AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[yukishiro1]

Rules as written, if it doesn't have the PRIEST keyword, it's not a priest, no matter what the flavor or other rules text says. 

Neither the Skink Priest nor the Skink Starpriest got the PRIEST keyword either, so apparently Skink Priests not actually being PRIESTs is a thing. That or they just fouled up the Seraphon FAQ totally. 

[Christopher Rowe]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Rules as written, if it doesn't have the PRIEST keyword, it's not a priest, no matter what the flavor or other rules text says. 

Neither the Skink Priest nor the Skink Starpriest got the PRIEST keyword either, so apparently Skink Priests not actually being PRIESTs is a thing. That or they just fouled up the Seraphon FAQ totally. 

Skink Priests already had the PRIEST keyword, but otherwise agreed.

[sandlemad]

That's despite Starpriests being specifically called out in the WHC article yesterday as an example of how priests will benefit from the new edition. Unfortunate and suggests that there was a mistake in the FAQ or a breakdown in communication.

Edited July 2, 2021 by sandlemad

[yukishiro1]

Ah, you're right, that's an error in Battlescribe I guess. 

[yukishiro1]

1 minute ago, sandlemad said:

That's despite Starpriests being specifically called out in the WHC article yesterday as an example of how priests will benefit from the new edition. Unfortunate and suggests that there was a mistake in the FAQ or a breakdown in communication.

Wouldn't be the first instance of the supposed expert who supposedly wrote the article in question being objectively wrong about the claims they're making. So hard to say whether this is a case of the puff piece being inaccurate or the FAQ being screwed up. 

[yukishiro1]

Wardokks are also PRIESTS and WIZARDS, but didn't have their abilities turned into prayers, so they can (1) cast a spell, (2) do a dance, and (3) use a generic prayer every turn...all for 85 points. 

Pretty silly. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Christopher Rowe]

6 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

That's despite Starpriests being specifically called out in the WHC article yesterday as an example of how priests will benefit from the new edition. Unfortunate and suggests that there was a mistake in the FAQ or a breakdown in communication.

I think that was pretty clearly just a mistake in the nomenclature and that the rest of the stuff in that article applies to the Skink Priest (not the Starpriest).

[Christopher Rowe]

Just now, yukishiro1 said:

Wardokks also PRIESTS but didn't have their abilities turned into prayers, so they can (1) cast a spell, (2) do a dance, and (3) use a generic prayer every turn...all for 85 points. 

Pretty silly. 

Wow. That's gonna need correcting!

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, they bungled the whole PRIEST thing pretty comprehensively, unfortunately. No real rhyme or reason as to why certain priests had their abilities become prayers and others did not. Wardokk is 85 points, gets to be a wizard, a priest, and a dancer...battlemage is 115 points, is only a wizard, with the same stat line. 30 points more for essentially 1/3 the functionality. Runelords had their abilities become prayers so you have to choose one or the other while going up 10 points, Wardokks didn't have their abilities become prayers, and only went up by 5 points, because...<reasons>?

 

 

[Doko]

Worse even as all in 3.0 for fyreslayers.

Our priest had a cost 120 points and before had 2 prayers.

Now cost 125 and only have one prayer(every prayer have been nerfed of some even deleted with this faq). Also before nothing bad with misscast and now we get d3 mortals.

But hey this is the best edition ever and priests are better than ever have been by gw articles........

As fyreslayer player i never gonna bring a priest again never in any game if they dont buff them because rigth now they are useless

Edited July 2, 2021 by Doko

[yukishiro1]

Ooph, yeah, Fyreslayers got done dirty in their FAQ, just like they have been in 3.0 generally. Some guys just can't catch a break. 

[azdimy]

Pretty sure wardokk did not get a good look at because orruk warclans are getting a new battletome in the coming weeks

[yukishiro1]

I mean, maybe...but it's something they could have fixed in 2 minutes. Pretty irresponsible to leave it broken on the theory that a future book will fix it. And it's not like they didn't release updated Stormcast and Orruks points on that same theory, so it would also be inconsistent. 

They also fixed the Stormcast prayers, so it's not like there was a blanket decision not to fix any PRIEST-related issues in the SCE and Orruk books because new ones were coming out. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Zeblasky]

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

Some Core Battalions have the same description.

