BillyOcean

You can take either on disc or on foot. It is explicitly stated in the Battalions section of the Core Rules that you can ignore any subheadings in a unit's warscroll name when comparing it to the unit entries listed in a battalion. If this were not the case then there would lots of problems, for example Stormcast Eternals would never be able to take any Vanguard Raptors in the Justicar Battalion, because there are only warscrolls for Vanguard Raptors (with longstrike xbows) and Vanguard Raptors (with hurricane xbows).

The Lord of Change cannot do this, it's in the FAQ. A 6 and a 2 is still 8 for the LoC's cast attempt. If you are willing to use two DD 6's and a command point to get a casting value of 13, I think it would pretty reasonable for it to be unbindable by most wizards. Even if you don't spend the command point and its a 12, your opponent would be pretty unwise to spend an unbind attempt on that. So in general, I don't believe there would anything super powerful about allowing all destiny dice to be unmodifiable. But I also don't really care any more - it is what it is and the rules and exceptions are least clear now, so I'm happy.

Huzzah, the debate has been settled, thanks very much to the rules team and to everyone here who submitted the question to them - this seems like a great model for how we should proceed in the future when multiple plausible interpretations of a rule exist.

I think this thread serves as the proof that clarification is needed... For all those stating that the rule is absolutely clear to them, you should realize that there are other people who think that the opposite interpretation is absolutely clear. I find that both sides of the argument hold merit, and while I lean towards one interpretation, I don't think my opinion is very important - the only thing I'm interested is an official ruling one way or the other from GW. I encourage everyone participating in the debate to submit the question to AOSFAQ, which will hopefully force their hand to do that.

I agree with that - I'm a Tzeentch player and was already playing Battleshock and Rend the non-broken way before the FAQ, because it didn't seem right and I was sure it would be Errata'd. With the Horror Icon rule I will ask for my opponents interpretation of the FAQ and play it that way (for what its worth, my regular opponents come down on different sides of this). My only point in this argument is that we shouldn't have to make these calls as players, there should be a carefully worded document that doesn't leave it in doubt.

Indeed! And then let's try to apply consistent logic to the Icon rule, where a lot of arguments are hinging on the FAQ's statement that Destiny Dice in a battleshock test count as unmodified. "Counts as" can't mean "different from" in one case, and not the other. I will keep advocating for the position that both of these things are unclear and the Rules Team should be asked to publish a new, carefully-worded FAQ that accurately conveys their intent. I don't see this position as particularly controversial.

OK - if thats your opinion, I respect it. My opinion is that there are two sides to the argument and I want the rules team to adjudicate.

Well, there is a plenty of precedent for Community Team not reflecting Rules Team thinking. And I already said I'm absolutely happy to play it either way, whatever the Rules Team decides. All I'm trying to do is make the case that it does need a clarification from the Rules Team, because its not as black and white as presented here. Do you disagree? You would rather the Rules Team not clarify?

Every dice roll in AoS has both a modified and unmodified value. If I were to naturally role the 1 on the battleshock test, then it would have an unmodified value of 1 and a modified value of 1+(dead models). If I roll a 6 to hit against a unit that is -1 to hit, it has an unmodified value of 6 and modified value of 5, therefore triggering any abilities that work on an unmodified 6, but failing to trigger any abilities that work on a 6+ to hit. etc, etc...

I'm not going to state definitively that you are wrong - as far as I'm concerned whatever the Rules Team (not Community Team) decides on this is how it will be played, and I'm happy with that. But I want to lay out the counter argument to the case you are making, as logically as possible, because I don't think its as simple as you make out. The counter argument goes as follows: According to the core rules "an unmodified dice roll refers to the result after any rerolls but before any modifiers apply”. So there we have our definition of unmodified role. Its what the dice shows after potential rerolls but before we add or subtract any modifiers. According to the FAQ "If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a battleshock test, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the number of models slain from that unit as normal." So... if we are using a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test we go about modifying it in the normal way. Applying these two rules together: If we use a Destiny Dice in a Battleshock test, we first select the dice, which replaces the roll we would have made. According to the Core Rule quoted above, this gives us the unmodified value of the dice. Then we add the number of dead models, which gives us the modified value of the dice. In other words, if we modify the dice "as normal", as the FAQ dictates, then the Core Rules dictate that the dice has both an unmodified value (before the modifier is applied) and a modified value (after the modifier is applies). If the unmodified value is a 1, then the Pink Horror Icon triggers. Like I said, if the Rules Team decide to come down on the other side, I'm fine with it. But as far as I can see, this is the most consistent way to apply the FAQ in conjunction with the Core Rules definition of modified vs. unmodified. As far as I can see, there is no conflict between the Destiny Dice being modified as normal in Battleshock test, and it still having an unmodified value of 1.

