Mark Williams
-
Posts
659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Mark Williams
-
-
12 minutes ago, Chumphammer said:
Speaking in Blood Stalkers, has anyone ever tried using 10 in one unit as character assassins? 10 with mindrazor, Catachism and witchbrew could read hurt turn 1 if the Catachism turns the 6s into 2 MW plus then other damage being rend -2 (and maybe 2 damage)
I think you could make a weird 1-trick pony army with morathi as a general and 2 units of 10 with some support units and heroes
-
1 hour ago, GreatWhiteNorthIronjawz said:
Inspired by Chumphammer, planning to run this at LVO
hagg nar
Medusa (general, shadow stone, mind razor)hag queen (Blessing)
hag queen (Catechism)
incantor
2 x 20 blood sisters
5 blood sisters2 x 5 doomfire (withering and debating second spell)
5 heart renders
Dais Arcanum
Why not use Khailebron?
-
I have a weird question about Gotrek and I’m having trouble finding an answer.
Gotrek’s warscroll states that any incoming damage characteristic from an attack, spell, or ability that’s greater than 1 is reduced to 1.
However it doesn’t say much about mortal wounds and it seems to me that this is a grey area.
Example 1: Quicksilver Swords. Roll 12 dice. Each 6 deals a mortal wound. I assume you would make a 3+ save for each mortal wound separately.
Example 2: Evocators lightning blast. Roll 2 dice for each model in the unit. Mortal wound on a 4+. Do you make a save for every mortal wound or just 1 since it’s a warscroll ability and seems to match the condition in Gotreks warscroll?
Example 3: Longstrike Raptors. Deal 2 mortal wounds on a hit roll of 6. Do each 2 mortal wounds convert down to just 1?
-
3 hours ago, Corcaedus said:
So ladies and gents, i come bearer of news.
My friend picked up the Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome, and I feel like it's bad News to us.
Even if they are even less mobile then we are, their sheer resilience is problematic, even facing double shot longstrike raptors.
For you all, what's the feeling you have after this latest addition to the Death Roster ?
As always I just look at new tomes coming out and I think the Stormcast could really use some similar abilities. I sincerely don't think an army-wide 3+ save is out of the question at this point. Perhaps doing away with stuff like the Castellant or the aura command ability, and just giving the entire army a +1 save boost. I think that would go a long way towards making us viable against armies that can continuously bring models back onto the table.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, schwabbele said:
Yeah but check the commit here: https://github.com/BSData/warhammer-age-of-sigmar/pull/1101/commits/9cff8cae9aa925b065297c3969794ac37c1b3b9e
he is in the Fyreslayer.cat file and there is no Duardin in Battlescribe to select from only "Dwarfes" .
Maybe they didn't want to create a whole new file just for one character, and they felt like that was the easiest spot to put him where it would make the most sense. Gotrek is technically an ex-Fyreslayer who is now a slayer, but slayers by the lore are basically outcast and on a death quest. They are only forgiven after death. So basically "living" Gotrek can never be a Fyreslayer.
There isn't currently a faction that exists that Gotrek can belong to, so he's just an ally to all order.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, schwabbele said:
This got me curious and I started looking around.
So I didn't find him but I found this:
https://github.com/BSData/warhammer-age-of-sigmar/pull/1101/commits
Looks like he is hidden somewhere in the Fyreslayers, so as soon as this change is available in the datafiles you should be able to add Fyreslayers to SCE as allies and then add Gortrek.
Gotrek belongs to the Duardin faction. He has a special rule that allows you to ally him in any order army regardless of points allowed for allies.
-
@jhamslam Yes I agree with all of your points. The army just feels completely outdated at this point. I enjoy playing it, but when I'm looking across the table at new books, I just have to shake my head sometimes. SCE definitely need an overhaul, but I have no clue how or when that would happen. Especially since they just got a brand new tome, and it pretty much didn't address anything. Maybe we'll get some points adjustments in December.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Horseburner said:
Any thoughts and opinions on Castigators? I really like the models and I just got a bunch from a fellow player. But from what I've read so far, those points are put to better use elsewhere in almost any list.
Would they be acceptable as Judicators?
They have a few minor uses:
1) End cap units to sacrifice against units that arrive on table edges.
2) cheap filler to get something more valuable in the sky instead of starting on the board.
