How do you beat Kunnin' Rukk mixed?

[Nico]

Quote

We all knew the Arrer Boyz points were too low to start with,,they are 5 pts a wound for a solid 2 shot profile that even has a 6+ save..Sheese they are cheaper per wound than Zombies that have no save and pitiful combat stats.Bottom line is Arrer Boyz need to bump up at least to 140..even 160 per warscroll.

  The T-Tusks full profile with its auto 6 morts was always over the top,either change that damage profile to d3+3 or push its points up to 400 or so.In this case I would rather see the damage profile change but I know they wont do that.

The main problem is the model cap - 80 wounds is absurd for a unit that is so strong- such that you need to do 40 damage to remove the extra attack buff. I think a cap of 30 models and a 20% cost increase would solve the issue (e.g. 120 for 10 models).

[Gauche]

4 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Azyr provides the official channel where that could happen.

It provides the channel, I want to see actions. I am ready and eager to be impressed.

 

I think a lot of the changes proposed to Arrow Boys will kill the whole Bonesplitterz Faction. It's really only kept alive by Kunnin' Rukk as a viable competitive army. All the Heroes are bad to midrange, they have no real access to Rend, they're asked to take huge Units but then are on bigger bases so cannot bring numbers to bear. I'm not saying that's the end of the world but they'd pretty much be back-burnering the book until "Greenskins" is produced.

I'm also not sure Destruction would have any competitive lists at all, assuming no other tweaks. Thundertusks are integral to BCR lists because they can deal with some Units via ranged and heal the Stonehorn. Without that the army is greatly weakened. Come on Ironjawz point reduction!  Just thinking out loud.

[redbeardboss]

8 hours ago, Nico said:

GW use purposive construction these days (like the interpretation of every other document in the rest of England & Wales) - not strict literalism. It specifically says reroll dice which are 6 or more (i.e. after modifiers, as it isn't possible to roll a 7). When two rules clash like this, taking an interpretation of the rules that leads to absurdities here and which would lead to other absurdities (like the Paradoxical Shield being entirely a buff, rather than a trade off) just to put a rule (note that this is an older rule as well) on a pedestal is not how AoS is or should be played.

rerolls are before modifiers. its not even a question on that rule. its one of the most clear rules in the game lol. I know its not "official" but on one of the fb groups gw replied to this exact question saying they put the "or more" to cover them for anything in the future that changes.

[Captain Marius]

Does this mean if you had +1 save and reroll save buffs on a 4+ save (eg Kurnoth Hunters trick) you would reroll 1s 2s and 3s THEN all dice with 3 or more would pass? Meaning those 3s you rerolled could come up as 1 or 2 and fail? So essentially youd have a 4+/3+ save? I dont think ive quite got my head around that!

[Nico]

Quote

rerolls are before modifiers. its not even a question on that rule. its one of the most clear rules in the game lol. I know its not "official" but on one of the fb groups gw replied to this exact question saying they put the "or more" to cover them for anything in the future that changes.

That's not an official ruling and quite simply I don't think that this is how the game is played in tournaments. Perhaps it should be done that way. More than 90% of players (including me) were unaware of how damage rolls (you were supposed to roll a single D3 for all the Kurnoth Hunter Scythe hits and multiply that by the number of unsaved wounds - so swingy and dramatic) were meant to be done for over a year.

The purpose of the core rule is pretty clear - so that you don't miss out on rerolling 1s because of +1 to hit or -1 rend etc. (and because rerolling the 2s would be daft and fiddly). However, it arguably doesn't work (it leads to a contradiction of something being both successful and unsuccessful); when applied to concepts such as rerolling unsuccessful saves or the like. 

Quote

Does this mean if you had +1 save and reroll save buffs on a 4+ save (eg Kurnoth Hunters trick) you would reroll 1s 2s and 3s THEN all dice with 3 or more would pass? Meaning those 3s you rerolled could come up as 1 or 2 and fail? So essentially youd have a 4+/3+ save? I dont think ive quite got my head around that!

This is precisely the kind of absurdity/head scratching pain that the rule surely cannot reasonably be interpreted as creating.

It will be played as a simple 3+ rerollable save in practice particularly in a tournament as far as I can tell. Maybe @Forestreveries or @scrubyandwells or @Chris Tomlin have a view.

Playing Devil's Advocate, applying the reroll before the modifier would be a fairly significant nerf to Kurnoth Hunters, which might tone them down a bit, but would probably not avert the clamour for a savage points increase (please please please write a Sylvaneth list of your own before trying to repoint Kurnoth Hunters - preferably increase the costs of the bow hunters only as it is only them in Mixed Order Hurricanum lists, that are overperforming). 

