Let's chat Disciples of Tzeentch

[wanderingrogue1]

apparently at sheffield slaughter the TO has ruled you cant use destiny dice to pick the damage rolls for mortal wounds. just thought id throw that out there for debate also.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, hobgoblinclub said:

He's such a good caster, I think he has a place. Also, without him you've not really got any high wound heroes. I want a large Arcanites equivalent to put in there too! 

Don't forget about the soul grinder or the gigantic chaos spawn,  both high wound models, and the spawn is only 180 , allowing you to fit a gaunt summoner in.

[Nico]

Quote

The unit of blue horrors did not exist at the start of battle, therefore RAW they are exempt from the max unit size restriction since it only applies to units that are paid for and deployed at the start of the game. Ergo: you can continue to add blue horrors to the unit as the pinks die off. This makes sense, they don't want you to cheap out by taking minimum unit sizes and then add to them as the game goes on without having to pay for them. But being forced to keep a unit at 2 models when you've clearly paid for 10 doesn't make any sense mechanics-wise. 

Quote

i'll admit the scenario above is a little bit of a grey area, but at the very least there's no way the unit would be capped at whatever number of blues are summoned that phase. The rules in are pretty clear there; pay for 10, get at least 10. Possibly 20. 

Nice try, but that's literal interpretation gone too far. While it's disappointing that the Blues unit becomes derpy small, taking it your way would mean that the Blues unit could become indefinitely big even after paying only 50 points for it, which would be palpably broken - the Ban Hammer would be flying at your army within seconds. 

On that basis Nagash could summon a bunch of units all of which could immediately exceed their starting sizes in the hero phase with their banners (adding D6 models or D3 or whatever) and then keep growing to indefinite size. This has been interpreted purposively by the tournament community to cap any unit anywhere at the starting size.

It is possible that they could FAQ it to say that you could top up to the 10 models from 2, but that would be a major rule change.

Zombies Merging

The only "exception" has been zombie merge, which is a wholly different mechanic and where the specifically worded answer in the Death FAQ saying "in a Pitched Battle" (i.e. in a matched play game) that you cannot exceed the cap of 60 implies that you can merge in general (since why not simply say "you cannot merge in a pitched battle" if that was the purpose.  

Quote

They FAQ'd this for 40k that any new blue or brimstone horrors had to remain entirely within 6". No conga-lining away to pick up objectives 8"- 10" away. I don't imagine they'd rule different for AoS if that rule came up. 

They know that Congaing is a thing in the game and has been since day 1 (and it should be, because the 9" rule keeps summoning in check). Summoning has virtually disappeared from the game in UK events since the GH - Death are hardly doing it at all beyond maybe a cheeky 60 or 100 points.

They've nerfed Fanatics and Skulkers in this respect because the wording was ambiguous and this was perceived to be broken/undercosted. The wording isn't ambiguous here. It talks about "a unit" and "within" so conga away.

Quote

Also, and sorry if this has already been answered: For units that don't have the Tzeentch keyword already on their warscroll, but which can receive the Tzeentch keyword when you set them up on the table (e.g., the Chaos Sorcerer Lord), does including those units mean you forfeit the Tzeentch Allegiance for battle traits etc., since they only receive the Tzeentch keyword when they're set up on the table, not when you paid for them in your army list? 

There's an FAQ about this. Page one of the GH FAQ, under Errata "Page 106". You can keep allegiance with all the "pick a mark" on set up Warscrolls (but not Varanguard).

[Nico]

Quote

apparently at sheffield slaughter the TO has ruled you cant use destiny dice to pick the damage rolls for mortal wounds. just thought id throw that out there for debate also.

I cannot stand it when things get nerfed before they even have 2 months of events under their belt. Wyldwoods were nerfed within a month too. 

This is particularly bad since this is integral to the army; and the writer of the book actually talked about doing this exact thing on the Livestream - so we have strong evidence of the purpose of the writer. GW seem to distinguish mortal wounds and wounds less sharply than I would do so (which is not to say that a bespoke rule that causes mortal wounds on a dice roll is the same thing as a to wound roll - that way lies madness).

