Let's chat Disciples of Tzeentch

[Stevewren]

35 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

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 

Before, but it's the same for the argument about the DD usage. Did they play it like that, then realise it was not correct but it went to print before? 

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Stevewren said:

Before, but it's the same for the argument about the DD usage. Did they play it like that, then realise it was not correct but it went to print before? 

The difference with that is there's no faq correcting it.

[Nico]

Quote

Unfortunately talk on the TV is not worth anything.

Normally yes - although when it's the writer of the Battletome, it means something as it tells us what the author's purpose was. Ultimately it needs to be FAQed (because it's already a source of confusion) and it looks like it should be clarified that a Damage roll does include D6 mortal wounds etc.. As I mentioned above, GW seem to distinguish wounds and mortal wounds less strictly than I would have expected them to do. 

 

[Stevewren]

5 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

The difference with that is there's no faq correcting it.

True, but at the time there were no Disciples of Tzeentch to FAQ! 

[Nico]

On the subject of FAQs, for completeness the phrase "any Flamer" in paragraph one of the Eternal Conflagration is surely meant to refer to the keyword "Flamer" (i.e. should be in bold) which is a separate keyword on the Burning Chariot, Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch and Flamers of Tzeentch units (e.g. note in particular that Exalted Flamers have the keyword "Flamer" and separately the keyword "Exalted Flamers"). There is no unit which is simply called "Flamers", so this shouldn't be read as a unit name reference. Read in context (i.e. read the whole battalion) this shouldn't be controversial. 

Looking at the second paragraph, they go on to refer to "Flamers" (not a complete unit name) and "Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch" (a complete unit name) in the same sentence. This would make sense again if "Flamers" is a keyword again (i.e. in both paragraphs). On the other hand, you could read the second paragraph as specifically using "Flamers" to try to refer to "Flamers of Tzeentch" and then read "any Flamer" in the same way.

In the component battalion - Warpflame Host, the Battalion refers to "Flamers of Tzeentch" i.e. the unit name in full, which points towards "any Flamer" and "Flamers" being intended as keywords. 

I cannot see any logical reason why these rules shouldn't benefit all 3 types of "Flamer", but it could be read either way. Really needs to be FAQed/agreed, since this battalion is decidely weak if the rule in the first paragraph only applies to Flamers of Tzeentch and if the second paragraph doesn't apply to an Exalted Flamer as soon as it makes the mistake of hopping on a chariot.   

[Stevewren]

Has anyone on here considered the Omniscient Oracles battalion yet? What sort of things would you put with it to help in Matched Play?

Obviously in narrative play the answer would be 'anything!'

im currently thinking 30 marauders, and nine skyfires, but I'd be intrigued to hear others thoughts, especially about artefacts and spell load outs. 

[Malakithe]

41 minutes ago, Nico said:

On the subject of FAQs, for completeness the phrase "any Flamer" in paragraph one of the Eternal Conflagration is surely meant to refer to the keyword "Flamer" (i.e. should be in bold) which is a separate keyword on the Burning Chariot, Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch and Flamers of Tzeentch units (e.g. note in particular that Exalted Flamers have the keyword "Flamer" and separately the keyword "Exalted Flamers"). There is no unit which is simply called "Flamers", so this shouldn't be read as a unit name reference. Read in context (i.e. read the whole battalion) this shouldn't be controversial. 

Looking at the second paragraph, they go on to refer to "Flamers" (not a complete unit name) and "Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch" (a complete unit name) in the same sentence. This would make sense again if "Flamers" is a keyword again (i.e. in both paragraphs). On the other hand, you could read the second paragraph as specifically using "Flamers" to try to refer to "Flamers of Tzeentch" and then read "any Flamer" in the same way.

In the component battalion - Warpflame Host, the Battalion refers to "Flamers of Tzeentch" i.e. the unit name in full, which points towards "any Flamer" and "Flamers" being intended as keywords. 

I cannot see any logical reason why these rules shouldn't benefit all 3 types of "Flamer", but it could be read either way. Really needs to be FAQed/agreed, since this battalion is decidely weak if the rule in the first paragraph only applies to Flamers of Tzeentch and if the second paragraph doesn't apply to an Exalted Flamer as soon as it makes the mistake of hopping on a chariot.   

This...I was wondering this from the start. That entire page is just all over the place with contradicting wording. My first impression was that it would be every 'Flamer' unit. Flamers, Exalted, and Chariots. The Flamers themselves have a 's' at the end of the keyword so that also threw me off.

I was looking at that battalion first before the others.

[Nico]

Quote

 

Has anyone on here considered the Omniscient Oracles battalion yet? What sort of things would you put with it to help in Matched Play?

 

Sounds like an awesome painting project coming up.