3) In the battalion that combos off of a ballista (all dropping from the sky of course). I’d run 6 if using the battalion just to make sure it works, but it’s a decent combo and gives you cp, Artefact, and fewer drops. The battalion is in a weird place and I wouldn’t take it to a tournament but it could be very strong in small point games or doubles tournaments, etc.
But, they are generally pretty useless, sadly. And yeah I probably wouldn’t fuss if you wanted to use them as judicators. Maybe modify the arrow heads if you want to be really wysiwig.
-
2
-
-
Battle report with Gotrek.
Army List:
SpoilerAllegiance: Stormcast Eternals
- Stormhost: Hammers of Sigmar
Mortal Realm: Aqshy
Leaders
Lord-Arcanum (160)
- General
- Trait: We Cannot Fail
- Artefact: God-forged Blade
- Spell: Chain Lightning
Lord-Castellant (120)
Gavriel Sureheart (120)
Gotrek Gurnisson (520)
Battleline
5 x Liberators (100)
- Warhammer & Shield
- 1x Grandhammers
5 x Sequitors (130)
- Stormsmite Mauls and Soulshields
- 3x Stormsmite Greatmaces
5 x Judicators (160)
- Boltstorm Crossbows
- 1x Thunderbolt Crossbows
Units
3 x Aetherwings (50)
3 x Vanguard-Raptors with Hurricane Crossbows (140)
10 x Evocators (440)
- 10x Grandstaves
- Lore of Invigoration: Speed of Lightning
Endless Spells / Terrain / CPs
Extra Command Point (50)
Malevolent Maelstrom (10)
Total: 2000 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 97
Mission was Shifting Objectives against Slaanesh with 3 keepers (shilaxy?), 2x10 seekers, 10 seekers, the contorted epitomy, and geminids of ul-gish. He had a battlion that let him get an extra command point if he rolled a D6 and got lower than the number of heroes in the battalion.
Round 1: Stormcast Eternals
The objective went center. I was given first turn and split my army up into 2 forces, set up on either side of the board. I dropped my shooting on the center objective for 3 points, and shot 4 daemonettes.
Left side:
Center and right side:
Round 1: Slaanesh
He moved forward on all sides and assaulted all 3 points. In the center I counter-charged 2 o f the Daemon Princes with my Aetherwings, but I lost everything but 2 Hurricane Raptors and lost the objective. On the right side, I lost 5 liberators and my Lord Castellant, but I spent a command point to bring the liberators back on a 5+, which dropped them behind the right objective. Gotrek killed the seekers and the daemon prince was outside of 6" of the objective. He won center and left side for 4 points.
Center:
Right:
Round 2: Stormcast
The objective went to the right side. I won priority. Dropped evocators and gavriel in the center and charged into a keeper of secretts in the middle, and the keeper on the right with Gotrek, killing both. 4 points to Stormcast.
Center:
Round 2: Slaanesh
He countered by summoning 2 new Keepers of Secrets. 2 Keepers wiped out the Evocators and the rest of the raptors in the center. On the left side I was down to 1 Sequitor and fighting a losing battle. On the right, he charged a unit of Liberators on the right objective, but whiffed his attacks twice and the Liberators lived and held the objective. Slaanesh won 2 points.
Center:
Left:
Round 3 : Slaanesh
The objective went to the right side again. He won priority and finished off the last sequitor with spells, then charged and surrounded my Lord Arcanum (General), taking it down to 1 wound. On the right side, the keeper finished off the liberators, but was outside of range of the objective. 2 points to Slaanesh.
Round 3: Stormcast
My lord Arcanum finall died to the seekers on the left. Gotrek charged the keeper of secrets on the right and killed it to maintain control of Objective 3. 3 points to stormcast.
Round 4: Slaanesh
He won priority again, and summoned 6 fiends of Saanesh, and charged Gotrek with them and his general Keeper of Secrets. Gotrek tanked both units attacking twice, going down to 1 wound left. He wiped out the Fiends and kept them off the objective. 2 points to Slaanesh.
Right:
Round 4: Stormcast
Gotrek retreats from combat to stand on the right objective. 3 poionts to stormcast.
At this point it was 13 points to 9, and we'd been playing for 5 hours. Called the game at 1am. We didn't roll for priority or objective for round 5, as we'd agreed to call the game during the massive assault on Gotrek in round 4 (basically if he lived, the Stormcast automatically won).
