Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, Total Fanboy said: Am I missing something? How do you merge zombie units when they will become larger than the starting unit size, which is not allowed in matched play? You can't just checked the FAQ again. it says no to both questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 18 minutes ago, PJetski said: Settra can't take the 5+ and you would be quite foolish not to use Settra as your general If you are running a settra list you dont even need the ruler of the night buff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ramsay Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, Terry Pike said: If you are running a settra list you dont even need the ruler of the night buff. Problem TK players face atm is: with all the rumours swirling around that the army will vanish soon do you sell the army while it's worth something? Or do you keep playing it until it's squatted where Then the price plummets and you have to buy a new army. Why bother playing tk right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 It's implicit in the new Death FAQ answer on Zombros (that they cannot merge over cap (60 models)) that they can merge to below this cap. Otherwise it would just say no merging at all. Quote Death is up there as one of the most powerful factions, Tomb Kings are probably the most powerful army in the game (well up until todays formation ruling). The army wide 5+ save is an incredible allegiance ability/command trait As someone has pointed out, these are mutually exclusive. It's Settra or 5+ Ward save not both. It's also a terrible position to be in when events are more and more likely to ban Compendium Units. The Battalions are already officially dead (which is more of a blow to Destruction I'll admit). I've been predicting that TK will cease to exist in the GH v2.0 for some months now, but made my peace with this on the basis that one day there will be a Deathlords or other allegiance pack with a spell lore, to make the named characters relevant again. There's little point in building a Death army now based on compendium units surely given the huge risk of them being not allowed at events - certainly in the UK. I play all four Grand Alliances and Death are by far the most predictable and I would say the weakest (below Chaos, pending DoT). today, Death have lost the Nagash/Neferata/Mannfred lists of using the Tomb Herald as a 5 wound battery, which closes another possible door down. The lists are rapidly converging on either TK list or VLoZD with either FEC or maybe Spirit Hosts or maybe overcosted Blood Knights or Mourngul. Quote This I somewhat don't agree with. I think Death has some good builds that haven't been explored yet. Mournguls are amazing, their Monsters are good, and they have some of the best Compendium units out there. I think they may be the weakest just because they're not getting as much support as the others, but it's not like they're just bad units in general. Find the retreat button and a Mourngul isn't such a big deal any more. It's not that fast (the VLoAT is in the Compendium) and doesn't have a shooting attack. The debuff is a big deal, but I beat an army with one with bravery 4 Grots! This despite the fact that Gordrakk failed to kill a single model (I lost the first initiative roll, so his Mourngul charged my 2+ save Gordrakk (mystic shield) then I retreated from the 2+ save Mourngul with Gordrakk and then I won the double turn only for Gordrakk to fail a mystical roll (there were 2 pieces in my deployment zone and I lost the choice): Game one: The Husktusks and Stonelords are far better for their costs (as is Stompy). The Dreadmaw is in some ways tougher and more useful (for its 10% higher cost) - Durthu could get a cheeky 6 wounds on a Mourngul with one hit, but that's very rarely going to happen to a Dreadmaw (failing 6 4+ rolls). All the other monsters are really partial to -1 to hit debuffs (Sylvaneth take a bow) taking out almost a third of their damage output. Destruction beat them by miles on the Monster Mash front and have Fanatics to which Death's only partial answer is certain double pile in mechanics; and that's assuming that the Destruction player deploys its chaff on the magnetic 12 inch line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Nico said: It's implicit in the new Death FAQ answer on Zombros (that they cannot merge over cap (60 models)) that they can merge to below this cap. Otherwise it would just say no merging at all. Thats still ignoring the matched play rule which says you cannot go over your starting unit size. I don't see where you are seeing a rule that says you can ignore this rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Fanboy Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 There is no rule anywhere or faq that says you can merge zombie units above there starting size in matched play. The rules specifically says you can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Quote Thats still ignoring the matched play rule which says you cannot go over your starting unit size. I don't see where you are seeing a rule that says you can ignore this rule? A more specific and brand new FAQ on a particular unit is always going to trump an older rule (i.e. a GH rule). They've gone out of their way to say in the Death FAQ in relation to Zombros that they cannot merge over their model cap. They would have said cannot merge - full stop if they intended that to be the case. By implication, you can merge, but not over the cap. Could this be clearer - yes it could. Literally kicking Death when they are already down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Nico said: A more specific and brand new FAQ on a particular unit is always going to trump an older rule (i.e. a GH rule). They've gone out of their way to say in the Death FAQ in relation to Zombros that they cannot merge over their model cap. They would have said cannot merge - full stop if they intended that to be the case. By implication, you can merge, but not over the cap. Could this be clearer - yes it could. Literally kicking Death when they are already down here. But thats not what the rule says, you are finding wording in there which is unrelated to the matched play rules. The rules on it are very clear. Generals Handbook: Can you go you go over starting size, No. Can zombies merge in matched play over starting size, No. You are trying to hard to find holes in the ruling, just like Chaos Talisman, how did that one work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHHaunts Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 5 hours ago, bottle said: I have 2 cannons in my list that can fire twice. Assuming they all wound (usually happens) each cannon now does D6x2 rather than 2D6. But if I have two targets, it now makes sense for me to split cannon 1's shots against target A and target B and cannon 2's shots split in the same manner as that will give me 2D6 against each unit rather than D6x2 and would be less risky despite in both cases each unit being shot twice by a cannon... I'm not sure this feels intuitive to me. Sorry im confused but what people are saying in this thread. The first thing it says in the FAQ is that: ‘When determining random damage in step four of the attack sequence, generate the value for each successful attack the weapon makes; the result is the damage for that single successful attack. For example, a unit of Ironjaw Brutes makes 5 successful attacks with their Gore-choppas (Damage D3). This means you would roll 5D3 to determine the number of wounds inflicted by the attacks.’ As 5D3 rolls NOT D3 x5 So we roll a D3 for each successful attack made by each weapon. Why do people appear to be saying the opposite? What have i missed? a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 1 minute ago, KHHaunts said: Why do people appear to be saying the opposite? What have i missed? GW changed the FAQ shortly after release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, KHHaunts said: Sorry im confused but what people are saying in this thread. The rules on damage were changed and then changed back. basically ignore the first 4 pages of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHHaunts Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Just now, daedalus81 said: GW changed the FAQ shortly after release. AH! thanks! That was driving me Nuts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottle Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Yep, that example I posted above was based on their first change, but it's back to normal now :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Quote You are trying to hard to find holes in the ruling, just like Chaos Talisman, how did that one work out. I was right. You were wrong. They are now rewriting (not reinterpreting) the Chaos Talisman to buff Chaos. You got what you wanted in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellbogentoff Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 6 hours ago, TalesOfSigmar said: Q: Some of the Compendium warscroll battalions have points but the units in those battalions have been replaced with new warscrolls. How does this work in a Pitched Battle? A: Battalions which include units which no longer have a warscroll cannot be used in Matched Play. I assume this takes away the battalions like the State Troop detachment? If so, they're limiting the freedom of the armies without an official battletome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHHaunts Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 32 minutes ago, Terry Pike said: But thats not what the rule says, you are finding wording in there which is unrelated to the matched play rules. The rules on it are very clear. Generals Handbook: Can you go you go over starting size, No. Can zombies merge in matched play over starting size, No. You are trying to hard to find holes in the ruling, just like Chaos Talisman, how did that one work out. 39 minutes ago, Nico said: A more specific and brand new FAQ on a particular unit is always going to trump an older rule (i.e. a GH rule). They've gone out of their way to say in the Death FAQ in relation to Zombros that they cannot merge over their model cap. They would have said cannot merge - full stop if they intended that to be the case. By implication, you can merge, but not over the cap. Could this be clearer - yes it could. Literally kicking Death when they are already down here. The Faq answers a specific question. It dosent in anyway contradict the rule saying you cant go above your original unit size. Ill admit it kind of pointless them saying it as if you cant go over your starting size then its impossible to go over 60 anyway. But you cant draw conclusions out of an answer that is not there. Otherwise there is no point to having an faq if your interpreting the answer how you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Quote But thats not what the rule says, you are finding wording in there which is unrelated to the matched play rules. Maybe. I hadn't appreciated at the time that the Death FAQ is for both Matched Play and Narrative Play. That means we're back to square one of needing it to be FAQ'ed, with the only new certainty that you cannot merge over 60 models. You can say no merging is clear, but many players aren't going to agree with you. It's maybe 60-40 in your direction (far from clear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Quote I assume this takes away the battalions like the State Troop detachment? If so, they're limiting the freedom of the armies without an official battletome It would seem so. This is also overriding the specific FAQ on that very battalion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Pike Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Nico said: I was right. You were wrong. They are now rewriting (not reinterpreting) the Chaos Talisman to buff Chaos. You got what you wanted in the end. It works on Mortal Wounds, which I said it did all along. They have now confirmed it does, rewriting or not, it always worked on Mortal Wounds and still does, not once did I ever see anyone play it any other way. The zombie thing could be settled with 1 line of text in the FAQ, hopefully it gets re-written to be a clear yes or no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHHaunts Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Nico said: Maybe. I hadn't appreciated at the time that the Death FAQ is for both Matched Play and Narrative Play. That means we're back to square one of needing it to be FAQ'ed, with the only new certainty that you cannot merge over 60 models. I assume you just mean for Narrative. As the original GHB rule still holds firm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Quote The zombie thing could be settled with 1 line of text in the FAQ, hopefully it gets re-written to be a clear yes or no Couldn't agree more on that one. Quote It works on Mortal Wounds, which I said it did all along. No - it works on mortal wound as of today. That's what rewriting a rule means. Maybe you could say purposively it was intended to be mortal wounds all along, but this would be quite a stretch given the other purposive arguments pointing the other way. Also you criticised me at the time for deploying purposive arguments the other way. If you want the Talisman of Protection to start working on regular wounds as well as mortal wounds, then be my guest. Quote not once did I ever see anyone play it any other way. You could say this about the Hints and Tips damage point. You could say it about the Les Martin Clump. Few people spotting something doesn't amount to much. For what it's worth (and it's a very small factor), our club did all play that it only works on regular wounds both Chaos players and otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellbogentoff Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Nico said: It would seem so. This is also overriding the specific FAQ on that very battalion. That's a shame, as a lot of the non-battletome battalions for armies like freeguild allow for low cost entry level. The newer ones on the app require almost every model in the faction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmimzie Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Just now, Russellbogentoff said: That's a shame, as a lot of the non-battletome battalions for armies like freeguild allow for low cost entry level. The newer ones on the app require almost every model in the faction! I think to your point the getting started box battalions should have points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellbogentoff Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, Nico said: It would seem so. This is also overriding the specific FAQ on that very battalion. The Facebook group debates seem to suggest that unless there is no longer any warscroll, as opposed to renamed warscrolls, they can still be used as per the previous FAQ. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Just now, Russellbogentoff said: The Facebook group debates seem to suggest that unless there is no longer any warscroll, as opposed to renamed warscrolls, they can still be used as per the previous FAQ. Thoughts? Maybe. That was the previous position though before today (although that was contentious in some quarters). My understanding is that they have closed down this avenue entirely, but maybe it's not that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.