Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

Yep i mentioned it a bit further back, will find the page. 'Unmodified' rolls such as 'unmodified hit rolls of a 6' are after any rerolls. So archaons takes precedence.

Core rules page 4, 1.5.5

So archaons ability is not a triggered ability? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nuttyknatty said:

Is someone trying to argue that spells aren’t Enhancements?

Seems clear to me that they can’t be used by Unique units.

It is clear.

It also one of the dumbest rules added to Sigmar. Including the mustache thing.

Edited by Fred1245
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptainSoup said:

The same way you do in 40k. Remember that the wording says you cannot have anything higher than a +1 to your save, but that doesn't mean you cant stack save modifiers. If 3rd edition is taking notes from 40k 9th, you still add and subtract any and all modifiers you have to said unit, but it will only ever end up being at most a +1 to the save. 

 

 

What they said. 😝

40k doesn't have the limit on saves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dankboss said:

You now can't use your own faction's spell lore because that is an Enhancement.

I seriously hope this is an oversight on GWs part. For instance the spell lore in Gravelords has the Vampire Spell lore and Death Mages Spell lore, both of which says Mortarchs can take a spell from, however there are only Named (unique) Mortarchs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:

I think it's pretty damn likely that RAI they intend unique characters to get the extra spells, but I can completely get where folks are coming from on the RAW text being read as the opposite.

I don't see how it's even RAW when the sidenote to Spell Lore says "every Wizard". With an underline! That emphasis on the word every is also part of the written rules.

I see RAW as not existing due to ambiguities, and it just needs an FAQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, frostyeel said:

I don't see how it's even RAW when the sidenote to Spell Lore says "every Wizard". With an underline! That emphasis on the word every is also part of the written rules.

I see RAW as not existing due to ambiguities, and it just needs an FAQ.

I feel like the conflicting wording was either written by different people or written at different times.  The way the Spell Lore enhancement is written, the enhancement is for the army and benefits your Wizards.  

The problem is a completely seperate statement that blanket states Enhancements are by definition "given to models", which is silly because it makes no sense for the ones that are clearly "army wide", like prayers, Spell lores, and triumphs. 

It's seems like an editing mistake that was hard to spot because both sections work fine in isolation, but have implications if you aren't 100% certain of intent because you personally wrote them.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to point it out:

Enhancements.jpg.9dcda513843642546ef3332350a2b696.jpg

Unique characters can't take enhancements, unless noted otherwise (read last point).
So, what happens if we take one Spell Lore or a Prayer Scripture Enhancement?

Magi_Prayers.jpg.e9de4d2e47fd3f1cf3c8f05479a7c21b.jpg

So, we take 1 spell or 1 prayer for each Wizard or Priest in our army. So, this Enhancement is not given to one unit as, for example, Artifacts or Command Traits. But, there is more:

Magi_Prayers_02.jpg.88f20dfeed8991ae4b76426dc4a3aedc.jpg

I think that when the rules says "every", it means exactly that. Doesn't matter if it's Unique or not, it calls for all Priest and Wizards on your army. If we look at the first point, I would say that it's the first example of "unless noted otherwise".

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or GW could just rewrite the scrolls for named heroes so that they know all the spells from a particular lore. The new Sylvaneth guy has that on his scroll. Wouldn't be surprised if the others don't get the same treatment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SentinelGuy said:

Or GW could just rewrite the scrolls for named heroes so that they know all the spells from a particular lore. The new Sylvaneth guy has that on his scroll. Wouldn't be surprised if the others don't get the same treatment.

That is a much harder fix, all things considered. There'd be years where there are haves and have nots before the issue is corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SentinelGuy said:

Or GW could just rewrite the scrolls for named heroes so that they know all the spells from a particular lore. The new Sylvaneth guy has that on his scroll. Wouldn't be surprised if the others don't get the same treatment.

Yeah we see that with a lot of the new warscrolls but then it is missing from the Mortarchs in Soulblight, which very clearly was written for 3.0. Just your typical inconsistent GW lol..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dankboss said:

That is a much harder fix, all things considered. There'd be years where there are haves and have nots before the issue is corrected.