Yes. I would say 180 of Marauders (convert them with spares from other kits perhaps) as your Battleline and maybe 20 Brimstones for 80 to keep yourself alive from Stormcast alpha strike, possibly a Gaunt Summoner (for its own spell and for a Lore of Fate spell that Kairos can then cast e.g. ) then summon on whatever you need from any Daemon army. General would have the 27" unbind or it could be the Gaunt Summoner for 2 additional spells from the Lore of Fate (Arch Sorceror). Probably go for the Pew Pew.

Definitely need the flexibility of summoning for this to work. I'm talking Pink Horrors with Bolt of Tzeentch (to deal with pesky 5 wound heroes turn one), 20 Letters and a Bloodmaster for some quick melee damage, maybe a Skullcannon for some long range threat:

Allegiance: Tzeentch

Leaders
Kairos Fateweaver (340)
Lord Of Change (300)
- Artefact: Aspect of Tzeentch 
Lord Of Change (300)
Lord Of Change (300)
Curseling, Eye of Tzeentch (140)
- General
- Trait: Arch Sorcerer - Tzeentch Daemon Hero
- Artefact: Paradoxical Shield 

Battleline
10 x Chaos Marauders (60)
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
10 x Chaos Marauders (60)
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
10 x Chaos Marauders (60)
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch

Units

Battalions
Omniscient Oracles (60)

Total: 1620/2000

Something like this, with 380 summoning points to spare.

This could be the Balewind Vortex, so that the Curseling can immediately grab Regrowth from them using Glean Magic at a 48" range without needing line of sight (for D3 healing) or Metamorphosis (or even Verdant Blessing to troll the Sylvaneth with your own Wyldwood - which you would need to pay reinforcement points for, but worth it for the look on their face)! also very Tzeentch-Fluffy - turning their weapon against them (basically you would put it somewhere to block them from putting one where they would want it to go)! 

You could also add 20 Bloodletters and a Bloodmaster for some choppy for 280 points (Although you would need a 6 on a Destiny Dice to guarantee the summon (as you don't have the bubble of +1 to cast and unbind command ability).

Or you could summon an Exalted Greater Daemon of X once they get points.

Or you could summon some (e.g. 20) Plaguebearers to hold objectives and generally get in the way.

This army should roflstomp the likes of Ironjawz, since eventually they will be within 18" of your 4 Feather Lords in your hero phase and everything that is within 18" of them in the hero phase very likely dies. 

As a club, the South London Legion is thinking of painting some LoCs with Magnetised bases so that this army could be fielded occasionally (rather than one person painting all 4).

 

[Nico]

Basically you would want to take this as the minimum sized core of the army and then you have 910 points left to play with:

Allegiance: Chaos

Leaders
Lord Of Change (300)
- General
- Trait: Magical Supremacy - Tzeentch Daemon Hero
- Artefact: Aura of Mutability 

Battleline

Units
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)
1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch (120)

Battalions
The Eternal Conflagration (40)
Warpflame Host (30)

Total: 1090/2000

 

This gives you a decent gunline and a single drop army which you can slot more Tzeentch Daemons into. The incredibly squishiness of the Flamers is mitigated a bit by them being spread out and -1 to hit them with pew pew.

The upside over Hosts Duplicitous is that this single drop army doesn't have 600 points of two LoCs baked into it (hence it's more flexible). On the other hand, Scintillating Simulacra is unbelievably brilliant.

I've just checked Battlebrew and after having taken a swig, the adding is mandatory (it's not "may add" as is often the case with buffs). Hence that Stonelord after taking the Brew is missing 5/6 of its hit rolls and 5/6 of its wound rolls until it stops using Battlebrew next turn.  

Just don't cast it on Spirit Hosts....

[Nico]

The other possible single drop army on the Daemon side is to take Overseer's Fate Twisters (which fits the classic Sylvaneth pattern of being really good, but balancing this by forcing you to take a load of units that are overcosted - i.e. Winterleaf). To make it a single drop army, you would need to have the general as a Herald on Chariot (far from ideal for many reasons) and your battleline as 3 units of 1 Chariot at 160 a piece. More concerningly, you wouldn't be able to fit in any chaff units at all, so you would be a sitting duck for many alpha strike armies. 

You could try to fit the Overseer's Fate Twisters into the Conflagration or the Hosts Duplicitous, but that's going to chew up almost every single point you have in the latter case.

I wonder whether you could take Overseer's Fate Twisters plus Multitudinous Host as a two drop army.

[Nico]

Quote

I was looking at that battalion first before the others.

If Exalted Flamers or Chariots can be the beacons for the spells, then it's just about viable. If you have to take woefully overcosted Flamers, then it's not.

