Mark Williams

Actually yeah, I do consider units and their supporting units, when used as part of a threat combo, to be a net sum of their points.

I think the face is meant to be non European.

I agree with the point made that we got a slight bump to an overall pretty bad tome. I do think the water rose, and I’m sure happy about that. But yes it feels like they sorta nerfed everything that used to work, just enough so that we need to buy a bunch of new stuff if we want the good stuff. It feels like the marketing strategy is more transparent than ever here. Don’t get me wrong though. I preordered everything. Haha. I can’t wait to get my mitts on some new dragons.

Almost as good as blood warriors.

I predict that the old ones are going away hard, and being replaced with weaker ones that often do little or nothing. Look at the Soulblight format and draw comparisons. Hammers of sigmar might get a bonus for dragon units, like +1 to hit on the charge or something.

Looks like going forward, we won't get all the special rules on warscrolls in the boxes/instructions, just some base stats without the abilities. Which means I guess the warscrolls won't be downloadable from GW either.

For the battle tactic “Aggressive Expansion,” can you pick objectives that are on the border of your deployment zone?

Ah I don't really have access to purchase/acquire that many annihilators yet. I'm in Oceania and everything has been locked down due to covid, so we never got any releases other than Dominion so far. But I will try that soon.

I've been playing Yndrasta twice a week for about a month. She's great and nearly oppressive in casual games, and dies almost immediately and pretty much does nothing in competitive games. It's the same old Stormcast problem - we're decent at the hobby store and meh in tournaments. I've had a few games against weaker opponents where she just sorta tanked the entire table at one point or another. I've also seen her shot/meleed down in a single turn quite easily. As to her attacks - she's super swingy. She's good against light infantry and 5 wound characters, usually, but she can't handle much else, or at least she just gets bogged down in combat for multiple turns. If there were a way to boost her attacks, you might have something interesting to work with as a sort of risk assessment for opponents who are just barging across the table, but I haven't noticed anyone avoiding combat with her or worrying about her. They seem to consider her potential vs what she actually does to be an acceptable risk to just YOLOing into her. That's my experiences. Take them with a grain of salt.

Yndrasta is the best character in a book of horrible characters. Depends on what you were expecting.

I just spent 20 minutes reading and re-reading these sections over and over. The 3rd paragraph under Stormcast Mount Traits, which was deleted, had two qualifying statements: 1) It explained a method for getting more than 1 mount trait. 2) It explained that if you got more than one mount trait, they did not intend for you to stack more than one on a single hero. I believe that the first qualifier was the one that they intended to replace with the new rules, and that the 2nd one was not intended to be erased by deleting that paragraph. Basically, it's an accidental "gaf" by GW, probably because they either made a mistake and didn't think about it, or because they felt that it was an obvious, implicit rule that didn't need stating. That I'm aware of, there are no other enhancements that can be "stacked" in such a way. As I read through the rules, they account for the situation by qualifying that you can only have one of each, for each character/hero in your army. I suspect the reason that it isn't covered in the core rules is that there's no section whatsoever for mount traits at all (again, probably a mistake via poorly written rules). Everything I'm looking at points to poorly written rules, probably overlooked on a technicality of deleting a paragraph while trying to address some other aspect of the rules and accidentally deleting something else. I would also point to some other logic within this thread that just because a rule doesn't say whether or not you can do something, doesn't give you permission to do it. At the very BEST, it's an unknown that needs an answer from GW, and not permission to do it until someone says you can't. In absence of an answer from GW, it should be a discussion between yourself and your opponent, or in the case of an event, the TO (or the body that makes up the TOs). My belief, after reading everything, is that if GW were to FAQ this, they would say that each mount can only have 1 trait, and that they goofed by deleting that last sentence. I feel like this is gonna get FAQed real quick. If I were on a TO panel I wouldn't allow mount trait stacking based on the above reasoning.... I'd be surprised, and a bit sad, if some TOs did... I can't see any consistency in the other rules or the way enhancements work in general that would make an exception for just these like that, without explicitly stating it. Edit: Just having an in depth discussion with a friend who I game with, we're thinking that the ability to take duplicate artefacts is also probably an unintended omission as well - seems like the Enhancements section in general was really poorly written... Edit 2: Ah, I just saw they covered it in the Errata FAQ: 27.3.3 – Artefacts of Power Add: ‘An army cannot include duplicates of the same artefact of power.’

Interesting. I'll have a couple reads back through them again today.

I was going to bring this up today too. When I read the rules, I got the same thing out of them.

That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite.

I agree with the interpretation that the FAQ is giving Evocators a choice of either their warscroll spell or one of the Invigoration spells - this accounting for the fact that their warscroll as written would only allow Empower and nothing else. It feels weird having to try to argue about it... every time I go to respond to one of these posts I end up deleting everything I wrote because I feel like I'm trying argue about whether or not water is wet with someone who is saying stuff like "what if you don't touch the water" or "what if the water is ice?" It's not that I couldn't hash out an argument for it, but at a certain point I feel like either the person I'm arguing with is having a laugh at me, or they are not worth arguing with... I can't tell which, but it's not worth it either way.