We have no idea how strong DoT are going to be at this stage - negligible data, especially against all the other filth out there. My own hunch is that they will be a strong pair of scissors in a rock paper scissors arrangement. The biggest achilles heel I can see is the cost of the units (especially the new Battleline units), yes there are many incredibly tasty tools in the book, but how many of them can you actually fit into a 2,000 point list - potentially a fixed list for 5-6 games. Sylvaneth have the same problems (Dryads and Tree Revenants cost a lot and Dryads need to be in units of 20 to be efficient. If Order players can actually motivate themselves to read the whole Grand Alliance Order book, then there are some horrific counters to Daemons and bravery debuffs in the Order Grand Alliance. Nagash (trying to kill him with mortal wounds is a bad plan), Death Armies in general and even Nurgle armies are going to give DoT a really hard time. Even re-energised Fyreslayers with Ward Saves could be a threat. 

 

[Nico]

Quote

Don't forget about the soul grinder or the gigantic chaos spawn,  both high wound models, and the spawn is only 180 , allowing you to fit a gaunt summoner in.

I've got a suitable conversion for a gigantic Chaos Spawn. Could be interesting. 

[Arkiham]

There is so much stuff which counters( bit of a strong word ) tzeentch spells is nuts. Khorne, most of slaves to darkness, most nurgle units,  dwarves, alot of death, high wound count models such as ironjawz ( as all spells basically are d3/d6) the new stormcast stuff coming out, plenty of odds an sods in order.

An then they comp it before its even been played, how much do they expect the fate dice to do? On average you get like one 6 one 5, 

Which, you aren't always going to just blow on one spell as you can use it in plenty of other things. 

[Soulsmith]

Yeah I would argue that the use of it by the book writer, and the fact it was used for 6 mortal wounds in the most recent white dwarf's battle report enough of an indicator that destiny dice are viable for mortal wounds.

[hobgoblinclub]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I cannot stand it when things get nerfed before they even have 2 months of events under their belt. Wyldwoods were nerfed within a month too. 

 

Agreed. Why can't Tzeentch pick the occasional 6 on their mortal wounding when a Frostlord gets a flat 6 anyway. Just because it hurts doesn't mean it's OP. 

[Nico]

Quote

There is so much stuff which counters( bit of a strong word ) tzeentch spells is nuts. Khorne, most of slaves to darkness, most nurgle units,  dwarves, alot of death, high wound count models such as ironjawz ( as all spells basically are d3/d6) the new stormcast stuff coming out, plenty of odds an sods in order.

An then they comp it before its even been played, how much do they expect the fate dice to do? On average you get like one 6 one 5, 

Which, you aren't always going to just blow on one spell as you can use it in plenty of other things. 

I agree with the gist of this. 

• You're looking at 1.5 sixes on average and 1.5 fives. It's literally the core mechanic of the army - equivalent to the Death 5+ Ward save or the Destruction Move in importance.
• The Battle Report (on top of the writer's own words) is compelling.
• Khorne unbinding isn't going to do anything other than mildly irritate a LoC (or waste a Destiny Dice), but could cause a regular Shaman or Gaunt Summoner problems.
• Slaves to Darkness shields are very good of course, Nurgle Daemons are a hard counter, but are hopeless at most of the Battleplans, so rather rare at events.
• Dispossessed banners are nice as are their unbinds.
• How have you not mentioned Seraphon, who are basically "ho ho ho - I've got a machine gun" when you plonk down Chaos Daemons? This is slightly tempered by the fact that Gatewaying off 6 Temple Guard is painful.
• Devoted of Sigmar - Prayermobile is a true hard counter: 2 shots average, -2 rend, 6 damage shooting.
• High wound stuff is vulnerable to mortal wounds, so I think you've got that one backwards. Much rather kill one Paladin than 3 Grots.
• Speaking of which, Grots and Skaven and especially FEC/Skeleton/Zombro horde armies of 5+ ward save are a nightmare for DoT.
• I would not be surprised to see some (more) brutal hard counters to Chaos or Chaos Daemons in the Stormcast Battletome - Winterleaf is already nasty for Sylvaneth. For clarity, I love hard counters and think that's a great part of the game and agree with Vince Venturella and others that introducing new hard/soft counters periodically to mitigate the previous hyper-efficient stuff is a great way to refresh and balance the game (e.g. the Changeling is a nasty counter to Beastclaw filth or Alarielle - Metamorphosis to the face and then she may not be able to hit with those Beetle Antlers but the Changeling certainly can with Destiny Dice). However, that should not mean that the core mechanic is already nerfed before the army even leaves the painting table.