Paradoxical Shield

It's even more the case for the Paradoxical Shield which is surely intended to be a trade off. You add two to the save, but must reroll successful saves. If this was interpreted literally for a 4+ save, then it would lead to the absurdity (and literally a paradox) that rolls of 2 and 3 would be unsuccessful saves, so they wouldn't be saved, but then you would add 2, so they would then be successful (which is a paradox or a contradiction as the saves are both successful and not successful). This is clever and fluffy, but how do you actually resolve this in the tournament? Meanwhile, rolls of 4, 5 and 6 would be successful saves and hence rerolls. Then on the reroll a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 would be a save.

On reflection, maybe that was what they intended. I'm starting to doubt myself - damn you Kairos - sowing doubts in frail mortal minds! However, it would make this an exceptionally strong artefact in the game (since on the first roll you either save when you wouldn't have done normally, or you have a reroll (i.e. you've lost nothing as you get to roll again; and then on the second roll you are +2 to save, which is colossal). To be fair, there are a couple of standout artefacts out there which are no-brainers; and it's only available for the mortal heroes (who aren't mega-choppy); and the artefacts available to DoT aren't . Maybe it's a joke from Tzeentch at our expense.

Thoughts anyone?

 

 

[Chris Tomlin]

21 minutes ago, Nico said:

That's not an official ruling and quite simply I don't think that this is how the game is played in tournaments. 

The purpose of the core rule is pretty clear - so that you don't miss out on rerolling 1s because of +1 to hit or -1 rend etc. (and because rerolling the 2s would be daft and fiddly). However, it simply doesn't work (it leads to a contradiction of something being both successful and unsuccessful); when applied to concepts such as rerolling unsuccessful saves or the like. 

This is precisely the kind of absurdity/head scratching pain that the rule cannot reasonably be interpreted as creating.

It will be played as a simple 3+ rerollable save in practice particularly in a tournament as far as I can tell. Maybe @Forestreveries or @scrubyandwells or @Chris Tomlin have a view.

Deary me this is giving me a headache to read haha!! I think I need more coffee.

But yeh, of course it's a simple 3+ rerollable...unless I'm missing something? FYI I'll flat out ignore any references to FB posts!!

[Nico]

Quote

But yeh, of course it's a simple 3+ rerollable...unless I'm missing something?

Cheers Chris.

This is the point - technically and literally it's not - you should reroll the 3 as rerolls do indeed come before modifiers, but this subtlety seems to have been missed by most tournament players (except that they all know that they would do reroll 1s to hit even if they had +1 or -1 to hit because that comes up all the time). I'm advocating a purposive interpretation to match what tournament players do in practice - although perhaps I'm wrong to do so and this is inadvertently buffing Kurnoth Hunters and other types of reroll.

I've amended my post a bit since your response Chris.

[Nico]

Maybe they really do want the paradox to occur during a game - it certainly does make narrative sense. Ok - I'm leaning towards another house rule (which will both buff the Paradoxical Shield and nerf Kurnoth Hunters a tad). Your thoughts @Mirage8112? 

The more I think about it, the more important the point becomes. At present, Fulminators have what I call a 35/36 save against Kunning Rukk Arrers (without any external buffs). Reroll failed saves are a huge factor for defending against Kunning Rukk. Look - I tied this massive digression back to the topic of the thread. 

Wait a minute - my brain has just kicked in - the rerolls are optional not mandatory for the Kurnoth Hunters ("can reroll" - not must) - that's why it's effectively a 3+ rerollable, so you choose not to reroll the 3 and then you add one for a successful save!

Thoughts on the Paradoxical Shield are still welcome!

[Nico]

Hmm - still an issue with Hunters 4+ save vs -1 rend in combat phase. If rerolls first, then you would reroll 1, 2 and 3, but the 4 is the problem. It's not unsuccessful until it's modified, so literally it cannot be rerolled and so later when modified it will fail. So there is still an issue.

 

 

[Carnelian]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

Hmm - still an issue with Hunters 4+ save vs -1 rend in combat phase. If rerolls first, then you would reroll 1, 2 and 3, but the 4 is the problem. It's not unsuccessful until it's modified, so literally it cannot be rerolled and so later when modified it will fail. So there is still an issue.

I think it depends on the specific wording.  If it says "reroll failed saves" then that means re rolling after modifiers, as whether a save is successful or not is not worked out until after applying rend. If it just says "reroll saves" then it would be before the step of applying rend.

[Grimnaud]

17 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

I think it depends on the specific wording.  If it says "reroll failed saves" then that means re rolling after modifiers, as whether a save is successful or not is not worked out until after applying rend. If it just says "reroll saves" then it would be before the step of applying rend.

