AoS 2 - Slaves to Darkness 2 Discussion

[Sinfullyvannila]

1 hour ago, Graftonianman said:

“Each” references “a unit” and not “models”. Not the best choice of wording, but this is GW. Units get one weapon option. 

Compare with Tzaangors 

 

Contrast with Liberators, Ogor Gluttons etc.

 

When a unit’s weapon options are mutually exclusive, the warscroll explicitly refers to “the unit” as being armed. When it’s not, they use a pronoun to represent the individual models.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Sinfullyvannila

[Mcthew]

50 minutes ago, Benkei said:

I dont see how you can possibly read it that way, it's pretty clear it refers to the "models" mentioned immediately before the "each", you cant apply "each" to "unit" as its singular

Was going to disagree, but looking at all other warscrolls, you know I think you're right, or rather the rules writing is poor (which is a very real possibility). Warscrolls usually state that the 'unit is armed with one of the following weapon combinations' if only one can be used rather than any combination per model. The only problem is how this works in play. Often in our games you choose which of your models can be slain.  But having this dynamic means the opponent should choose, due to having a mixed unit (and you can forget proxies).

[PALFORLIFE]

2 hours ago, Graftonianman said:

“Each” references “a unit” and not “models”. Not the best choice of wording, but this is GW. Units get one weapon option. 

It actually refers to each. GW is very consistent when they want a unit to be armed with one weapon type. Look at other units, when they want a unit to be armed all the same it says and the unit gets X. Not models.. you can mix and match and it's intended.

[PALFORLIFE]

55 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Was going to disagree, but looking at all other warscrolls, you know I think you're right, or rather the rules writing is poor (which is a very real possibility). Warscrolls usually state that the 'unit is armed with one of the following weapon combinations' if only one can be used rather than any combination per model. The only problem is how this works in play. Often in our games you choose which of your models can be slain.  But having this dynamic means the opponent should choose, due to having a mixed unit (and you can forget proxies).

Just wondering why you think having mixed weapons would give your opponent the ability to assign wounds to your unit? Units have banners, musicians, leaders which are different than the standard guy and they dont get to place wounds for you there. Otherwise your banners and leaders would always doe first, why would they get to target certain models now?

[Graftonianman]

Pay close attention to the warscrolls that allow a mix of weapons. 
 

Tzaangors allow a mix. Their shield rule reads: “...unit that has any model armed with...”

Chaos warrior shield rule reads: “...a unit that carries...”

 

Continuity doesn’t hold up for mixing weapon options for warriors. Look, I’m not saying that you’re reading it wrong, but don’t count on it; GW messes up its grammar all the time. 

[PALFORLIFE]

2 minutes ago, Graftonianman said:

Pay close attention to the warscrolls that allow a mix of weapons. 
 

Tzaangors allow a mix. Their shield rule reads: “...unit that has any model armed with...”

Chaos warrior shield rule reads: “...a unit that carries...”

 

Continuity doesn’t hold up for mixing weapon options for warriors. Look, I’m not saying that you’re reading it wrong, but don’t count on it; GW messes up its grammar all the time. 

You are reading two separate parts of the warscroll and trying to combine them to dictate how to arm the unit. How you are the unit is a separate part of the warscroll. Then you get into each specific entry for the weapons, in your example you refer to what to the rule for how shields interact and try to use ot to dictate how a unit is armed. They are two different parts of the warscroll. All that entry is looking for is if your unit is carrying a shield. Yes. Do X. It doesn't say whole or every. 

[Sedraxis]

In the new tome, are any of the units in the pictures using mixed weapon options?

[PALFORLIFE]

2 minutes ago, Sedraxis said:

In the new tome, are any of the units in the pictures using mixed weapon options?

Havent bothered to look but I'm not going to let the 10 models that were assembled by the hobby team and painted for photos dictate how I play.. I'll just use the rules and warscroll lol.