[Arkiham]

I was talking more anti spell rather than anti daemon, 

 

And I do belive I'm right with the multiwound thing, ok they're weaker against it,  but when it's reliable,  your example of a frost lord,  6 mortal wounds, it's a known amount. Spells, particularly tzeentch are random amounts, you could burn dice to get a d6 mortal wound spell off potentially killing their lord or a unit, then roll a 3 and kill nothing, but against a unit with single wounds that's 3 dead, that's a battleshock test.

[Honcho]

7 hours ago, wanderingrogue1 said:

apparently at sheffield slaughter the TO has ruled you cant use destiny dice to pick the damage rolls for mortal wounds. just thought id throw that out there for debate also.

I like to support events for AoS in any form but I have a huge problem with TOs making house rules like this when there is no way there's been enough play to know whether its a problem or not. I can't even fathom why this is singled out. Are soulsteel maces limited to 1 mortal wound? Have Thundertusks mortal wound output been adjusted? At best, this kind of comp is ill-informed.

That said, the TO puts in all the work so I fully believe they can do what they want. It's their event. But events with misguided comp are one of the few I'll not support as I will do all that I can to encourage TOs not to make unnecessary changes.

[Mirage8112]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

Nice try, but that's literal interpretation gone too far. While it's disappointing that the Blues unit becomes derpy small, taking it your way would mean that the Blues unit could become indefinitely big even after paying only 50 points for it, which would be palpably broken - the Ban Hammer would be flying at your army within seconds. 

On that basis Nagash could summon a bunch of units all of which could immediately exceed their starting sizes in the hero phase with their banners (adding D6 models or D3 or whatever) and then keep growing to indefinite size. This has been interpreted purposively by the tournament community to cap any unit anywhere at the starting size.

I don't disagree with you regarding the most literal interpretation, because it's not immediately clear from the wording; plus it feels like an exploit. Aside from that, I DO think it's reasonable (and a purposive interpretation) to read the passage that you can continue to add blue horrors until it reaches the max size that you paid for i.e. 10, and if you want to go over that cap, you'll have to pay an extra 50pts for the next 10. 

The RAW don't imply that you have to keep the unit at whatever size it first hits the table as, because that's not what the rule says. This really look like the game developers want to allow summoning to bring new units to the table, but not to bring more models that you actually paid for (i.e. not having units exceed their batch size for their batch price.) I can guarantee you that the game designers did not intend (since we are talking about "purposive interpretation") for the blue horror units to be capped at 2 when a single pink horror is killed in the shooting phase. That's an overly strict interpretation of what the passage says. It's clearly intended that the pink horror unit gradually becomes a blue horror unit as the game goes on (with an associated points cost of course).
 

5 hours ago, Nico said:

They know that Congaing is a thing in the game and has been since day 1 (and it should be, because the 9" rule keeps summoning in check). Summoning has virtually disappeared from the game in UK events since the GH - Death are hardly doing it at all beyond maybe a cheeky 60 or 100 points.

They've nerfed Fanatics and Skulkers in this respect because the wording was ambiguous and this was perceived to be broken/undercosted. The wording isn't ambiguous here. It talks about "a unit" and "within" so conga away.

 
40K is not AoS, so obviously one FAQ doesn't apply to the other. At this moment in time, I'd agree it's legal, but expect it to be FAQ'd that any new horrors added to the unit need to be within 6" of the pink horrors. Adding them to a "long tail" of blues 20" away will not last long given GW's ruling in other cases. 
 

[Nico]

Quote

Aside from that, I DO think it's reasonable (and a purposive interpretation) to read the passage that you can continue to add blue horrors until it reaches the max size that you paid for i.e. 10, and if you want to go over that cap, you'll have to pay an extra 50pts for the next 10. 