Imho, Yes, it counts.
Because to use a Command Ability, a Leader/Champion/whatever Issue the order, a unit Recieve the order and spend 1 CP. This abilities just doens't need a Leader/Champion/Whatever to Issue the order and the order doesn't need a CP to be used:

 

I remember some people giving an explanation on how batalion free Unleash Hell could be stacked with the usual UH, while talking about Warp Lightning Cannons, but I can't remember their exact argument.

But my main argument here is that it simply does not make any sence that way. You have units that are definetly balanced with always active and completely free owerwatch in mind. You make them more expensive, you nerf their base owerwatch with a -1 to hit.. . and then you make it so that only a single owerwatch can be active at any charge phase, both inbuild and from Command Ability. This... just can't be it.

 

 

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

They still receive the command ability, which means that particular unit definitely can't use that command ability (or any other) in that phase.

Whether you can use Unleash Hell on a different unit on the same phase is ambiguous, IMO. Does a command ability count as being "used" if it isn't issued? Who knows, the rules don't define what "using" a command ability actually is. 

It seems like the intent is that you can't, but who really knows? We know from experience that trying to figure out GW's intent when it comes to AOS rules is an impossible task.

Well, even the fact that you can't double owerwatch would be quite sad. It would be such a huge irony, that units without owerwatch and without penalties to shoot in melee would benefit from an UH (pretty much an owerwatch command ability), while units with owerwatch both became weaker and can't use this CA to boost their offensive potential back up.

[Zeblasky]

By the way, I'd like to entertain the idea, that some units over time could get other generic command abilities for free on their warscrolls once per turn.  Could be quite interesting with things like Redeploy.

[Beliman]

9 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

But my main argument here is that it simply does not make any sence that way. You have units that are definetly balanced with always active and completely free owerwatch in mind. You make them more expensive, you nerf their base owerwatch with a -1 to hit.. . and then you make it so that only a single owerwatch can be active at any charge phase, both inbuild and from Command Ability. This... just can't be it.

I can't help, but imho, I expected that since I saw Unleash Hell for the first time.

I suggest to not compare 2.0 abilities with 3.0 rules. At this moment, we only have Soulblight Gravelords to understand how 3.0 will play, but I still think that we need to read the first 3.0 Battletomes to understand were this edition is going.

[Maogrim]

Just a question, since it came up in the FAQ:

How does everyone feel about players who have their army completely painted up in a certain color scheme, but keep switching subfactions for 'better' rules? 

I guess I can appreciate people wanting to enjoy different play styles without buying and painting the same faction twice, but on the other hand I think it's nice if an army project has an ongoing identity..

[Beliman]

@Maogrim

It was  an edgy question. They grouped same model with diferent paint and diferent models under the same banner: "a proxy". 

I think that people will continue playing as usual, it will not change anything at all (or I hope so).

[Marcvs]

23 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

Just a question, since it came up in the FAQ:

How does everyone feel about players who have their army completely painted up in a certain color scheme, but keep switching subfactions for 'better' rules? 

I guess I can appreciate people wanting to enjoy different play styles without buying and painting the same faction twice, but on the other hand I think it's nice if an army project has an ongoing identity..

I would encourage everyone not to provide even the slightest form of justification for an FAQ which would require players to buy an army 6 times in order to fully explore their battletome

[Kaleb Daark]

I notice that they've tightened up faction keywords a lot more.  So for instance a blades or maggotkin etc army will be led by a character from that book, as opposed say to a chaos lord on manticore with the khorne keyword.

have other armies had the same belt tightening?  I'm thinking things like cities etc. that run different factions under one banner.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Maogrim said:

Just a question, since it came up in the FAQ:

How does everyone feel about players who have their army completely painted up in a certain color scheme, but keep switching subfactions for 'better' rules? 

I guess I can appreciate people wanting to enjoy different play styles without buying and painting the same faction twice, but on the other hand I think it's nice if an army project has an ongoing identity..

I was both thrilled and annoyed with that FAQ comment.

Thrilled because it was nice to see the "official" stance that this is a 3D model game where the toys on the table connect directly to the rules their visual appearances represent, and that matters. Proxies - boo!

Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others. 

Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one.

On the whole, though, I loved that entry.

Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.

[Marcvs]

18 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I was both thrilled and annoyed with that FAQ comment.