If we'd have gone another round, I would've needed to win priority in order to either bring it to a tie or get a major victory. If I lost priority I would've needed insane luck to survive another round.
As it stood I got lucky with the objective constantly shifting to the right side, and I got lucky making saves for Gotrek over and over. He was a beast in combat, killing everything he touched, when he finally got a turn to attack.
Slaanesh player was very green and new to the army (only the 3rd game), but he could have won the game at almost any point if he'd just played a bit better. He just kept mindlessly charging everything into gotrek and getting more and more frustrated that he didn't die, but if he'd just left gotrek alone he could've easily won in the end by tabling the rest of my army and just camping objectives.
Fun game. Bit of an outlier, but Gotrek was 4-5 times more effective than the Celestan Prime has ever been in pretty much the same identical list in past games. I think I have my next tournament army unless I can think of something more interesting to do with it. I've resigned myself to never winning a tournament with this army, but it's nice to smash to have at least one element in my army that doesn't fold immediately the following turn it engages an enemy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, schwabbele said:
Just a quick checkup on the Sequitors channeling. Am I correct that only if it is my opponents turn and he can do something "at the beginning" of the combat phase he gets to do it before I can channel the Sequitors? Took this https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/ as reference.
I’ve been wondering about this myself. It seems to me that the order they channel doesn’t matter. It happens at the start of the combat phase so unless someone has abilities that happen outside of the combat phase, the order the ability goes off doesn’t matter.
-
Seems to me that they happen simultaneously. Resolving attacks doesn’t mean allocating wounds and removing models. That happens after attacks are resolved. Weird. Since the lightning blast causes more wounds I’d say it might happen before wound allocation...
-
1
-
-
The main thing that kept me from adding drakes to my army over the last couple Ye was the cost combined with people saying they don’t perform well. It’s on my list of models to paint and add to my force at some point. I’d personally aim for something like a les Martin type list.
-
1 hour ago, PJetski said:
No, it doesn't seem off at all. There are plenty of weird rules in AOS; Longshot is not very peculiar in a game where Aetherwings break almost every rule of movement and charging.
I did not consider it ambiguous; I previously played it 24" to avoid having arguments.
I understand the argument against it but I don't agree with it in the slightest so why would I recognize it as a valid argument?
That’s all well and good. My issue with you from the start is that regardless of your conviction, you are no more of an authority on how it should be played than any one else. Every time the topic comes up, you respond to people like it’s not even up for debate. You shouldn’t do that when there hasn’t been an official ruling and you’re basically just acting like you have the inside pulse on what GW intended. You don’t have that. All you have is a really strong opinion and a willingness to argue anyone into the ground who disagrees with you. At some point I will get exhausted going back and forth on this with you and give up. But that’s a really poor strategy for you to deal with people in your life...
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Why would you assume the writers of the game got their own rule wrong? Rather than trying to guess their intent, isn't it more reasonable to assume they wrote the rule the way they wanted it to be used? There have been many opportunities over the past 16 months for them to change it.
Rules work the way they are written. You can't play a game when everyone is trying to interpret the rules in whatever way they think it is supposed to work.
I don’t think they worded it “wrong”. I think they didn’t consider the situation, and worded it to account for the shooting phase only. From the standpoint that it would only be used in one phase, I think they worded it perfectly right.
As to the rest of your argument, you’re assuming that I agree with your point of view and that I’m just grasping at straws or something. I’m not doing that. The rule is worded too vaguely, period. It’s open ended as to what should happen.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, relic456 said:
Oh they 100% weren't thinking about it, hence the confusion. But until they fix it we're stuck with what the ability says and I think @PJetski has the best summary: "The bonus is active at all times until you satisfy the condition to disable it."
But from a grammatical standpoint, both views can be equally right, which is my point. Whatever conclusion you come to is just an opinion based on what you feel the default state is. I’m not saying one is wrong and the other is right. I’m saying both look correct to me, depending on one’s point of view. When I’m faced with that level of doubt, I don’t go with the one that would give me a huge advantage just because I want it.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Using the Long Shot bonus does not prevent movement. The ability would tell you if it did that.
The bonus is active at all times until you satisfy the condition to disable it.
The phase order is irrelevant - if they wanted it to only work in the shooting phase they would have worded it that way.
