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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Prosecutor

About RatOfGod

  • Rank
  1. Looking good! My only suggestion to maybe neaten it up a bit would be to forgo using the whole left arm in the conversion; perhaps try cutting the hand which you're using to hold the orb at the wrist and graft it onto an original plague monk arm, cutting off the plague monk hand obviously. Then you won't have to try to green-stuff an awkward shoulder joint or deal with mismatching arms between the two sides. It might be worth looking for some glass beads too to use maybe as the orbs instead of greenstuff balls? Green stuff is great when you need to sculpt things from scratch, but when all you want is a sphere you might as well go with a perfectly round one to start with rather than trying to mould it.
  2. Add to that list night runners (seriously, they still use the old monkey-arm clanrat set as their base), maybe a new rattling gun, jezzail, and plague censer bearer sculpt, and blister packs for the island of blood (and thus oop) warlock engineer, poison wind mortar, warpfire thrower, and pack master and we might be in business. That's if they go down the 'update old sets' route rather than something new altogether as they've done with the dwarf and elf factions.
  3. Precisely, that's what I was trying to articulate on the previous page. On the issue of the Corruptor, Warscroll builder specifically lets you give him those things because he is a NURGLE DAEMON so has access to their spell lore etc., but not SKAVEN so he can't be skitterleaped by a Verminlord Deceiver, for instance, which they've FAQ'd previously. The question here only pertains to Battalions and the point at which its content become allies, regardless of their shared keywords. It honestly feels like they need some more clearly worded, holistic rule on battalions to tie up all the loose ends at this point, given how many corner cases seem to have emerged from past inconsistencies on what exactly a battalion entails and its allegiance status.
  4. I'm really confused as to why a rule printed in a battletome would somehow take priority over a general FAQ which postdates it. There is no room for exceptions in the FAQ as it stands, such as 'the battalion belongs to the battletome's faction or any allegiance which all of its units share'. It specifically outlines how the allegiance is determined and what restrictions arise from that allegiance.
  5. Well, except that the fluff also has a long history of the collaboration between Nurgle and Pestilens all the way back to Lustria in the old world and continued in the early AOS campaign story. Allegiances of convenience are hardly uncommon in the lore. In any case, if it was lore-driven it would doubly strange that Pestilens could still take Nurgle as allies - that is, Nurgle choosing to support a Pestilens force rather than vice versa. I primarily meant that it's an odd situation now, and one which wouldn't have appeared previously under the old battalion rules, in which you can take all of the individual units quite happily within the Nurgle force but can't even theoretically take the battalion in a 4k+ point list or whatever you'd need on home rules for the allies quota.
  6. Unfortunately, this means that Foulrain cannot be taken in Nurgle under *any circumstances*, regardless of the theoretical max points of the game, because Nurgle oddly cannot take clan Pestilens as allies. As we already know (@sal4m4nd3r) from previous discussions on PTW, GW's new ruling on battalions is unequivocal: the allegiance of a Battalion is determined by the faction listed under its title, and where none is listed then the battletome it is found in. If that is different from the allegiance of the army you are taking, then the battalion cost itself and the cost of all the units contained within it counts against your allied units quota. Now, Nurgle's possible allies are Brayherds, Chaos Gargants, Everchosen, Khorne, Monsters of Chaos, Slaanesh, Slaves to Darkness [excluding those marked with Tzeentch], and Warherds. There is no clan pestilens on this list. Since Foulrain is a Pestilens battalion, it and its units count as allies, and since Nurgle cannot take pestilens as allies, the battalion is a no-go I'm afraid.
  7. That would make sense if they're run at min unit sizes of 5, for 180 points total; good spot. The point about costing for units, artefacts, realm, total points value, general, etc. still stands of course and would have probably eliminated the confusion here too.
