AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion

[Requizen]

Read right in the middle.

"You can either choose one of the Stormhosts listed below, or choose another Stormhost you've read about or created yourself."

I created the <Seraphon> Stormhost. This is well within the rules.

[Mark Williams]

16 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Read right in the middle.

"You can either choose one of the Stormhosts listed below, or choose another Stormhost you've read about or created yourself."

I created the <Seraphon> Stormhost. This is well within the rules.

I don’t agree.

[Requizen]

2 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

I don’t agree.

I concur that this is stupid and not RAI, but the rules agree with me. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, but that's the way it is.

Note: I would never do this, just as an amusing talking point that really should be FAQ'd before someone actually does it.

[robinlvalentine]

The rule is perfectly clear, and even if it wasn't that would still be an exceptionally tenuous thing to argue you could do. You're just inventing loopholes at that point. As PJetski says, that last sentences clarifies the middle bit you're using to justify it. 

I do think it's silly that so many in the community complain about GW's inability to balance things, while at the same time trying to read ambiguity into every single sentence in every book to create as many convoluted workarounds as possible. 

I know you're not saying you'd actually do it, but even as a thought exercise it feels unhelpful. 

[Requizen]

10 minutes ago, robinlvalentine said:

The rule is perfectly clear, and even if it wasn't that would still be an exceptionally tenuous thing to argue you could do. You're just inventing loopholes at that point. As PJetski says, that last sentences clarifies the middle bit you're using to justify it. 

I do think it's silly that so many in the community complain about GW's inability to balance things, while at the same time trying to read ambiguity into every single sentence in every book to create as many convoluted workarounds as possible. 

I know you're not saying you'd actually do it, but even as a thought exercise it feels unhelpful. 

The part you're talking about absolutely does not prevent you from taking a Stormhost of your own making. Middle part: "You can either choose one of the Stormhosts listed below, or choose another Stormhost you've read about or created yourself." This gives you two options: choose a Stormhost from below, or select one not on the list.

The last two sentences: "If you choose one from the list below, all units [...] on the page indicated. If you choose a different Stormhost, simply pick the Stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost." This tells you what happens depending on what option you picked above.

For sake of clarity, let's put aside Allies silliness for now and focus on a Stormhost that's actually in the book: Knights of the Aurora. 

I choose a Stormhost per the Allegiance Abilities (sentences 1 and 2). None of my models are Unique, so do not have a Stormhost already (sentence 3). I read about the Knights of the Aurora earlier in the book, thought they looked cool and had a neat blurb, so I pick them (sentence 4). I did not choose one from the list below (sentence 5), so I pick the Stormhost that matches the nature of my dudes, which is that they're fast and like quick combat, which matches Knights of the Aurora (stenence 6). So, from following the exact instructions, all models in my army have the <Knights of the Aurora> keyword.

Now repeat the process, only replace <Knights of the Aurora> with <Seraphon> or <Sylvaneth> or any other word of your choosing - could even be <Ultramarines> if you're feeling cheeky. 

[Mark Williams]

While I agree with the literal of what you are saying, I feel the GHB clarifies how allegiances works and supersedes this. Therefore, you can give your army the seraphon keyword, but it becomes a second definition for the word seraphon. The seraphon (lizard) allegiance and your new seraphon stormhost are two entities, that while sharing the same root spelling, are two completely separate things that coincidentally share the same letters and nothing else.

[robinlvalentine]

22 minutes ago, Requizen said:

The part you're talking about absolutely does not prevent you from taking a Stormhost of your own making. Middle part: "You can either choose one of the Stormhosts listed below, or choose another Stormhost you've read about or created yourself." This gives you two options: choose a Stormhost from below, or select one not on the list.

The last two sentences: "If you choose one from the list below, all units [...] on the page indicated. If you choose a different Stormhost, simply pick the Stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost." This tells you what happens depending on what option you picked above.

For sake of clarity, let's put aside Allies silliness for now and focus on a Stormhost that's actually in the book: Knights of the Aurora. 

I choose a Stormhost per the Allegiance Abilities (sentences 1 and 2). None of my models are Unique, so do not have a Stormhost already (sentence 3). I read about the Knights of the Aurora earlier in the book, thought they looked cool and had a neat blurb, so I pick them (sentence 4). I did not choose one from the list below (sentence 5), so I pick the Stormhost that matches the nature of my dudes, which is that they're fast and like quick combat, which matches Knights of the Aurora (stenence 6). So, from following the exact instructions, all models in my army have the <Knights of the Aurora> keyword.