I concur. Trust the community team to muddy up the issue! I would be shocked if the rules team come down with the same ruling because it requires a complete redefining how modifiers are applied. Specifically, in the core rules it states that "an unmodified dice roll refers to the result after any rerolls but before any modifiers apply". A destiny dice is modified as normal by the number of dead models in a battleshock test. Before applying the modifier, the value of the dice is 1, i.e. its unmodified value is 1.. So, it triggers the Pink Horror banner rule. I don't see any other reading of the rule, unless it is specifically reworded to state that destiny dice break the italicized core rule above, i.e. there is no such thing as "before the modifier is applied". It would be a very weird precedent indeed.

This FAQ has raised a lot of questions. And some of those Questions are bound to get Asked Frequently....

I think this is why the "as normal" wording is so important. The normal state of affairs is that we add the modifier to get the modified value, but remember that the dice also has an unmodified value as well.

I don't think the DD / pink horror interaction is ambiguous. In AoS, all dice have both an unmodified value (what it says on the dice) and a modified value (after all modifiers apply). The general destiny dice rule states the dice cannot be modified, meaning that these only have a modified value and no unmodified value. Now the new FAQ says that in the case of battleshock, the destiny dice is modified by the number of slain models "as normal". So, now we are back to the "normal" state of the dice having both a modified and unmodified values. If the unmodified value is a 1, then you get your d6 horrors back.

I (respectfully) disagree based on previous wording, but the FAQ has made a moot point, so not worth arguing about now! 😀

It wasn't a change to the generic summon table, where it is listed as (unit name) Lord of Change. But its a change to the Guild of Summoners, where it is stated that for 9 fate poimnts they can summon (keyword) LORD OF CHANGE. I suppose it could be argued that Guild can still summon Kairos because specific overwrites generic and Guild's rule is more specific than the regular summon table. But, that is reaching quite a bit, and you're not going to convince opponents its ok. I prefer to read the FAQ as a blanket ban on summoning Kairos, including in Guild, and plan to play it that way.

I certainly don't think 30-blocks are bad. But building a Witchfyre Coven basically goes as follows for me: Grab 6 Enlightened on disc and a Fatemaster; select the other heroes I want; fill up on Acolytes with remaining points. After I've bought my heroes, I usually only have space for 50 acolytes so my choice is 30-10-10 or 20-20-10. For the following reasons, I settled on 20-20-10: 1. Can cover more of the table with a useful hero phase shooting threat. With 30-10-10, my opponents were able to manage the range more easily and often end up only taking 10 shots. It is harder for them to stay clear of both 20s. 2. Better manages the risk of failing the rend spell. If you fail it on the 30-block its quite disappointing. If you fail it on one of the 20-blocks, you just shoot with the other in the hero phase. 3. Gives less of an obvious target for horde-killer spells. Having said that, I can certainly see the argument for 30-10-10 so it will come down to personal preference. And some people will be trying to fit more than 50 acolytes in their list, at which point a 30-block makes sense.

Well, these are all very positive changes in my opinion. Changehost is certainly knocked down a peg but it will still be very powerful in the hands of a good player. Its just less of a no-downside situation now that you cant teleport 12 flamers along with their horror screen. Destiny dice now get the worst of both worlds - can't be modified when we want them too, can be modified when we'd rather they weren't. Which I think is fair, as they are an extremely powerful mechanic anyway. I wasn't using the rend and battleshock shenanigans anyway because it didn't seem that was intended, so no change for me. And the small buff to acolytes is welcome, mostly just from a book-keeping perspective because it was annoying having to take the shrugs in a piecemeal way until the shields ran out. Overall I'm very happy - this makes us less of bogeyman while maintaining a powerful and interesting book.

I absolutely love it.

I love that while the rest of the internet complains about Changehost, horrors, flamers, the discussion here is mostly about arcanite builds. I have now racked around 15 games with the new book (its been a busy few weeks), mostly iterations of Witchfyre Coven in the Pyrofane Cult. It has been extremely rewarding - certainly powerful, but with lots of trade-offs and still very much playing the game of Warhammer, unlike Changehost. After all these games, I have now arrived at a list that I'm ready to take to a tournament at the end of the month. Below I'll give my opinions on some of the discussion points above: 1. Enlightened are not a tax in Witchfyre. Acolytes need to be complemented with something that can punch hard in combat and, more importantly something that can force the fight into your opponents table half. Otherwise it feels like you are just letting your opponent smash their army into your lines of acolytes and hoping you win the grind. Six Enlightened on Disc provide the fast combat threat you need. I think one of the strongest things about Witchfyre is it combines this key unit in with your full battleline, allowing you to keep drops quite low (5 in my preferred list). 2. You don't need to bring the Shaman to make Enlightened worthwhile. I've played both with and without him, and settled on a list without. If you manage to set up situations where the Enlightened can go second, six will usually do enough damage with all the rerolls that you didn't need the +1 hit. If you need them to go first, they will get more out of the Fatemaster than the Shaman anyway, and you are likely bringing a Fatemaster because of how well he works with acolytes. I am usually charging them in turn 2 with the Fatemaster, with the reckless abandon agenda for +1 attack on all profiles, and hitting first. Thats 25 spears, 12 beaks, and 18 discs on average, rerolling to hit, which is usually enough to wipe my opponents biggest threat. Don't get me wrong, Shaman buff is nice too, but he doesn't help the rest of the army the way the Fatemaster does. 3. Yes you can easily fit 30 acolytes in the Fatemaster bubble, and other stuff two. He is on a 60mm base, so we are dealing with a >20" bubble here. I have arrived at 20-20-10 acolytes as my preferred build, and am usually looking to keep at least one of the 20-man units and the LoC (with the Pyrofane artefact) in the bubble for turn 1 shooting, and turn 2 hero phase shooting, before he zooms off somewhere the Enlightened. Finally... seeing as everyone is in love with the Fastemaster now, and talking about conversions, perhaps we should start a little "show us your Fatemaster"... I will go first! I should point out that I was already playing the Fatemaster in the old book, just because I loved the concept of mortal lord on disc, and had made this conversion about a year ago. So I was extra excited when he became good! This was a pretty easy conversion, happy to talk through it if anyone wants to recreate it.