I'd have to disagree.

Rerolls happens before any modifiers are applied, as per the base rules. If you take for example a unit of Kurnoth hunters, then the dice you could (choose to, since the wording on their rule says can) are those not making the save on their war scroll, 4+. Then, after the rerolls, the modifiers are applied. So if they are in cover and get a +1, then every dice showing 3 or more is saved. If they are not in cover and the attack has a rend of 1, then every dice showing 4 or less deals damage. Any fours on the initial roll would automatically fail. This makes rend more powerful, and buffs to armour slightly less so, but there is no major issue or paradox here that I can see. It doesn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense though, I'll happily admit that. 

[Nico]

Quote

Rerolls happens before any modifiers are applied, as per the base rules. If you take for example a unit of Kurnoth hunters, then the dice you could (choose to, since the wording on their rule says can) are those not making the save on their war scroll, 4+. Then, after the rerolls, the modifiers are applied. So if they are in cover and get a +1, then every dice showing 3 or more is saved. If they are not in cover and the attack has a rend of 1, then every dice showing 4 or less deals damage. Any fours on the initial roll would automatically fail. This makes rend more powerful, and buffs to armour slightly less so, but there is no major issue or paradox here that I can see. It doesn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense though, I'll happily admit that. 

It does make a fair difference for Kurnoths - particularly against -2 rend as well. If they have cover and -2 rend, then the net effect is -1, in which case the save roll of 4 would be bad news (it's not a reroll and not a save).

If it's just -2 rend (no cover), then they would reroll 1, 2 or 3 (fails), but not 4s and 5s - the 4s and 5s would then be modified and would fail.

Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this one, otherwise it might have to become a clarification for our event - London's Calling 2017 for which we've compiled a list of FAQs (mostly to deal with new points from the Stormcast and DoT Battletomes). 

There are a lot of rules where people understandably adopt habits (like taking away models/lying them down as Battleshock counters before a unit has finished making all of its attacks, which most players do to save time) as they don't normally make a difference, but then every so often they do (e.g. Wrathmongers dying in the combat phase).

[Requizen]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

That's not an official ruling and quite simply I don't think that this is how the game is played in tournaments. Perhaps it should be done that way. More than 90% of players (including me) were unaware of how damage rolls (you were supposed to roll a single D3 for all the Kurnoth Hunter Scythe hits and multiply that by the number of unsaved wounds - so swingy and dramatic) were meant to be done for over a year.

 

Rerolling before modifiers is an official ruling. Final sentence of "Tools of War" section in the 4 page rules: "You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls happen before modifers to the roll (if any) are applied." Pretty clear in my book.

As for rerolling saves (or other rolls) with modifiers, I don't think it's that complicated. Every rule I've seen that grants rerolls says "can reroll" or "may reroll", not "must reroll failed saves". The distinction is that you can tell that a 3+, while technically a failed save roll for a Kurnoth Hunter, will in fact be a pass with the modifier, so you choose not to reroll it. In fact, you can choose not to reroll any saves if losing that model will benefit you (if you can return the model back to the unit with full health, for instance). 

While that's not precisely straightforward, I don't see it as being difficult.

[Nico]

Quote

Rerolling before modifiers is an official ruling. Final sentence of "Tools of War" section in the 4 page rules: "You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls happen before modifers to the roll (if any) are applied." Pretty clear in my book.

As for rerolling saves (or other rolls) with modifiers, I don't think it's that complicated. Every rule I've seen that grants rerolls says "can reroll" or "may reroll", not "must reroll failed saves". 

You make a good point - we better get ready for some Weeping Willows in the ranks of the Sylvaneth.

The exception is the Paradoxical Shield, see above, where the reroll of successful saves is mandatory, but the point here may be that it really is intended to cause a paradox/mess with your minds, as that's very Tzeentchy. 

[Requizen]

7 minutes ago, Nico said:

You make a good point - we better get ready for some Weeping Willows in the ranks of the Sylvaneth.

The exception is the Paradoxical Shield, see above, where the reroll of successful saves is mandatory, but the point here may be that it really is intended to cause a paradox/mess with your minds, as that's very Tzeentchy. 

True, that one is a conundrum. In this case, you don't truly know if it's successful or not until after modifiers, so it's a bit silly.

On the other hand, the very last section, The Most Important Rule, says that if the rules aren't 100% clear, to use common sense. I think any of these questions are pretty easily cleared up in that way, though I guess you can dice it off if there's a conflict.

[Nico]

Messing with time and chance and probability is inherent to Tzeentch (e.g. Destiny Dice, Kairos and the special rules for the Enlightened) so Paradoxical Shield may make sense despite creating a paradox....