Now repeat the process, only replace <Knights of the Aurora> with <Seraphon> or <Sylvaneth> or any other word of your choosing - could even be <Ultramarines> if you're feeling cheeky. 

You're misunderstanding what the last sentence means. "If you choose a different Stormhost, simply pick the Stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost" means "Call it what you want, but use the rules of one of the Stormhosts below".

So in your example, your Knights Of Aurora could use the rules for Anvils Of The Heldenhammer, with their Heroes Of Another Age ability being imagined as the warriors attacking super fast. 

I think the over-use of the word 'Stormhost' is confusing you. The meaning is:

"If you choose a different Stormhost [fluff-wise], simply pick the Stormhost [rules-wise] that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost [fluff-wise]"

[PJetski]

The rule says you pick a "Stormhost keyword", not "any keyword". Stormhost keyword is then defined as one of the ones in the list. It even tells you that if you picked a different Stormhost you should use the rules for a Stormhost from that list.

RAW you cannot add SERAPHON as a Stormhost.

Edited October 18, 2018 by PJetski

[Requizen]

4 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

While I agree with the literal of what you are saying, I feel the GHB clarifies how allegiances works and supersedes this. Therefore, you can give your army the seraphon keyword, but it becomes a second definition for the word seraphon. The seraphon (lizard) allegiance and your new seraphon stormhost are two entities, that while sharing the same root spelling, are two completely separate things that coincidentally share the same letters and nothing else.

I would be interested to see what part you are referencing. The only thing I could find was this in the Core Rules that would seem to be on my side:

"Sometimes you will be allowed to assign or add a keyword to a unit for a battle. If you do so, treat the unit as having the assigned keyword on its warscroll for the duration of the battle."

Just now, robinlvalentine said:

You're misunderstanding what the last sentence means. "If you choose a different Stormhost, simply pick the Stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost" means "Call it what you want, but use the rules of one of the Stormhosts below".

So in your example, your Knights Of Aurora could use the rules for Anvils Of The Heldenhammer, with their Heroes Of Another Age ability being imagined as the warriors attacking super fast. 

I think the over-use of the word 'Stormhost' is confusing you. The meaning is:

"If you choose a different Stormhost [fluff-wise], simply pick the Stormhost [rules-wise] that most closely matches the nature of your own Stormhost [fluff-wise]"

I highly disagree, I think you are trying to simplify Stormhost in this situation. I can almost guarantee you that in GW's original intent, [fluff-wise] Stormhosts and [rules-wise] Stormhosts are exactly the same. In fact, I bet if you looked back on WarhammerTV streams you could find someone playing SCE with a Stormhost Keyword that isn't one of the listed ones. You're trying to assign multiple meanings to the same word based on intuition, which is not really how it works, especially with Proper Nouns.

Additionally - even if we were to go with your interpretation, it's still loose. For instance, then you still gain the Keyword of the [fluff-wise] Stormhost of your choosing (Knights of Aurora, or Ultramarines, or Seraphon) but gain the abilities of the [rules-wise] Stormhost that matches it. The rule explicitly states that you gain a keyword, based on a Stormhost of your choosing, and you can choose a Stormhost that is not on the list. The last two sentences are talking about extra abilities, and that if you choose a different Stormhost, you would gain the abilities of the [rules-wise] Stormhost that most closely matches. So in your example, you would have <Knights of Aurora> (keyword) Stormcast who are using the extra abilities of the Anvils of the Heldenhammer. 

[Requizen]

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

The rule says you pick a "Stormhost keyword", not "any keyword". Stormhost keyword is then defined as one of the ones in the list. It even tells you that if you picked a different Stormhost you should use the rules for a Stormhost from that list.

RAW you cannot add SERAPHON as a Stormhost.

"If your army is a Stormcast Eternals army, you can give it a Stormhost Keyword. All Stormcast Eternals units in your army gain that keyword. [...] or choose another Stormhost you've read about or created yourself."

I'll concede that there's some merit to your position, but it is not clear in either direction. Nowhere does it say "These are the only Keywords your army may gain", and in fact explicitly states in the bit I snipped that you may choose any you want. 