Thrilled because it was nice to see the "official" stance that this is a 3D model game where the toys on the table connect directly to the rules their visual appearances represent, and that matters. Proxies - boo!

Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others. 

Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one.

On the whole, though, I loved that entry.

Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.

Then I respectfully hope that your stance remains a minority because in my opinion the Greatest of Hobby Evils is shrinking the community by raising even more the cost of playing both in terms of time and money investment, while at the same time stifling creativity in both paint choices and list writing. All this for what? In the official lore we have units which wear the colours of one sub-allegiance and fight for another (the LRL twins) or multiple sub-allegiances fighting together (Hallowed Knights and Knights Excelsior in BR:Kragnos)

[GrimDork]

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

In the official lore we have units which wear the colours of one sub-allegiance and fight for another (the LRL twins)

This one really seems like a mistake on GW's part, the original warscroll had them as Ymetrica, even tho the lore clearly says Iliatha. I bet at the time of painting the studio didn't know what they were meant to be so they just got done in the same scheme as everything else. I haven't picked up the twins yet but will definitely be painting them in Iliatha colours if/when I do.

In general I think people are better off just doing their own thing with schemes so it can count as whatever. My idoneth are probably closest to Ionrach colours (well actually they're close to the scheme on the front of the tome, but none of the official schemes look like that anyway) but far enough away that I can say they are whichever. For my KO I like the white/cream armour & gold heads of Barak Thryng, but instead of red will go with a Zilfin-y blue/teal, so they could easily be used as either or another sky port. You get the idea.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, Maogrim said:

Just a question, since it came up in the FAQ:

How does everyone feel about players who have their army completely painted up in a certain color scheme, but keep switching subfactions for 'better' rules? 

I guess I can appreciate people wanting to enjoy different play styles without buying and painting the same faction twice, but on the other hand I think it's nice if an army project has an ongoing identity..

In my opinion, these kinds of rules just encourage you to paint and model your units so that they fit none of the canonical schemes/builds. GW is not shy about revising the way certain subfactions play fairly fundamentally with battletome/edition changes, so I feel expecting people to stick not just to their faction, but also to a subfaction that might no longer do the thing that made that subfaction interesting to them in the first place is pretty unreasonable.

Luckily GW have no power to enforce WYSIWYG outside of their own events and stores.

[Kaleb Daark]

I'd have no issue with it really after all, I try not to pidgeon hole any of my models with colourschemes etc for that reason..  Admittedly, I think it's more driven towards models than colour schemes.

You know, proxying a high elf dragon with chaos knight on in and saying " er yea... khorne dragon and dude" rather than you can't play that stormhost because red armour instead of black. In that instance I'd understand a player losing his rag, as lets face it, the model has insane rules and part of the privelege of those insane rules is the 400 bones for the model, and as a result you don't see one on every table in every list.

It's always going to be a moot point of debate and a very fractious argument, as on one extreme you can accuse a player of being cheap, and on the other you can be a real ballbreaker and say that the awesome conversion doesn't count as it's not the proper model.

A beautifully converted or kitbashed daemon prince for instance is a lovely thing vs the regular model which is a bit naff.

However, one guy with a lord of skulls trying to proxy it as a hellcannon just wasn't on, and that one actually came up in the next Throne of Skulls rules pack!

At proper GW events I've found that the rules team and  likes of Ben johnson et al have let a great conversion and an army that's had some real love poured into it just roll, as everyone can see that a lot of work has gone into it and that it's a thing of beauty.

However I've also seen them tell people to go to the shop and buy the right models or call it a day - a guy with a daemon army which was effectively greenstuff / milliput worms painted in different colours was a prime example.

Dude was arguing that it was an aquatic themed daemon army.  he was politely told that if he had some actual daemons in there - in fact some actual GW models, it would be quite helpful.

I look at that rule and say it's a mutual acceptance thing.  If you're both happy or the TO is happy then so be it.

I wouldn't read too much into it, and in the past at WHW I've happily walked away from a table when the opponent started to pick holes in say my chaos warriors because they had halberds and a shield for instance, telling them to have the win.  Life's too short for that sort of stuff, and it he was going to be that picky about it then the game isn't going to be fun - and it's all about fun.

I have to say, the burger and the drink was lots of fun until my next matchup however.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Kaleb Daark