I think there's a middle ground here which isn't far off this. See below.

Quote

The RAW don't imply that you have to keep the unit at whatever size it first hits the table as, because that's not what the rule says. This really look like the game developers want to allow summoning to bring new units to the table, but not to bring more models that you actually paid for (i.e. not having units exceed their batch size for their batch price.) I can guarantee you that the game designers did not intend (since we are talking about "purposive interpretation") for the blue horror units to be capped at 2 when a single pink horror is killed in the shooting phase. That's an overly strict interpretation of what the passage says. It's clearly intended that the pink horror unit gradually becomes a blue horror unit as the game goes on (with an associated points cost of course).

I completely agree that in narrative play, the Split rule is meant to go nuts, 10 Pinks straight to 20 Blues and then 20 Brimstones.

I agree that you can make a good, arguable, purposive case for create a new unit of 2 models and then top it up to 10 models (but not more). However, people can also argue that the initial size of the unit cap extends by analogy to this situation (what I feared). 

Ideally there would be an FAQ ruling before building a list around that or doing this at an event.* 

I don't see a case for going from 2 Blues models to 10 and then up to 20, even if you pay another 50 points (that would be really strong in matched play) as opposed to creating another mini unit of 2 or 3 models and then topping that up to 10. I cannot see a specific enough mechanism for paying that additional 50 points at the juncture when you exceed the multiple of 10 models. If Death could do this, then they would have been doing it for some time. 

If you lost say 8 Pinks and created a new unit of 16 Blues (for a cost of 100), then that could allow you to reach up to 20 models (but not 30). This would probably be close to a fair compromise - but that doesn't mean that non-DoT players will not overreact/reach for the Nerf-Hammer. 

Summoning and bringing back models (e.g. Necropolis Knights); and all the rest of it is still a giant live wire. Summoning has been essentially dormant since the GH v1.0 (it was a big thing at the SCGT 2016 as it represented points-free models up to a certain threshold). Seraphon have mysteriously all-but-disappeared and Death barely use it now. Occasionally people would use a bit of Tzeentch summoning in a mixed Chaos force (potentially including Sayl and Bloodletters). Now summoning is back with a vengeance and people are going to cry. 

Pending a specific FAQ on the point, I would still expect far too many opponents (especially in the UK) to react adversely if I did anything other than creating the unit of 2 (or rather decide not to do so) and then hoping that they killed 5 or more pinks in the Combat phase, so that I could get a viable unit of exactly 10 for exactly 50 points, which I could then top up later when they in turn lost casualties (not exceeding the initial size).

You can guarantee that some people will be saying that splitting is mandatory and that you have to waste your reinforcement points by creating multiple derpy mini units in the hero, shooting, charge and combat phase, which you can then never top up beyond their minimum size. This would lead to the extinction of Pink Horrors or reinforcement points.

As you know, as Sylvaneth, we've lost almost every rules decision (other than that Wyldwoods could be 3 Citadel Woods; and "a" = "any" still rightly survives in Gnarlroot); Dreadwood has been smacked as collateral damage because of Free Spirits being considered overpowered (and Kunning Rukk buffed as a further side effect). I'm holding out some hope on the Alarielle Soul Amphorae since it adds another tactical option to her (and she's still overcosted without this), but only a little bit of hope. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't argue our case, but we should pick our battles. The not using Destiny Dice on mortal wounds point above is an argument we should and must win, otherwise it's barely worth playing DoT - other than to buff Archaon through the roof and shout YOLO! 

I think this sort of compromise could fly:

• The Split and Split Again rules are discretionary and do not have to be used even if reinforcement points are available.   
• If you lose a Pink Horror in a given phase, then you can create a new unit of 2 Blue Horrors for 50 points; and then you can top it up to 10 models (but no more) as further Pink Horrrors die. Alternatively if you lost 8 Pink Horrors in a separate phase, you could create a new unit of 16 Blue Horrors (for a cost of 100); and then you could top this unit up to 20 models (but not 30). You could also choose to Split only 5 of the Pink Horrors to create a unit of 10 Blue Horrors for a cost of 50 and let the other 3 Pink Horrors not use Split. 