[zedatkinszed]

The chaos warrior warscroll is crystal clear:

Quote

A unit of Chaos Warriors has any number of models, each armed with one of the following weapon options:

In English this means all models in the unit are armed in the same way. 

Compare with Tzaangors:

Quote

Each unit fights with a variety of weapons; some of the Tzaangors are armed with

Same with Kairic Acolytes:

Quote

Each unit fights with a variety of weapons; some of the Acolytes...

Comapre with Blood Warriors:

Quote

A unit of Blood Warriors has any number of models. The unit is armed with one of the following weapon options... Every 1 in 10 can replace...

As you say GW is consistent regarding varied weapon usage within a unit. They say "Each unit fights with a variety of weapons". With Chaos Warriors they don't say this.

While the rule writting might be slightly different i.e it doesn't say "the unit is armed with" , the sentence as written (and as clearly intend, see box art etc), in English, means that each model in the unit is armed with the same one of the options. Any other construction on that sentence is not English grammar, and to be frank, is wishful thinking at best.

Edited December 15, 2019 by zedatkinszed

[Graftonianman]

New chaos stuff says “a unit [has] models, each armed...“ This is the first instance of a warscroll being worded this way. Dragon Ogors and tzaangors which allow a mix say, “...each model is armed...” Other units, such as liberators, state specific numbers of models that may be armed with special options. 

Although it can be interpreted either way, prior to this new book, you couldn’t mix armament nor does the wording in the rest of the warscroll support mixed armament. Until GW releases a FAQ, I will assume that you can’t mix. 

[Graftonianman]

Ah, beat me to it zedatkinszed

[kore5022]

Bit annoying archaon, gaunt, 3x 3 varanguard and batallion is 20 points too much

[PALFORLIFE]

Each refers to models not unit. I'm not sure what you are reading. 

[EMMachine]

4 minutes ago, kore5022 said:

Bit annoying archaon, gaunt, 3x 3 varanguard and batallion is 20 points too much

If you play Archaon and 3x3 Varanguard the battalion is a waste of points (exept for the Deployment Drop and 1 CP) because you will already have the Cirlce rule with "Host of the Everchosen". I think the "Overlords of Chaos" Battalion is for the case that you want to use 3 units of Varanguard and use the cirlce rule in a Ravagers, Cabalists or Despoilers army.

[kore5022]

1 minute ago, EMMachine said:

If you play Archaon and 3x3 Varanguard the battalion is a waste of points (exept for the Deployment Drop and 1 CP) because you will already have the Cirlce rule with "Host of the Everchosen". I think the "Overlords of Chaos" Battalion is for the case that you want to use 3 units of Varanguard and use the cirlce rule in a Ravagers, Cabalists or Despoilers army.

I was reading it that you would get two circles? 

Is that incorrect?

[EMMachine]

4 minutes ago, kore5022 said:

I was reading it that you would get two circles? 

Is that incorrect?

That would be a violation of Background. No member of the Varanguard would be in 2 different armies at the same time (and each circle has he own colortheme in the background).

It would basicly be the same as to try to make a single unit of Stormcast Hammers of Sigmar and Celestial Vindicators at the same time. It simple doesn't work.

Edited December 15, 2019 by EMMachine

[PALFORLIFE]

27 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

The chaos warrior warscroll is crystal clear:

In English this means all models in the unit are armed in the same way. 

Compare with Tzaangors:

Same with Kairic Acolytes:

Comapre with Blood Warriors:

As you say GW is consistent regarding varied weapon usage within a unit. They say "Each unit fights with a variety of weapons". With Chaos Warriors they don't say this.

While the rule writting might be slightly different i.e it doesn't say "the unit is armed with" , the sentence as written (and as clearly intend, see box art etc), in English, means that each model in the unit is armed with the same one of the options. Any other construction on that sentence is not English grammar, and to be frank, is wishful thinking at best.

Guess we will have to wait until the FAQ to see their intent.. because I'm sorry you are wrong. English language and the way that is written clearly intended for them to be mixed.

