Sigmarite mausoleum

[StokieRich]

Hi guys, 

Not seen this mentioned but with the new matched play rules, from what I can see we can basically now play with 7 gravesites as both players choose 3 primary pieces of terrain and the new sigmarite mausoleum counts as an extra gravesite. 

That seems pretty solid...  Am I missing something here, I'm surprised a bigger deal isn't being made of it? 

Rich

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, StokieRich said:

Hi guys, 

Not seen this mentioned but with the new matched play rules, from what I can see we can basically now play with 7 gravesites as both players choose 3 primary pieces of terrain and the new sigmarite mausoleum counts as an extra gravesite. 

That seems pretty solid...  Am I missing something here, I'm surprised a bigger deal isn't being made of it? 

Rich

It's more a Gravesite light because it only interacts with "The Unquite Dead" with its ability but not with "Endless Legions".

[DerZauberer]

It is in fact a pretty big deal, but people are very cautious with the new terrain set-up rules.

There's several issues with the current rules, e.g. Skaven Gnawholes being 100% illegal in matched play.

Another issues is exactly this post, the sigmarite mausoleum. People are mad that only - and really only - LoN got something in this new, clunky and not well thought of "terrain placement phase" and people will game the Sigmarite Mausoleum. There are several topics on TGA where you can read about the new terrain rules. People even tested the Sigmarite Mausoleum and the 3 primary pieces you can use, easily blocking the whole middle diagonaly, providing you with whole board covarege of gravesite.

So, because people waiting for the rules to be FAQ'd, nobody really jumps on that topic yet, as right now, it's considered WAAC and "gamy".

[EMMachine]

3 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

So, because people waiting for the rules to be FAQ'd, nobody really jumps on that topic yet, as right now, it's considered WAAC and "gamy".

I think there is also one thing people are forgetting. The game should be fun for both players, and do Legions players really think that it is fun for there opponent?

[Platypus]

Yeah, but how do you define fun? WAAC is fun for some.

 

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

People even tested the Sigmarite Mausoleum and the 3 primary pieces you can use, easily blocking the whole middle diagonaly, providing you with whole board covarege of gravesite.

One comment I would make is the saying "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  If I rocked up to a game and saw a mausoleum laid out in a manner like this, I'd certainly be raising a question.  Putting the game aspect aside - it'll look ridiculous!  I appreciate we play a game of toy soldiers and roll dice to simulate magic, but the battlefield at least needs to look plausible 😁

Personally, I don't think this part of the new terrain rules are going to be particularly problematic.  Organised events normally pre-arrange the scenery on a table* and if you're playing down your local club, people hopefully have the social skills to discuss if the scenery has been laid out in a particularly one-sided manner.  I'm really looking forward to two Legion armies facing each other with a board covered mausoleums 😆

* It also wouldn't surprise me some events simply say that all terrain needs to be rolled for rather than use warscrolls

[XReN]

I'd agree with @RuneBrush, imo there is no place in this game for such strats, unless both you and your opponent agree on playing thematic game in massive Shyish graveyard.

On events the TOs should set up all terrain beforehand and if you start unpacking 3 Mausoleums and 120 skelletons to play a pick up game with me, I'd look for a different opponent, preferably one that won't cause the table to collapse under the weight of models

[StokieRich]

Is it that much different to the benefit others get from their faction terrain though? 

 

I can see me using one of these each game as our equivalent to dacron terrain. 

[XReN]

5 minutes ago, StokieRich said:

Is it that much different to the benefit others get from their faction terrain though? 

 

I can see me using one of these each game as our equivalent to dacron terrain. 

I'd say one is fine, but you know, faction terrain is factored into facton's balance, occasional Mausoleums - aren't

[stato]

Few things people seem to be not be discussing and should probably think about;

1. Terrain is a pool, not part of your army, so your opponent could pick your Sigmarite Mausoleum and deploy it in the corner.

2. Terrain alternates so the opponent could place something else to prevents you placing '3 in a row'

3. Mausoleum is garrisonable so opponent chucks a small unit in there and nullifies it, and a lot of your movement options.

[XReN]

6 minutes ago, stato said:

3. Mausoleum is garrisonable so opponent chucks a small unit in there and nullifies it, and a lot of your movement options.

Well, no. It won't nulify ressurecting ability of Mausoleum and will give a murderous skelleton horde an easy time stabbing garrisoning unit to death due to much larger contact area

[stato]

6 minutes ago, XReN said:

Well, no. It won't nulify ressurecting ability of Mausoleum and will give a murderous skelleton horde an easy time stabbing garrisoning unit to death due to much larger contact area

5 little models can block a much larger area for summoning when garrisoned than standing on a grave site is what i meant. 

Any summoning will be pushed back to the edges as they couldnt summon within 3" of the mausoleum, and if youve set it up as a big piece of terrain, its now a very big area blocked off.  Yes you will be able to bring a lot into combat with the terrain piece, but the unit being attacked is acting as a very big screen to the rest of their force (of course you can flip this by the death player garrisoning the mausoleum, to act as a big screen and ensure summoning area). 

[XReN]

Just now, stato said:

5 little models can block a much larger area for summoning when garrisoned than standing on a grave site is what i meant. 