  8. Without seeing the points breakdown, which allegiance your list takes, which models are allies etc. it's a bit hard to give any real feedback at the moment. I'm assuming that you plan to run this as GA Chaos with the Plaguebearers as your battleline? It can't be Pestilens allegiance because the Skryre units alone fill your 400 point quota for allies, leaving no space for the Plaguebearers, and can't be Nurgle either because they don't have the option to take Skryre as an ally? That being said, it looks as though you're going to exceed 2k points from this list in any case. The Pestilens things alone come to 1380 points, with the Skryre units it's up to 1820, and three min-size units of Plaguebearers is another 360 points on top?
  9. The Sword of Judgement is a realm artefact and its rules are detailed in the Malign Sorceries expansion. You can say that your army is from a specific realm and take artefacts from that realm in your list - in this case, your army would need to be from Ulgu. It’s not a piece that’s included with the set - the Corruptor’s weapons are still the normal ones unless you choose to model the artefact onto it - it’s just like saying that your plague priest has the Liber Bubonicus of something from the Pestilens artefacts. If you do choose to play your army as a Grand Alliance Skaven list, you won’t be able to use Plague Monks as a battleline option anymore of course as they are only battleline *if Pestilens allegiance*. So you’ll need to find space in your list for three generic Chaos battleline options for a legal 2k list, e.g. three blocks of 20 clanrats. There have been some examples of lists like this earlier in the thread.
  10. Doesn't a Plaguetouched Warband list need a general and then seven additional mortal nurgle units, i.e., 1+7? At the moment your list only has 1+6 units. Edit: IGNORE - I didn't see that you'd written Festus and the LOA on the same line in the list.
  11. The FAQ about battalions relates specifically to instances in which you take one faction allegiance (say, Nurgle) and attempt to include a battalion from an allied faction (such as the Plaguetouched Warband from Everchosen), in which instance both the battalion itself and all of its included units count against your allied quota. This is a grand alliance chaos list, and hence there is no meaningful distinction that can be made between 'allied' and native 'faction' units; every possible battalion in Chaos is fair game.
  12. The warscroll is fairly explicit about it - 'An Arch-warlock is a wizard. He can attempt to cast two different spells in each of your hero phases'.
  13. In that case you would not, as the rules state, be adding '1 to the damage inflicted by 1 successful attack' but instead be adding 6 to the damage of the successful attack. I hasten to add that this isn't really a further nerf to Skryre but rather them clarifying the wording of the original rule from the GHB2018 - I already suggested that this was how the rule should be interpreted on the first page of this thread and it seems now even more clear that their intention is to award the increase *by a single point of damage* the output of one weapon on one model. Trying to game the rule and increase that to six isn't going to fly at a tournament or endear yourself to your opponent.
  14. You might be right there, apologies. I think what threw me is the function of the whole ‘a successful attack’ clause in it. Reading it your way, that section just means that you can’t add 1 to an attack by a weapon which dealt 0 damage, converting a failed attack into successful one. It would’ve helped for them to have written that more clearly in a second sentence, or just clarify that ‘For one weapon which has made a successful attack during the battle round, you may double its damage characteristic’.
  15. I honestly struggle to read this as being a permanent effect in any way. I'm also a little unsure in what sense you read this as having an effect on 'all successful attacks by that model'. If the rattling cannons do 3d6 attacks at one damage each, then as per the core rules a successful attack is one wound roll for which the corresponding save has been failed. It goes on, in the core rules, to then describe how 'each successful attack inflicts damage on the target unit' and so on. Per the wording you've quoted from the GHB, then, it stands to reason that after rolling your 3d6 attacks on the rattling cannons, for instance, and working out how many wounds should be allocated, you then double the damage characteristic of 'a successful attack'. That is, if one successful attack deals one damage, you double it, only adding one to the total wounds allocated. It specifically does *not* say that you 'add 1 to the damage characteristic [...] for each successful attack'. And further still, if it specifies 'a successful attack', then it certainly doesn't imply 'each successful attack that the model makes for the remainder of the game'.
  • Create New...