Each can be used as a pronoun when the subjects are already clear. In this case, the subject is "the unit consisting of any number of models".

The usage of "each" here after the comma implies that each person may have their own subject (models) different from the others.

The comma is used to separate the two thoughts. The first part could stand alone as its own sentence. The last part adds information (that each could be proficient in different weapons), but it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence.

I will just wait for the FAQ..

[Gibs]

This is also how I am reading it and what makes sense in English.

That said every unit has the same phrase regarding weapon choices. So either they messed up or they chose the wrong sentence structure and words.

For the argument of mixed weapons if you look at the battle pictures in the book. Marauders and knights have mixed weapon. Warriors also have some models not carrying shields.

Based on this evidence until it’s gets FAQ’d that these units can’t have mixed weapons I am running what I want.  It certainly makes the army building and gameplay more interesting as well. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Gibs

[Mcthew]

1 hour ago, PALFORLIFE said:

Just wondering why you think having mixed weapons would give your opponent the ability to assign wounds to your unit? Units have banners, musicians, leaders which are different than the standard guy and they dont get to place wounds for you there. Otherwise your banners and leaders would always doe first, why would they get to target certain models now?

Simple. If, for example, you run with 10 models in 2 ranks with the front rank assembled with a pair of weapons and the second rank with halberds and runrshields, the front rank should absorb the wounds first, and definitely against mortal wound damage (as the front rank don't have runeshields). I wouldn't play against someone who did anything differently.

[Seraphina of the Seraphim]

6 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Simple. If, for example, you run with 10 models in 2 ranks with the front rank assembled with a pair of weapons and the second rank with halberds and runrshields, the front rank should absorb the wounds first, and definitely against mortal wound damage (as the front rank don't have runeshields). I wouldn't play against someone who did anything differently.

Isn't that only a rule from old WH40K? As far as I know, removing from the front has never been in AOS, and hasn't been in 40k since 8th

[PALFORLIFE]

8 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Simple. If, for example, you run with 10 models in 2 ranks with the front rank assembled with a pair of weapons and the second rank with halberds and runrshields, the front rank should absorb the wounds first, and definitely against mortal wound damage (as the front rank don't have runeshields). I wouldn't play against someone who did anything differently.

Well that's not how you play the game.. I mean if the people you play with are cool with house rules by all means go for it.

[DarrinTheOccult]

8 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Simple. If, for example, you run with 10 models in 2 ranks with the front rank assembled with a pair of weapons and the second rank with halberds and runrshields, the front rank should absorb the wounds first, and definitely against mortal wound damage (as the front rank don't have runeshields). I wouldn't play against someone who did anything differently.

That's completely incorrect in aos, you choose always which miniature you remove wherever the damage comes from.

[Mcthew]

1 minute ago, Seraphina of the Seraphim said:

Isn't that only a rule from old WH40K? As far as I know, removing from the front has never been in AOS, and hasn't been in 40k since 8th

True - its never been needed before. But you're mixing save abilities here by saying you have half a unit that can save mortal wounds and half that don't. But you can pick which models your opponent can spell cast against? Sorry, but if someone tried that on me I'd think they were cheating.

[PALFORLIFE]

1 minute ago, Mcthew said:

True - its never been needed before. But you're mixing save abilities here by saying you have half a unit that can save mortal wounds and half that don't. But you can pick which models your opponent can spell cast against? Sorry, but if someone tried that on me I'd think they were cheating.

It's not even like that's unique. You can mix saves you just remove the models that take the save if its mixed. See Ard Boyz with shields..

[DarrinTheOccult]

1 minute ago, Mcthew said:

True - its never been needed before. But you're mixing save abilities here by saying you have half a unit that can save mortal wounds and half that don't. But you can pick which models your opponent can spell cast against? Sorry, but if someone tried that on me I'd think they were cheating.

The rule says that a unit that carries chaos runeshields can save mortal wounds. First you calculate the damage, next you allocate wounds, so you don't have to kill shield guys (althought you can)