doubt that it will be changed, I'm just having some cheeky fun with GWs poor rules writing in the meantime

[Killamike]

At the end of the day it's a hobby and a pastime we all get enjoyment out of. 

Your enjoyment is clearly being a rules lawyer and taking advantage of any poorly written rules to win a local event. 

Your cheeky fun is anothers frustration,  but don't let your opponents enjoyment stand in the way. 

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, Killamike said:

At the end of the day it's a hobby and a pastime we all get enjoyment out of. 

Your enjoyment is clearly being a rules lawyer and taking advantage of any poorly written rules to win a local event. 

Your cheeky fun is anothers frustration,  but don't let your opponents enjoyment stand in the way. 

There's a lot of assumptions and ad hominems in this post, but alas no argument to be found

[Joseph Mackay]

Re: Evocators and spells

Evocators can only cast ONE spell per turn. Warscroll specifies they can only cast Empower (this is specifically to disallow Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield or realm spells). Lore Of Invigoration says they can know and cast one spell, and that this is an exception to the warscroll forbidding any spell other than Empower. The reason it says ‘and cast’ is because otherwise they could know the spell but not use it. Nowhere in any of the relevant rules does it say Evocators can cast more than one spell

[mystycalchemy]

55 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Read my post about the Whitefire tome again. I'm not going to repeat myself any more; my argument is laid out clear and has yet to be disputed.

Unfortunately, I don't believe Whitefire Tome is an apt example here for what you're trying to argue.

Whitefire tome is worded as such because it can be given to a unit that is not a wizard. If it did not have that second clause, it would read as such:

"If the bearer is a WIZARD, they know all the spells from the lore of whitefire instead of only 2."

Thus, it would not perform at all on anything but a wizard. You could, legally put it on a wizard, but without that second clause, the artifact does nothing on a non-wizard, thus, the statement saying a spell can be cast is required.

If we look at evocators the same way, let's remove the troublesome words from the FAQ.

"Each EVOCATORS unit in your army can know 1 spell from the lore of invigoration."

If this is how the FAQ was worded, they wouldnt be able to cast any spells from LoI at all, as their warscroll states they can only cast empower. The FAQ for the Lore MUST say they are able to cast a spell, it MUST contradict the warscroll's rules (and state as such) so that Evocators are able to cast the spells. 

The FAQ doesn't say that so it can be misconstrued into meaning they get two spells, its literally required so that Evocators work as they are meant to. It's written poorly, but not THAT poorly.

i know you're in this for good fun. But consider how your opponents are gonna think about this. If I saw this, I'd call the TO over to confirm cause most TOs i can think of wouldnt go for this kind of exploitation.

[Jaskier]

49 minutes ago, PJetski said:

There's a lot of assumptions and ad hominems in this post, but alas no argument to be found

Take a step back and think about what you are arguing. Evocators have a rule that says they can only ever cast Empower, meaning the FAQ has to specify that they can cast a spell from the lore they have access to, otherwise they would know a spell but not be able to cast it. It does not say they can cast a second spell or an extra spell. You are arguing instead that this allows them to cast two spells in one phase. Whether you want to accept it or not, it's blatant rules-lawyering to gain an advantage that is clearly not intended - nor is it even really supported by the actual rules-as-written. 

As an aside, the confirmation of legal all-dragon armies means I'll be rejoining the ranks of the Stormcast soon, though I'll be converting them to fit either an Undead or Chaos theme. Mini-dragon riders has been my dream since 8th Edition (for Caledor!) and GW are finally giving it to us! 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jaskier