Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Darkfine

Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Celestant-Prime

About Darkfine

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A game state where in you can have enemy models within 1” of a model from a charging unit before legally performing the charge move ie. “charging out of combat”. Now, an argument could be made that what I’m positing could also lead to that game state until you consider how the rule is written. On to participles and their attempts to hang on. It differentiates the two subjects of the sentence. On the one hand you have “a model from this unit(A,B,C) and on the other you have “the charging model”. If “a model” refers to any chariot then we still need to identify which model is forcing the trigger check (the one performing the charge). The last sentence of the rule further reinforces the thought. Again I’ll point out, models “A and C” do not cease to be “a model from the unit” while model “B” is performing a charge move. There are a few ways to clearly write “After this model completes a charge move roll a dice for each enemy unit with 1 inch”. I play Nurgle, that particular rule pops up a lot. Just for clarity, I don’t own any chariots and regardless of how the rule works I am not going to. The model looks silly and the unit isn’t a hero. That said the rule is poorly phrased at the very least.
  2. Sorry I ducked out on this but life happened! In your example you are arbitrarily changing “a model” to “that model”. The rule is fairly explicit in its use of “a model”. To say “within 1” of any model from this unit after any model from this unit finishes a charge move” doesn’t work as it implies game states that can’t exist. Regardless of anything else, chariots A, B and C are still “a model from this unit”. There is plenty of precedent for GW to use the term “charging model” or “model finishing a charge”. So either whoever penned this felt like being excessively wordy to the games detriment (a likely scenario) or every charge does indeed trigger a check.
  3. I’m reasonably certain Slaanesh was the final nail in the Blightking coffin. Between all of the -1 to hit and the 16 Slaanesh summon points they give up they just aren’t worth taking in my opinion.
  4. You sort of highlight the issues. If it were intended that the trigger only happen once and immediately after it’s charge the rule wouldn’t use “A” and “The”. For instance, if chariot A charges the left most side of a 10 wide unit, a character and the edge of another unit you get 3 triggers. Now, because the rule says complete but don’t allocate after “each” charge, if you have a second that completes a charge sequentially you would then “roll a dice for each unit within 1” of “a model” from the unit. The first chariot is a model from the unit and has three units within an inch of it.
  5. Has anyone looked real close at the wording for impact wounds on a group of chariots? It sort of reads like each chariot triggers everyone time one in the same group completes a charge move.
  6. It doesn’t though, direct quote “At the start of your hero phase, you receive one depravity point for each friendly Infernal Enrapturess that is on the battlefield and part of a Slaanesh army.” That is the ability word for word. This isn’t even a case of trying to game a poorly worded rule. To say I get 6 points for each of my 6 Enrapturess models is blatant cheating.
  7. That isn’t it how it is worded at all, where did that even come from? ”Infernal Entrapturess generates a depravity point for each Infernal Enrapturess that is in the battlefield and a part of a Slaanesh army” is how it is being read? Why are people adding words to a rule that isn’t there? ”You receive 1 point per Entrapturess” This doesn’t need to be faq’d, at all. It is literally the correct way to say “you gain X DP per turn where X is the number of instances of this rule”.
  8. Incidentally, if you invest enough in protecting them Chosen hit pretty hard with little need for buffing. An easy to cast Demonic Power sees them hitting really hard, more so with a Warshrine and +1 to wound.
  9. The Slaanesh aesthetic has been a hot mess since the Diaz sculpts were retired. In my opinion everything from the demonettes to the ridiculous lawnmower chariots are silly in a bad way. Specifically to the KoS it is 100% the pose of the model. It doesn’t look like a lithe, deadly creature. It looks like something trying to hold in flatulence.
  10. Looks like it’s coming along! Personally I can’t stand that model, will probably be looking elsewhere for Keeper of Secrets. Which is unfortunate , aside from another Slaanesh sculpt or two I’ve never overtly disliked a GW sculpt.
  11. So, I’m curious if anyone else is struggling to stay relevant lately? The army has always been dependent on getting spells off and stacking various bonuses but it doesn’t feel like enough anymore. Has Nurgle just naturally passed out of the limelight for the time being?
  12. It is! I’m holding off working on those regions as I’m trying to decide if I want to tackle hanging fur or not. It would definitely sell the “woolly” part but I’m not so confident I could do it well enough. Also I got distracted again and did some work on this dapper gent.
  13. Taking a little break from sculpting to nail down the howda and armor plates. The “helmet” is proving to be a fairly substantial problem.
  14. I’d just do one Gnarlmaw unless you want to grab a Slimux then I’d own three. You’d want to own 6-7 if you want to run a menagerie. I also wouldn’t run a menagerie.
×
×
  • Create New...