There aren't that many named spellcasters, they could easily supply an errata document for them on day of 3.0 release. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SentinelGuy said:

There aren't that many named spellcasters, they could easily supply an errata document for them on day of 3.0 release. 

I don't think that's a healthy way to update battletomes, as more and more info is now spread out. Much easier to clarify one rule in the core rules than to update many.

Also considering newer players or those with less online presence; if you're introducing someone to the game, you want all the rules in one place. Telling them to go fishing for this rule and that, isn't helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dankboss said:

I don't think that's a healthy way to update battletomes, as more and more info is now spread out. Much easier to clarify one rule in the core rules than to update many.

Also considering newer players or those with less online presence; if you're introducing someone to the game, you want all the rules in one place. Telling them to go fishing for this rule and that, isn't helpful.

I agree about it being easier to find everything in one place, but we already have an errata document for each tome anyway. They could just add the rule in there. Advice to new players should always be to download the errata and commentary files (why these aren't 1 document is beyond my comprehension).

Edited by SentinelGuy
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has done this already, but I was curious how the effectiveness of Heroic Recovery would change based on the bravery of the Hero being healed. So I calculated the average number of wounds healed for each bravery value. Probably not worth using it on a bravery 4 Fungoid Cave Shaman, but pretty nice on a bravery 10 god or other centerpiece hero.

Bravery  1: 0.000 wounds
Bravery  2: 0.028 wounds
Bravery  3: 0.111 wounds
Bravery  4: 0.250 wounds
Bravery  5: 0.444 wounds
Bravery  6: 0.694 wounds
Bravery  7: 1.000 wounds
Bravery  8: 1.306 wounds
Bravery  9: 1.556 wounds
Bravery 10: 1.750 wounds
Bravery 11: 1.889 wounds
Bravery 12: 1.972 wounds
Bravery 13: 2.000 wounds
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is blatantly stated in the rules or covered elsewhere in the thread already but I was curious...
can I choose what icon bests suits a unit that can is represented by multiple icons for Core Battalions? 

For example a Steamtank with Commander could be included as a warmachine or commander, and a Stonehorn with Frostlord could be included as a commander or a monster? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

Sorry if this is blatantly stated in the rules or covered elsewhere in the thread already but I was curious...
can I choose what icon bests suits a unit that can is represented by multiple icons for Core Battalions? 

For example a Steamtank with Commander could be included as a warmachine or commander, and a Stonehorn with Frostlord could be included as a commander or a monster? 

The Monster icon is defined as Behemoth that is not Leader. Both the units you mentioned have both Leader and Behemoth battlefield roles, so they could only be included as a Commander

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, frostyeel said:

The Monster icon is defined as Behemoth that is not Leader. Both the units you mentioned have both Leader and Behemoth battlefield roles, so they could only be included as a Commander

Hahaha, went back and read the key for the battalions now I feel stupid 🤭

But thank you, I have been busy and I can only look at the rules somewhat surreptitiously throughout the day. I did get a chance to watch a number of the in depth reviews though they probably glossed over it hence my confusion.

Edited by Neverchosen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

I feel like the conflicting wording was either written by different people or written at different times.  The way the Spell Lore enhancement is written, the enhancement is for the army and benefits your Wizards.  

The problem is a completely seperate statement that blanket states Enhancements are by definition "given to models", which is silly because it makes no sense for the ones that are clearly "army wide", like prayers, Spell lores, and triumphs. 

It's seems like an editing mistake that was hard to spot because both sections work fine in isolation, but have implications if you aren't 100% certain of intent because you personally wrote them.  

 

think about allied wizards, if you apply that, you give spells to allied wizards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, you do. And I'm alright with that? You're asking for their help, of course you'd give them a little bit of your magic while they're helping you. Can make for some interesting interactions though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm hoping so, but in match play rules it say that you have to pay additional points to reinforce units right? Because if not, I feel like everyone is just going to reinforce their highest point units because for example why get more acolytes when you could get more stormfiends for a reinforcement point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...