To be clear I'm simply trying to logic through how the rule might be intended. In a competitive game, I'd state my interpretation before the game began and if my opponent doesn't agree I'd be happy to play it the more restrictive way, especially seeing as the Myrmourn ruling is the closest thing we have to a clarification right now (although there are some differences). But if GW did intend it the less restrictive way, I'd simply like a FAQ stating as much, so it doesn't look like I'm trying to twist the rules to my advantage when I ask my opponent about it.

The more I think about the details of the wording, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. Heres the way I see it: Under "Unbinding and Dispelling" in the Endless Spells rules, there are three paragraphs. Paragraph 1 lists the restrictions for attempting to dispel (beginning of hero phase, once per wizard, loses a casting attempt). Paragraph 2 gives the mechanics for attempting the dispel (30" range, beat the casting value). Paragraph 3 says what happens if the dispel is successful (remove the model, can cast it again later). The LoC's ability allows him to "Pick an Endless spell". This sentence is nothing to do with making a dispel attempt, so needn't follow any of the restrictions for making such an attempt. Once he's picked it, the spell is dispelled. So, now the only one of the three paragraphs that is relevant is the one concerning what happens when a spell is dispelled - the model is removed and can be used again later. So, by the wording I'd argue that he can do it any point in the hero phase, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any point where the restrictions on making a dispel attempt would get triggered. But I'd probably prefer an FAQ clearing it up so I don't need to argue it through with opponents at the tournament table.

Indeed. This is why I prefer the Gaunt on foot rather than disc, despite losing mobility. In my local scene and tournaments, all forests are played with the Wyldwood rule where you don't have line of sight if the line passes through 1" of a forest, unless either model can fly. Not sure if thats how that forests are generally played by everyone? But then I can just put the Gaunt in a forest if one is available, and he's pretty safe. Turn 1 he'll just be summoning and throwing out the Sigil or other endless spell anyway, so he doesn't need line of sight to anything himself.

Yeah, thats what I'm thinking. 5 out-drops those armies who don't use a battalion (Skaven and CoS), and is in the mix against against other armies that can fit about half their units into a useful battalion (FEC, Slaanesh, OBR, etc). It obviously loses choice to armies that have the big boy battalions. With that in mind, the list is designed to be able to captitalize on having choice, but not care too much if I don't have it. If an opponent chooses to go first and claim objectives , they will have to come into Acolyte shooting range, and between that and Enlightened combat punch I should be able to bludgeon them off over a couple of turns (although I should run the numbers against 2x20 Hearthguard). If an opponent chooses to go second, then I should still be able to have a meaningful first turn in which LoC snipes a support character (spell portal is critical), I rack up 7-8 fate points to set up a turn 2 summon, and the summoned pinks plus 2x10 acolytes form screens to prepare for potentially being doubled. As long as my 30 Acolytes, 6 Enlightened, and characters survive into turn 2 then i still like my chances. The main thing to be careful of is armies that will go first and try to snipe the Gaunt Summoner before he completes his summon. That would just be a colossal waste of points, so it may be necessary to back-edge him at times just summon the pinks in a less favorable spot. Perhaps its even worth given him the second artefact, something like Gryph Feather Charm so he can be -2 to shoot with Look Out Sir.

For the battalion you just need 3 units of Acolytes and 1 unit of Enlightened (disc or foot). I think it's a really nice battalion that can be supplemented in a lot of different ways, as long as you like Acolytes! You are right that a nice block of tzaangors would help given it some staying power, and LoC may not be necessary. But I just can't leave my big chicken on the shelf. I'll give some feedback when I've experimented with the version I posted. I'd be interested to hear how yours goes too.