Thoughts anyone?

Does anyone think that this position is arguable on the rules as they currently stand?

 

*I'm far more likely to have a wall of Blues in front of the Pinks and to hope that a few Blues die to melee before the Pinks die, so that I can top up the Blues.

[Arkiham]

To be honest.

It does look like it is mandatory that the pink Horrors split into blue Horrors. 

As it says "if a friendly unit of blah blah blah..the slain Horrors will split and create blue Horrors at the end of that phase " 

will, is rather mandatory unlike the word can.

You will do this/you can do this 

 

 

[Mirage8112]

8 hours ago, Nico said:

I agree that you can make a good, arguable, purposive case for create a new unit of 2 models and then top it up to 10 models (but not more). However, people can also argue that the initial size of the unit cap extends by analogy to this situation (what I feared). 

Ideally there would be an FAQ ruling before building a list around that or doing this at an event.* 

I think that argument against being able to top a unit up to it's full unit size is really just a knee-****** reaction.  People were so vehemently "anti-summoning" that anything that hints at a powerful summoning mechanic receives an automatic "no" rather than looking at what the rules actually allow. An FAQ will be very helpful here. But you and I have had lots of discussions about what we see, and what we expect to happen. 
 

8 hours ago, Nico said:

I don't see a case for going from 2 Blues models to 10 and then up to 20, even if you pay another 50 points (that would be really strong in matched play) as opposed to creating another mini unit of 2 or 3 models and then topping that up to 10. I cannot see a specific enough mechanism for paying that additional 50 points at the juncture when you exceed the multiple of 10 models. If Death could do this, then they would have been doing it for some time. 

 

There is an argument for this. This is a little wordy, but track with me.

There are a couple of places where the GH makes a distinction between "unit size" (spots a model takes up in the unit), and "unit strength" (models on the field). Because of this, I think the phrase "the number of models in a unit", could refer to the number of models capable of being in the unit. (I.e. you pay for 10 models, it's a 10 model unit.) The GH is clear that you pay full price for the unit, regardless of how many models you actually field. So under the reenforcement point section when it says:

"...in a pitched battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for the unit.)"

It is saying that the "unit size" stays constant throughout the game, while "unit strength" is variable. You cannot field 11 models in a 10 model unit because you cannot increase the "unit size" mid game. The rule for reenforcement points says "Each time a new unit is added to an army during the battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reenforcement points." The unit you put down is a 10, 15, 20 man unit; this is what you pay for (and is contained by the spell or ability. Most warscrolls and spells put a cap of the max size of the unit created). 

My argument here, is basically that the number of blue horrors initially placed has nothing to do with unit size. The unit size is 10 but the unit strength is whatever number of models are fielded in that unit. There may be only 2-4 blue horrors in the unit, but the unit size is 10. (or 20 if thats what you want to pay for. There is no specific cap on unit size like there is on death summoning).

This distinction between "unit size" and "unit strength" is akin to the distinction between a "set-up" and "move". Two different things.  

So, when the first pink horror dies, you obviously have to declare that you are creating a new unit and that you are using your reenforcement points to do so. At that point if we're really sticking to "the size of the unit you pay for is as big as you can make it" then just declare you are creating a unit of 20, and using 100 reenforcement points to do so. That way your opponent knows exactly what the cap on the unit is when it is created (which puts it in the same category as unit on the roster, it has a max size that it can't exceed for the rest of the game.) 

8 hours ago, Nico said:

Summoning and bringing back models (e.g. Necropolis Knights); and all the rest of it is still a giant live wire. Summoning has been essentially dormant since the GH v1.0 (it was a big thing at the SCGT 2016 as it represented points-free models up to a certain threshold). Seraphon have mysteriously all-but-disappeared and Death barely use it now. Occasionally people would use a bit of Tzeentch summoning in a mixed Chaos force (potentially including Sayl and Bloodletters). Now summoning is back with a vengeance and people are going to cry. 