Any summoning will be pushed back to the edges as they couldnt summon within 3" of the mausoleum, and if youve set it up as a big piece of terrain, its now a very big area blocked off.  Yes you will be able to bring a lot into combat with the terrain piece, but the unit being attacked is acting as a very big screen to the rest of their force (of course you can flip this by the death player garrisoning the mausoleum, to act as a big screen and ensure summoning area). 

As mentioned earlier, it's only ressurecting d3 wounds worth of models within 9". And that's it, no jumping out from the grave, no CA returning a unit, a mere heal, there is really no damage that someone can do to it by garrisoning

[Kamose]

4 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I think there is also one thing people are forgetting. The game should be fun for both players, and do Legions players really think that it is fun for there opponent?

Boom! You win a balloon! 🎈

 

4 hours ago, Platypus said:

Yeah, but how do you define fun? WAAC is fun for some.

 

I would argue that, unless both players find it enjoyable for only one player to be WAAC, then the behavior is inappropriate.

Consideration for your opponent is even in the new GHB! The Principles say something about reminding your opponent of rules they forgot especially when it benefits them. It's somewhere between "Call your mother" and "Don't sleep with your opponent's spouse unless everyone's into that kind of thing".

If my opponent has a spare $240+shipping (US) and the time to fully paint each of the kits and transport them to every game (these are not small ×3) in addition to their army, I might be cool with playing against them just to reward their tenacity. 😁

Edited June 28, 2019 by Kamose

[Infeston]

31 minutes ago, Kamose said:

I would argue that, unless both players find it enjoyable for only one player to be WAAC, then the behavior is inappropriate.

Consideration for your opponent is even in the new GHB! The Principles say something about reminding your opponent of rules they forgot especially when it benefits them. It's somewhere between "Call your mother" and "Don't sleep with your opponent's spouse unless everyone's into that kind of thing".

This. If you are a person which is only interested in a one-sided battle and want to stomp your opponent you automatically violate the Cardinal Rule 1#: "Always be polite and respectful".

It especially mentions in the GHB2019: "And to be honest, there is one guideline in the code that is more important than the others, which is treating your opponent with respect".

Annihilating and stomping your opponent in an one-sided battle has nothing to do with respect. There is a reason why GW put those cardinal rules in the GHB. And as many people have said, in a tournament setting most TOs should prevent things like this to happen.

[Platypus]

2 hours ago, Kamose said:

I would argue that, unless both players find it enjoyable for only one player to be WAAC, then the behavior is inappropriate.

Consideration for your opponent is even in the new GHB! The Principles say something about reminding your opponent of rules they forgot especially when it benefits them. It's somewhere between "Call your mother" and "Don't sleep with your opponent's spouse unless everyone's into that kind of thing".

 

I really agree, I'm not much into WAAC  when it comes to AoS. And I would consider abusing this to be a really lousy thing to do, at least outside a tournament setting. My comment was a bit brief in that regard, and perhaps a bit unrelatad. However, I think it's GW's job to design a game/write rules that don't create situations like this. It shouldn't (at least in a tournament setting) be left to the players to decide what's appropriate or not, because where do you really draw the line? You have to really on the rules as written, and if they are badly written (which they often are in AoS) they should be rewritten. Compare this to Magic: the Gathering where WotC don't design cards that are "unfun", and if they sometimes do they have banlists that can take care of the situation.

[CommissarRotke]

what does WAAC stand for?

[Flindt]

9 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

what does WAAC stand for?

Win At All Costs

[Sception]

As already mentioned, it's only the d3 healing, not the deployment or unit resummoning, so it ism't /that/ big a deal.  Three is maybe pushing it.  In tournament games, the organiser is supposed to set up terrain, so, eh?

The mausoleum is both fluffy and visually impressive, so there's that, too.

 

As fir it being like our faction terrain, though?  No.  They may not have gotten actual modrls, but gravesites are our faction terrain, and in the upcoming errata I wouldn't be surprised to see them get the same restrictions in terms if distance from objectives & other terrain.

[schwabbele]

12 hours ago, stato said:

Few things people seem to be not be discussing and should probably think about;

1. Terrain is a pool, not part of your army, so your opponent could pick your Sigmarite Mausoleum and deploy it in the corner.

2. Terrain alternates so the opponent could place something else to prevents you placing '3 in a row'

3. Mausoleum is garrisonable so opponent chucks a small unit in there and nullifies it, and a lot of your movement options.

Where do the rules say that terrain is a pool?

2) is not possible anyhow due to 6” spacing rule

3) lol garrisonable , and yeah every army just has a unit for the lols. 

And i don’t care about that at all, but i feel like you are spreading a lot of bs. 

[Mirage8112]

Deleted 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Mirage8112

[JackStreicher]

On 6/28/2019 at 8:57 AM, EMMachine said:

I think there is also one thing people are forgetting. The game should be fun for both players, and do Legions players really think that it is fun for there opponent?

In competetive Play it‘s about winning, no one of the players even thinks about not abusing every advantage they can get #SadWorld 😁

[Sception]

Yeah, but what's competitive play even for apart from tournaments & tournament prep?  In tournaments the plauers don't choose & set up terrain, the organiser does.  If you build your competitive tactics around rules that aren't in effect in the games that count, that's not going to do you much good in the long run.