Darkfine
-
Posts
134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Darkfine
-
-
On 5/23/2019 at 1:08 PM, Rentar said:
The trick here is to remember that, during a charge, models move one at a time. It is not the unit that moves, but the models.
So, with this sentence in 4 parts:
- Roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move.
- On a 2+ that enemy unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
- If this unit has more than 1 model, roll to determine if mortal wounds are inflicted after each model completes its charge move,
- but do not allocate the mortal wounds until after all models from this unit have moved.
Seems simple enough.
Step 1: Move 1 model.
Step 2: Determine number of enemy units within 1" of that model.
Step 3: Roll a d6, on a 2+ that enemy units suffers D3 mortal wounds BUT DO NOT YET ALLOCATE THESE WOUNDS. Suffering and allocating wounds are two separate steps.
Step 4: If there are more models to be moved, repeat steps 1-3 until there are no more models within this unit. Once there are no more models within this unit to be moved, proceed to step 5.
Step 5: Allocate the mortal wounds rolled for in step 3.Example:
X X X X X O O O O O [X and O represent enemy models from X unit and O unit, each 1" apart.]
Y1 Y2 Y3 [Y represent models from the chariot unit]
Roll for charge.
Step 1:
X X X X X O O O O O
Y2Y1 Y3
Step 2: A model from both X and O are within 1" of Y2.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for X, roll a D6 for O. For each 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: Go back to step 1.
Step 1:
X X X X X O O O O O
Y1 Y2
Y3
Step 2: While Y2 is within range of both X and O, Y1 (the model which just moved) is only within 1" of X.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for X. If 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: Go back to step 1.
Step 1:
X X X X X O O O O O
Y1 Y2 Y3
Step 2: While Y2 is within range of both X and O and Y1 is within 1" of X, Y2 (the model which just moved) is only within 1" of O.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for O. If 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: No more models to be moved, so step 5.
Step 5: Allocate wounds.Roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit after the model (this is not a dangling participle, and therefore the earlier segment should not be construed as referring to any model of the unit as a whole, as will be clarified later. It clearly refers to "the" as the aforementioned "a model") from this unit finishes a charge move (referring specifically to the the model). On a 2+ that enemy unit (referring to each individual enemy unit) suffers D3 mortal wounds. If this unit (this, therefore the chariot unit) has more than 1 model, roll to determine if mortal wounds are inflicted after each model completes its charge move (i.e. repeating the first sentence), but do not allocate the mortal wounds until after all models from this unit have moved.
To clarify with regards to the "the model"
<<Roll a dice for each enemy unit>> <<that is within 1" of>> <<a model from this unit>> after <<the model from this unit>> <<finishes a charge move>>.
Each segment in parentheses is a different segment of the sentence. You cannot argue that <<a model from this unit>> refers to ANY model, because if so, the "the" in <<the model from this unit>> no longer refers to anything, and becomes a dangling participle, which is no longer grammatically sound. Were that to be the correct interpretation, then both the "a" and "the" would be replaced with "any". While I would never say that Games Workshop never makes a grammatical error, I would definitely argue that, absent a clarification to the negative, we should always take the most grammatical interpretation as correct (and if there are at least two equally correct interpretations, then the one that makes more sense should be chosen).
If anyone wants to continue this dispute, please explain how exactly the "the" is not a dangling participle should we consider the "a" as referring to "any model from this unit".
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.
-
2 hours ago, Fluxlord said:
In my search for alternative lists I was thinking of building the following. I was planning on using it in some local tournaments.
- The contorted epitome (Slaanesh ally, with re-rolling 2 spells/dispells, and ability to force enemy units to fight last)
- lord of blights (for his command ability on 30 plaguebearers)
- gutrot spume (for backside attack with blightkings)
- poxbringer (re-roll saves for the 30 plaguebearers and casting)
- lord of afflictions (witherstave, pestillent breath, to help blightkings re-roll 1 to hit)
30 plaguebearers (difficult to remove with LoB CA)
10 blightkings (depending on opponent and set-up these will be deployed with gutrot)
5 blightkings
5 blightkings
5 blightkings
chronomantic cogs
The pros i see in this list are:
very resilient objective grabbbers
i can dish out damage with blightkings and generate extra contagion with gutrots ability
I feel the re-rolls in magic for the epitome might be incredible good
the cogs for the extra movement +2 and unnatural vitality +2 makes me rather fast.
I also see some cons, but i was hoping you guys could help me out. What do i miss, which armies might be troublesome. (I dont want to sound like some douchebag, but could you please, if you have some feedback tell me in terms of mechanics where this armie might have troubles. Mention other units and come up with a different lists doesnt really help me out... for instance, I know i dont have a harbinger. I d rather read feeback like: your mortals might be vulnarable, maybe try to add some resilience to them. (this obviously means take a harninger..or a shrine...or .....)