Pending a specific FAQ on the point, I would still expect far too many opponents (especially in the UK) to react adversely if I did anything other than creating the unit of 2 (or rather decide not to do so) and then hoping that they killed 5 or more pinks in the Combat phase, so that I could get a viable unit of exactly 10 for exactly 50 points, which I could then top up later when they in turn lost casualties (not exceeding the initial size).

It is. GH 1.0 basically killed summoning, and it's my hope there will be some changes for GH 2.0. I don't have any solid reasons to think this. Death as a faction is pretty handicapped since summoning is such a major part of their Grand Alliance. Not to mention it makes the biggest baddest model in their line, Nagash, nearly un-feildable in matched play. 

The arguments for limiting the unit size to whatever number of models are created in each phase is frankly, ridiculous. There's no way in hell the designers intended a unit of 10 pink horrors to take 1-2 causalities in 3 phases and create 3 units of 2-4 blue horrors at 50pts apiece with no way to expand the unit to it's full paid-for size. It's really just players trying desperately to prevent summoning from becoming a viable part of the game because they're so afraid of it.  

Players always, always, complain when something new hits the table, because it unbalances the meta. The first cries are always "Overpowered! Nerf plz!". But the meta always adapts. So as long as I can make a decent rule argument for doing something: I'm gonna do it. Players QQ's be damned. I'm 110% sure an FAQ will back me up on this specific point. 

 

8 hours ago, Nico said:

As you know, as Sylvaneth, we've lost almost every rules decision (other than that Wyldwoods could be 3 Citadel Woods; and "a" = "any" still rightly survives in Gnarlroot); Dreadwood has been smacked as collateral damage because of Free Spirits being considered overpowered (and Kunning Rukk buffed as a further side effect). I'm holding out some hope on the Alarielle Soul Amphorae since it adds another tactical option to her (and she's still overcosted without this), but only a little bit of hope. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't argue our case, but we should pick our battles. The not using Destiny Dice on mortal wounds point above is an argument we should and must win, otherwise it's barely worth playing DoT - other than to buff Archaon through the roof and shout YOLO! 

Well, not everything went against us, and a couple of those things that did doesn't really impact us. Dreadwood is still super viable and if anything running it the way we've talked about means it's even more destructive and more reliable than the way I had written the list previously. So dreadwood isn't nerfed at at. It does the same thing, you just have to build it slightly differently. Free spirits is definitely nerfed. But I never considered it a viable tactic due to cost/benefit. There were cheaper ways to do what it was trying to do, so I have no really feelings about that particular ruling. I'm not familiar with the Alarielle Soul Amphorae question. I think she's plenty well costs provided you build a list around her. I know she doesn't fit your play style, but she's perfect for a few lists and well worth her points under the right conditions. 
 

8 hours ago, Nico said:

I think this sort of compromise could fly:

• The Split and Split Again rules are discretionary and do not have to be used even if reinforcement points are available.   
• If you lose a Pink Horror in a given phase, then you can create a new unit of 2 Blue Horrors for 50 points; and then you can top it up to 10 models (but no more) as further Pink Horrrors die. Alternatively if you lost 8 Pink Horrors in a separate phase, you could create a new unit of 16 Blue Horrors (for a cost of 100); and then you could top this unit up to 20 models (but not 30). You could also choose to Split only 5 of the Pink Horrors to create a unit of 10 Blue Horrors for a cost of 50 and let the other 3 Pink Horrors not use Split. 

Thoughts anyone?

Does anyone think that this position is arguable on the rules as they currently stand?

 
Split and split again are rules for Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors. If you don't have the models there's no reason to use the rules on the warscroll, so I would say yes. Splitting is optional. The generals rulebook already gives provisions for not placing a unit even if a spell summoning that unit was successfully cast. Likewise they've ruled that units that can attack, don't have to attack. So i'd say you're not forced to use the split mechanic if you don't want to. 

As to how to place horrors, the rules don't seem to suggest you can choose to create a new unit of blues if there is already one within 6". I'm also leaning toward the idea that you should declare the max unit size/ points cost use when placing the first horror (10, 20 ect). As to splitting some and not splitting others; probably. But it's a little messy. 