[Mirage8112]

Generally, you re-roll dice before modifiers. But the case of paradoxical shield it might be the other way, since the reroll effect is triggered by the ability in question. From the FAQ:

 

 

I think your supposed to apply the modifier first in this case. Since it's the modifier that triggers the re-roll.

 

In the case of the hunters with shield (+1). It would essentially be a straight 3+ reroll, since a 1 or 2 will fail but 3's will pass each time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

[Mirage8112]

I'll add that the "rerolls before modifiers" is really only applicable when you roll a dice of a specific number. I.e. 1's or 6's. Not when you reroll a failed dice roll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Quote

I'll add that the "rerolls before modifiers" is really only applicable when you roll a dice of a specific number. I.e. 1's or 6's. Not when you reroll a failed dice roll.

That was my starting point, but we've been back and forth since then.

[daedalus81]

I don't think the Tzeentch shield is quite a paradox.

Is there anything that says when a reroll occurs?  A save doesn't become successful until modifiers are applied.  So the reroll doesn't occur until after.

2+ save against -1 rend
Roll a 4
Becomes a 3
Save is successful
You now must reroll the save

Or did I miss something?

[Nico]

Looking at the FAQ re Retributors, it's interesting to compare a modifier (the Screamers - natural sixes become natural ones) versus a mandatory reroll - "reroll hits of six or more" from Divine Light. It does seem odd that as a Retributor with +1 to hit in a Stormcast-off - you could roll a five against the unit protected by Divine Light, not reroll it (as it's not yet a 6), add one and then get your 2 mortal wounds.

[Nico]

 

29 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Generally, you re-roll dice before modifiers. But the case of paradoxical shield it might be the other way, since the reroll effect is triggered by the ability in question. From the FAQ:

 

 

I think your supposed to apply the modifier first in this case. Since it's the modifier that triggers the re-roll.

 

In the case of the hunters with shield (+1). It would essentially be a straight 3+ reroll, since a 1 or 2 will fail but 3's will pass each time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Incidentally, doesn't that final FAQ answer imply that if you're general dies and comes back (Ring of Immortality for example), he doesn't lose bonuses/abilities affecting it; and similarly that as he is being used to represent the same unit "not a different unit of the same type", that you would keep the general status and hence access to the Command Ability? I've heard the opposite view expressed - that they do lose the general status and command ability (but not the reasoning). Is there anything to point this way? The FAQ on the Ring simply says returning the slain bearer costs points. I've not considered the point at length since then. Would also matter for an Anointed on Phoenix.

[mdkinker]

I'm wondering if much of the emphasis on shooting in competitive lists isn't at least in part a result of the lack of punch people have been mentioning in regards to cavalry/chariots. If cavalry/chariots were more of a threat (providing that potential first turn charge with a large amount of force), do people think that point values would need to be changed (or the "look out, Sir" saves added, etc.)?

It came to mind after reading the "Worst Warscrolls" comments after reading this post.

[Mirage8112]

 
Incidentally, doesn't that final FAQ answer imply that if you're general dies and comes back (Ring of Immortality for example), he doesn't lose bonuses/abilities affecting it; and similarly that as he is being used to represent the same unit "not a different unit of the same type", that you would keep the general status and hence access to the Command Ability? I've heard the opposite view expressed - that they do lose the general status and command ability (but not the reasoning). Is there anything to point this way? The FAQ on the Ring simply says returning the slain bearer costs points. I've not considered the point at length since then. Would also matter for an Anointed on Phoenix.

Yup. It does seem to imply that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Requizen]

30 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The reason I would like Look-Out Sir is simply that from an immersion standpoint I find it ridiculous that you have to hide heroes or they lead from behind so they don't get unrealistically picked out and shot apart in the first turn if they were to lead from the front like their literary counterparts that we are emulating.

Doesn't that break immersion though? The dude standing in front is clearly going to get shot to death, despite watching Aragorn or Gandalf charge ahead in Return of the King. It's much more realistic for him to hide behind units of dudes. The idea of Look Out Sir always seemed to break realism for me in 40k. Like "oh, the Tactical marines magically saw the sniper fire coming from across the map, waited until their boss took exactly two hits, and then started jumping in front of the bullets as they were being shot". Or with blast weapons, like they all piled the leader in a protective dome of corpses and he magically was unharmed by that Battle Cannon. 

Look Out Sir really only makes sense when people are already in front of you, there really shouldn't be a situation where a leader standing heroically in front of a unit survives while they all slowly die behind him from the guns pointed at him.

But it's all just toy soldiers, anyway.