I've emailed them about this and hope it gets hit in a FAQ, but I doubt it will happen unless someone does it at an official GW event. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Requizen

[PJetski]

The rule explicitly states that you can pick a "Stormhost keyword" (1) and not whatever keyword you want. It then tells you that the Stormhost is to either chosen from the list or you can create your own (2). Then it says what happens if you choose one of the ones in the list (3). Finally, it tells you what to do if you pick one that is not in the list (4).

RAW you can't add anything but one of those 8 keywords in the list. If you create a Stormhost called Seraphon you pick the Stormhost from the list that is the closest match and add that keyword to your units.

This should not be a frequently asked question, since RAW matches the obvious RAI.

[Requizen]

Hey man, maybe you're right. I don't think it's clear cut, so I asked about it. I also don't want anyone caught off guard by this and have to argue about it at an event, so I figured I'd bring it up and hopefully someone won't be blindsided by it. I won't try it, and I doubt anyone else would either (not that a TO would let it slide if they saw it). I'll err on the side of caution and if it gets a FAQ, all the better.

[amysrevenge]

There's a difference between FAQ and errata.  If it actually works as posited and needs to be fixed, it's an errata.  If it never worked as posited, and already works the way we all know it's supposed to work, then it could be a FAQ.  Errata is for errors, FAQ is for clarification of stuff without errors.

Edited October 18, 2018 by amysrevenge

[Freejack02]

Time to play my homebrew Stormhost that I've been working on called "Hammers of Sigmar"...

Gavriel + Staunch Defender here I come!

[ledha]

21 hours ago, Freejack02 said:

Time to play my homebrew Stormhost that I've been working on called "Hammers of Sigmar"...

Gavriel + Staunch Defender here I come!

Real mens name their stormhost KHORNE and play with a khorne Ally in 2v2

[Freejack02]

3 hours ago, ledha said:

Real mens name their stormhost KHORNE and play with a khorne Ally in 2v2

I mean, one of those actually has a chance of being allowed - and it's not the Khorne version ? 

But why stop there? I've always thought my Evocators would love to deepstrike into some friendly Wyldwoods...

[Desolater]

Thoughts on this as a 1000pt list?

or should I be swapping Azyros out for Ordinator?

Ps. Ignore the great mace numbers, they will be the legal amounts in the actual units

[schwabbele]

Hmm I still can not figure out what we have castigators for?  They are just bad.

Maybe I will throw them at my enemy next time ?

[Freejack02]

49 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

Hmm I still can not figure out what we have castigators for?  They are just bad.

Maybe I will throw them at my enemy next time ?

They've seen success, but I think that's more circumstance than good stats.

[IRifter]

Which is the better weapon option for Lord ordinator? And is using Ordinator + 3 ballista worth it?

 

Also: What is the consensus on Aventis Firestrike? he could do the same job as a stardrake not die and reflecting mrotal wounds back especially with azyrite halo. what do you guys think?

Edited October 22, 2018 by IRifter

[amysrevenge]

I use Ordinator+2 Ballista mainly because it's what I have, but if I had a 3rd I would use it for sure.

 

My understanding is Ordinator+3 is where the real points efficiency begins, while 3 Ballista is better than Ordinator+2.

[IRifter]

1 minute ago, amysrevenge said:

I use Ordinator+2 Ballista mainly because it's what I have, but if I had a 3rd I would use it for sure.

 

My understanding is Ordinator+3 is where the real points efficiency begins, while 3 Ballista is better than Ordinator+2.

Which weapon option for ordinator do you consider better?

[amysrevenge]

I seem to remember an analysis I saw that had such a small difference that it didn't really matter.  Again I just use what I have (grandhammer) with no regrets.

[IRifter]

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I seem to remember an analysis I saw that had such a small difference that it didn't really matter.  Again I just use what I have (grandhammer) with no regrets.

Thank you

 

Edit: One more question. How should I position the 3 ballista? Using Ordinator for the 30" attack seems wasted. How do you position your ballista to keep the 18" attack?

Edited October 22, 2018 by IRifter

[aceytrixx]

53 minutes ago, IRifter said:

Thank you

 

Edit: One more question. How should I position the 3 ballista? Using Ordinator for the 30" attack seems wasted. How do you position your ballista to keep the 18" attack?

Scions them into position.  That's what I've been doing with mine.