It's still extremely expensive for the number of models and wounds that you get, but the minimum size battalion isn't as big as the minimum Hosts Duplicitous.

[Nico]

Wrong Let's Chat Thread - sorry.

[Nico]

Ditto.

[Honcho]

9 hours 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 

Well, I guess school is in session this morning.

Since DD allow you to determine Damage I was sure there was a profile where Damage specified mortal wounds.  And I was totally wrong. Every instance of mortal wound application came from special rules, not a Damage roll. I never even realized that.  Huh, it's almost like the rules are written that way for a reason...

So I learned something this morning.

Also, I should say that my salty rant above wasn't really about this issue or the Slaughter but just TOs who change rules arbitrarily which has been a local pet peeve. The Sheffield Slaughter has a long history of being a great event and of course I wish it continued success this year. I look forward to hearing thrilling reports on the UK podcasts soon.

[Mirage8112]

11 hours 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 

 

1 hour ago, Honcho said:

Since DD allow you to determine Damage I was sure there was a profile where Damage specified mortal wounds.  And I was totally wrong. Every instance of mortal wound application came from special rules, not a Damage roll. I never even realized that.  Huh, it's almost like the rules are written that way for a reason...

So I learned something this morning.

I think @Honcho has it backwards. The question isn't if "damage specifies mortal wounds", but if "mortal wounds are a type of damage." 

If you look at the section for allocating damage, the four page rules use the phase "inflict damage" and "inflict wounds" interchangeably. 
 

In other words if you are "inflicting wounds" you are also "inflicting damage". The rules make no distinction between doing those two things. Destiny dice can be used to fix a "to wound" roll, but that's actually a roll that happens before a wound is inflicted. A "Damage roll" is a specific roll to see how many "wounds" to remove from an opponents warscroll. So what do the rules say about "mortal wounds"?



The key part of this is the phrase "...allocate the wounds to the models from the target unit as described above". In other words "use the rules for allocating damage". The section it refers to uses the terms damage and wounds interchangeably, so it stands to reason that a mortal wound roll is a damage roll that cannot be saved by armor.

When you are making a roll "to wound" you are not making a roll is see how much damage a unit takes. You are rolling to see if a unit is damaged at all. When you are rolling for mortal wounds, you are rolling to see how many wounds the attack inflicts, which incidentally is what you are rolling for when a basic attack has variable damage. Note also that nowhere in the game is there an "regular" attack that bypasses armor. All attacks that bypass armor inflict "mortal wounds" even if its from a "regular weapon". Here's a practical example of what I'm talking about. Tzaangor skyfires have a ranged attack that does D3 damage on a 4+/3+. 



but they also have this special rule:

The damage inflicted is D3 either way, all from the same weapon. The only difference is armor saves can be taken by one but not the other. Again, regardless of what it's called, it's a roll to see how much damage the target takes because mortal wounds are a type of damage. 

Mortal wound rolls and damage rolls are the same thing. The 4 page rules use terms interchangeably. The rules for using destiny dice I see no reason why DD can't be used for mortal wound rolls when the rules refer to mortal wounds as "inflicting damage".

[DarkBlack]

What @Mirage8112 said. Thanks for typing it out, you saved me the trouble.

[Nevvermore]

I've always considered Mortal Wounds just a special way of inflicting normal Wounds, not a special type of Wound. 

[Soulsmith]

I feel like we should pin that post.

[Nico]

We might need to frame it and print it out for tournaments.

[Malakithe]

Until there is clarification on the horrible wording for the Eternal Conflagration then I'll be looking at The Hosts Duplicitous is various form.

Though having near endless range on spells via Chariots would be amazing 

[Vaz84]

List building for Matched Play. 

Looking at the generals handbook, and then my own spell lists. Seem's like my models can cast ALOT of spells, but actually looking at my options, seem's like they will run OUT of spells. Can EACH unit cash Arcane Bolt (for example), or am I right when the handbook says a spell can only be cast once per round.

Going to be going up against a Goblin army next week, looking at Shaman, Ogre, 2x Tgors, 1x Flying Archers, 1x Flying Melee with the battalion scroll for the beaks of madness. Tempted to find a way to fit a gaunt summoner into the list just so I can thin down the hordes faster!

[daedalus81]

Spells can be cast just once per turn regardless of whichever wizard has it or has cast it.

[Bjarni St.]

Gonna trot out a mix of new characters and old StD models for a game soon. Decided I had to accessorize for the occasion so I purchased some patented Age of Sigbrah Weighted Dice and hand crafted a Destiny Tray out of the finest locally sourced materials.

[daedalus81]

Love the tray

[Hobby Heresy]

I feel I may have to craft myself a fine looking tray similar to that.