You’re saying the way it’s worded indicates they thought about hero phase activation, then worded it that way on purpose.
My point of view is that the way it’s worded (using past tense) indicates they weren’t thinking about it at all. I don’t think the wording of the rule makes it clear what they wanted to happen. I think it was probably a total oversight on their part which led to vague wording.
-
1
-
-
I agree with what @Hodges has said, but at this point I have nothing new to add to the conversation.
So with that said, I just finished this guy tonight.
Here’s the list I plan to try out this weekend. I’ll try to take some pics and report back on how Gotrek does.
Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals
- Stormhost: Hammers of Sigmar
Mortal Realm: Aqshy
Gotrek Gurnisson (520)
Knight-Incantor (140)
- Spell: Azyrite Halo
Gavriel Sureheart (120)
Lord-Castellant (120)
- General
- Trait: We Cannot Fail
- Artefact: God-forged Blade
10 x Liberators (200)
- Warhammer & Shield
- 2x Grandhammers
5 x Liberators (100)
- Warhammer & Shield
- 1x Grandhammers
5 x Judicators (160)
- Boltstorm Crossbows
- 1x Thunderbolt Crossbows
3 x Aetherwings (50)
3 x Vanguard-Raptors with Hurricane Crossbows (140)
10 x Evocators (440)
- 10x Grandstaves
- Lore of Invigoration: Celestial Blades
Total: 1990 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 0
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 106
-
3
-
-
It isn't a terrible metaphor. It would help if you argued your case without resorting to calling the other side terrible every time they give you an example.
I'll state again that I see good arguments on both sides of the fence, and my opinion is that it isn't clear, and thus I will err on the benefit of my opponent rather than myself, when I play it. I would personally wait for an FAQ before playing it a different way.
To me it boils down to default variable states, and whether or not there's a default state of no, or a default state of null (which resets each turn). The wording of the rule doesn't make it clear which way they want us to interpret it. I feel that reading anything more into GW's intention beyond that is just injecting bias into it.
Having said that, I do think there's something interesting in the core rules in regards to setting up units, and how setup moves, while preventing units from moving in their movement phases, do not count as moving for the purposes of rules that are restricted base don movement. Case in point - I can teleport a unit of raptors, which counts as a setup move, and then shoot the full 30" in the shooting phase, but I cannot move them in the movement phase. I can't connect this rule back to using abilities in the hero phase, but I do feel that it might give some indication of leaning towards the raptors being able to shoot 30" in the hero phase.
However, there's no direct ruling or FAQ relating to any situation like this. On the contrary, there are quite a few situations where units can fight or shoot in the hero phase, and the benefits of their special rules don't carry over into the hero phase. In honesty, I feel like GW has been subtly shutting down stuff like this over the past year, and trying to prevent too much "activity" happening in the hero phases, and that to me gives plenty of indication that they wouldn't want the raptors working like that either.
As I said, I see good arguments on both sides. I don't think the wording of the rule is clear. I'm trying to be as impartial as I possibly can.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nizrah said:
Can Evocators manipulate cogs?
Yes as long as there are two models, they count as a wizard. (Pick which model is going to manipulate it .) I don’t think they can cast it though.
-
35 minutes ago, FattBooM666 said:
Every friend I play says is ok, been tournament and TO and players there say it's ok.
Why not use this energy elsewhere.. 🤷♂️
I'm fine and happy if that's the way the community at large wants to play it. I'm only taking issue with the absolute confidence that it is a clearly written rule with no room for any other interpretation. If people said, "Well it could be this or that because of X and Y, but I think there's enough evidence to say that it works this way instead of that way," I wouldn't say anything. But instead it's, "This way is the only way, and the other way can't possibly be valid." It's the principle of the issue that I'm concerned about, not the outcome.
And please understand, the reason for that is that, for whatever reason, I want to play a fair game. I don't like winning because I found some kind of word-smith loophole and got everybody to agree with my interpretation of it. Even if everyone else is fine with it, I don't feel satisfied with the win afterwards. Instead I feel like I may have manipulated the system in order to win, rather than just playing a good game.
I'd like a more clear ruling from GW. In a tournament, I'd ask a TO before I used it. If they said yes, then in that small context my conscience would be satisfied.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, PJetski said:
It's not a matter of opinion... if you read the rule then there is only one correct interpretation. Anyone arguing against that interpretation are deluding themselves and others because they dont like the way the rule works (or maybe they just like arguing).