Anyhow hope to see some replies, I know there are some great Nurgle players here with great ideas and insight in tactics.
greetz
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.
-
9 hours ago, CB42 said:
Yeah, I definitely don’t read it that way. roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1” of A model after THE model finishes a charge. This seems pretty clear that you don’t get to trigger each one multiple times, you trigger each one once. No loopholes here.
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.
-
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Unit1126PLL said:
Right, I agree with you, but the problem is that it's on a warscroll rather than an allegiance ability. If it were an allegiance ability, it would be clear it happens once, but on a warscroll, some people believe it happens one time for every copy of that warscroll.
Ah, got the point.
-
1 hour ago, Unit1126PLL said:
I think the claim is that you proc Harmonic Alignment once per Enrapturess (much like if it was a rule that said "This model heals d3 wounds" you'd proc it separately on each model).
Then, each Harmonic Alignment itself says "you gain 1 depravity point for each Infernal Enrapturess on the battlefield" or something like that. Either way, the point is, if you have 6 Enrapturesses, you proc 6 copies of Harmonic Alignment in your hero phase, and each copy counts the number of Enrapturesses in your army and you get that many points.
i.e. broken as ****** and likely to be FAQ'd.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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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”.
-
2
-
-
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 minutes ago, Enoby said:
Just out of curiosity, why don't you like it?
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, carnith said:
So we’ve all been talking about lists and while some contention has occurred, I want to apologize for my behavior in sounding hostile when it is not my intention. We are all hear for slaanesh, and I wish to contribute to that.
Hows everyone’s painting and modeling been going? My goal is to crank out my keeper of secrets this week.
Heres three WiP pics. I need to fix the inner cloak as I noticed a part that I don’t like. But overall this is my favorite face/head I’ve done. How is everyone else’s projects going?
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.
-
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?
-
55 minutes ago, TMS said:
That mammoth is such an awesome project but I can't shake the feeling that there's something simian and gorilla-like over it. Perhaps it's a bit slim around the belly?
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.
-
1
-
-
Taking a little break from sculpting to nail down the howda and armor plates.
The “helmet” is proving to be a fairly substantial problem.
-
2 hours ago, soak314 said:
Hey all! I'm currently scoping out Maggotkin as my second army.
Here's the caveat: I want to do pure daemons, and I want to be able to field the list in 40k.
Would 2 of the start collecting boxes + a GUO do me right? I don't need the army to be particularly competitive, and from what I've seen of maggotkin in action I'd be perfectly alright with being good at just staying on the board and playing objectives.
Also what's a good amount of gnarlmaws to own?
Cheers.
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.
-
1
-
-
I think the new model is awful, stiff boring pose and flat detail that is completely forgettable.
I prefer the goat honestly.
-
Sylvanith, squigs, tzeentch or ironjawz.
-
I get wanting to brighten up the tone with the white but I think good ol’ grassland would also brighten it a lot and allow you to do splashes of red/yellow/orange.
Could be wrong, just feel the white looks sort of off.
Opinions right?!
-
Feet next then a little detail work on the face.
Howda and armor plates after that then painting finally!
-
4
-
-
Just now, themortalgod said:
They just consolidated. The model is still perfectly legal as a "Chaos Lord on Daemonic Mount" that has Mark of Slaanesh. It just doesn't have a unique warscroll anymore.
Unfortunately the warscroll and more specifically the command ability made the 2k army what it was.
Now, should have known better than to think an old nsfw miniature would have any sort of chance but still.
Big ol’ waste of money for me.
-
Just now, carnith said:
Old keepers were on the same bases as daemon princes so nearly no change needed.
Also you can still use both slaanesh lords as chaos lords and chaos lord on mounts.
This is mostly a complaint about my archaon list, which is now kind dead in the water.
Also known as a $160 paper weight
-
Just now, Enoby said:
Unfortunately yes
Man, its getting harder to use the “at least your models don’t rotate out” argument with MTG players...
-
Am I missing something or did GW ditch the snake mount lord?
-
9 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:
Im not so certain. The result is not being modified. Its not a -1 or -2. Its changing the dice that was rolled.
I agree, words and terminology are very important. To modify dice is to alter their final value. To adjust the dice is to literally pick it up and change what the base number to be modified will be.
-
1
-
-
Great scheme, not sure about the bases though. Feel like they could be an opportunity to play with the palette a little.
AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion
in Hedonites of Slaanesh
Posted
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.