[Tzaangor Management]

Don't think this has been asked so: is anyone considering the Curseling, Eye of Tzeentch? An armored, fairly fighty spell caster with two spells who, on a successful dispel, can attempt to cast the spell it just dispelled?

 

Possibly a bit situational, but, besides the above, I really like the model, so thought it was worth a question. 

[Nico]

Great and very thoughtful post. Will digest properly and respond. In short - yes - that's a logical and balanced way to approach it. The literal approach leads to a bookkeeping exercise of multiple small Blues units that cannot exceed random caps based on how many models happened to die in each phase.

[Nico]

The Curseling is great - 2 spells and 2 unbinds. Good choice for popping on a Balewind to steal a spell from enemy wizard turn one.

[Honcho]

6 hours ago, Nico said:

The Curseling is great - 2 spells and 2 unbinds. Good choice for popping on a Balewind to steal a spell from enemy wizard turn one.

I think the Curseling is fantastic but is limited in that some of the most played armies don't have wizards, like SCE and KBB. Against those armies he's not a great choice. Against armies that have updated lores, like Sylvaneth, he's a BEAST.  He's only going to get better as more armies get the new lore treatment. 

So, at the moment I think he's a great sideboard option but is tough to include in a take-all-comers list.

[Stevewren]

20 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

Yeah I would argue that the use of it by the book writer, and the fact it was used for 6 mortal wounds in the most recent white dwarf's battle report enough of an indicator that destiny dice are viable for mortal wounds.

Unfortunately you cannot use white dwarf as an indicator for rules. In the same issue during the tale of 4 warlords there is a picture of three wyldwoods placed end to end and a call out box explaining this tactic. However the FAQ tells us this is wrong.

at the moment the role for mortal wounds damage isn't one of the allowable uses of the DD pool. Oversight it may be, and I'm sure the FAQ will sort it out as it does seem a somewhat strange addition, but one of the things that the four page rules lays out is that this is its own separate mechanic. 

[Ben]

Ive not read through 34 pages of this but can someone spell out why it's considered ok to use DD to determine number of mortal wounds??

thats not listed in the 9 ways to use DD is it?

P.s. Please add rules screenshots to back it up 

[Arkiham]

27 minutes ago, Stevewren said:

Unfortunately you cannot use white dwarf as an indicator for rules. In the same issue during the tale of 4 warlords there is a picture of three wyldwoods placed end to end and a call out box explaining this tactic. However the FAQ tells us this is wrong.

at the moment the role for mortal wounds damage isn't one of the allowable uses of the DD pool. Oversight it may be, and I'm sure the FAQ will sort it out as it does seem a somewhat strange addition, but one of the things that the four page rules lays out is that this is its own separate mechanic. 

Was that tale of 4 warlords matched played before or after the faq though. 

Don't forget you gotta edit, publish transport and distribute the magazines 

[Arkiham]

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

Ive not read through 34 pages of this but can someone spell out why it's considered ok to use DD to determine number of mortal wounds??

thats not listed in the 9 ways to use DD is it?

P.s. Please add rules screenshots to back it up 

There's a more specific questions towards it under the rules section asking if mortal wounds are damage or something. 

It's disputed as the on the twitch stream they had the guy who helped or who wrote the book, and he said that you can use a destiny dice to determine mortal wound damage, it was then repeated in the white dwarf which came out 

I'll working currently so time stamps and such are a bit hard.

[Ben]

12 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

There's a more specific questions towards it under the rules section asking if mortal wounds are damage or something. 

It's disputed as the on the twitch stream they had the guy who helped or who wrote the book, and he said that you can use a destiny dice to determine mortal wound damage, it was then repeated in the white dwarf which came out 

I'll working currently so time stamps and such are a bit hard.

Unfortunately talk on the TV is not worth anything. 

Needs to be printed in rules, on a warscrolls or in a FAQ

[Arkiham]

3 minutes ago, Ben said:

Unfortunately talk on the TV is not worth anything. 

Needs to be printed in rules, on a warscrolls or in a FAQ

No, but when it comes down to what is "determining damage " both mortal wounds and normal wounds fall under this, 

 

It's better explained in the subject I tagged you in than I have time to