It's a binary condition - your unit has either moved in the movement phase, or it hasn't. You can't make up a third state for a binary condition; that's not logical. If you haven't had a movement phase yet then the condition is satisfied and the bonus range applies. If they had some way to shoot in the enemy turn then they would also get the bonus range in that scenario.
If they didn't intend for it to work outside of the player shooting phase they would have specified "in the shooting phase" or "in the next shooting phase". Many abilities in the game are worded to work only work in a specific phase, and this is not one of them.
Play the rule as it is written instead of assuming they wrote it wrong. The book has been out for over a year - there has been more than enough time for them to issue an errata.
I'm a programmer by trade. Binary objects in databases often have a third null state until they've been asserted to a value. There's no lapse in logic here. If I saw this issue while I was writing a program, I would talk to the client or customer and get clarification on what they wanted to happen. I wouldn't assume it's one or the other, but in general if I couldn't get an answer I would side with the null option rather than assuming it's one of the binary states.
It's a valid interpretation of the rule. I'm conceding your point of view is also a valid conclusion. You're the one who is being close-minded here. I'm sorry that you won't or can't see it, and I'm at my wit's end on how to explain it more clearly to you.
Edit: as to the fact that the book has been out so long and this hasn't been addressed. We've seen many issues like this go unresolved for years without getting an FAQ. I'd argue that, for whatever reason, SCE is one of those armies that just doesn't pop up on GW's radar very often. From what little insight I've seen into the environment at their offices, most people play narrative driven armies, and they "magpie" around different armies playing whatever is new or interesting. I also get a sense that they have created a little bit of a bubble community around themselves. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there's not an Anvils-raptor heavy army in their group, and that this issue just simply never came up.
I also find that sometimes if someone likes the way a rule works, and they suspect it might have a different interpretation, they keep that thought to themselves and are very slow to bring it to anyone's attention.
Just a few months back, we saw a battle report where they were putting all of their sky units in the sky before they put any units on the table, and they said in the report that it was a "very strategic feature of the stormcast army". Yet the matched play community as a whole is (as far as I know) completely unanimous that the wording of the rules don't support doing that. My point is that they are not infallible and obviously make mistakes or miss things that have been out for years, just like everyone else. The amount of time this has gone without getting FAQed isn't proof to me that anyone has looked at it or thought about it and said, "nah it's clear, it doesn't need anything." My automatic assumption is just simply that they are busy playing other armies and doing other things, and this issue just simply hasn't come across their attention spans.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Maturin said:
I was obviously joking mate
Blah, sorry. I'm just a bit frazzled cause this keeps popping up every few weeks. I wish GW would read forums like this to get a sense of what players need answers on. I've sent an e-mail to that FAQ e-mail, but I'm not even sure they would've understood the question.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Maturin said:
Why do you hate us so much ? Can't we have a bit of love from GW too ?
It’s not hate, it’s just cold logic and pragmatism. Both points of view are perfectly valid interpretations of the rule, and completely RAW. The problem is that the argument is not flawed. It has nothing to do with wanting to hate on them. We need an FAQ.
-
10 minutes ago, Raffonerd said:
Yeah. I think that GW will FAQ this soon. Also Sisters of the watch now has the same wording. While in the past they had in the shooting phase that was more clear to interpreter. From what I can desume from London GT lists the range is 30". Because Sam Saunders was playing without relictor. This means that he was not able to move raptors during the game.
By that it would be clear that he was shooting from 30" (in either phases) and no from 24"
Right. My concern is two-fold.
1) The previous tome had different wording on the raptors, which clearly wouldn’t have allowed it. I’m worried the change in wording was just a poor gaf from rules writers trying to save space and not realising they were making it too vague.
2) Whenever I see a rule that has two valid interpretations, I prefer to err on the side of my opponents rather than myself. I see this as good sportsmanship.
I’ll wait for an FAQ before I use it. I’m not trying to tell others how to play - I only want to be allowed to express what I feel is an equally valid opinion. I think it’s vaguely worded and not clear.
AoS 2 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion
in Daughters of Khaine
Posted
I was thinking Mindrazor from a medusa, an avatar for +1 leadership, and Shroud of despair from morathi, with catechism of murder, on a unit of 20. Just buff the crud out of them and melt a target.