Kadeton

It's a bit of a weird quirk of English grammar, but 'more than 9" from any enemy units' and 'more than 9" from all enemy units' mean exactly the same thing.

Haha, my apologies. I should have said "(which is only hearsay)".

Just for clarity, I'm advocating for something simpler, not more complex. Currently we have unmodifiable rolls with two specific exceptions - being unmodifiable is also an exception to the normal rules for dice rolls. If the original design was indeed supposed to avoid stacking modifiers on casts and unbinds (which is only speculation), then there's a simpler version: modifiable rolls (like normal dice) with the exception of casts and unbinds. Given that I don't think allowing the bonuses on casts and unbinds would actually be a problem (you can use Destiny Dice for a maximum of four such rolls over the entire course of the game, no?), then they could just use the simplest version of all: Destiny Dice get treated exactly like regular dice, no exceptions. There's no way that's slowing the game down. I agree with this. To GW's credit, they have been quick to apply band-aids. I just think their band-aids are crappy.

That seems like really poor design. Creating a set of thematic rules and then preventing them from working with each other is endlessly frustrating and confusing for players. (Not to mention that in a sledgehammer attempt to "fix" that incredibly minor potential problem, they broke the core mechanics of the game and created a huge mess.) If they wanted to exclude modifiers from casting and unbinding rolls, they could have just done that specifically. Or better yet, exercised some basic creativity and come up with something more interesting for Beacon and Mass Conjuration than just slapping +1 modifiers all over everything and calling it a day.

It has to be without the Discs. Edit: On reflection, I am wrong! You can ignore subtitles in unit requirements "unless they are included in the entry for the unit". So a battalion requirement of "Tzaangor Enlightened" can be filled by either Tzaangor Enlightened or Tzaangor Enlightened on Discs of Tzeentch, but a requirement of "Tzaangor Enlightened on Discs of Tzeentch" could only be filled by that specific warscroll. Thanks @BillyOcean!

This is the bit I don't understand in this whole debacle. What was the harm in opening up those dice to all modification? All the rules problems came up as a result of them being unmodifiable, and I can't see what problem that decision was intended to solve in the first place. They could have just treated them exactly like normal dice!

I feel like this is a bit of a deliberate trend on GW's part, so they can have characters that are always "available" to players regardless of whether they win or lose in the stories. It's not just the Death characters either - Stormcast and Daemons also respawn as needed, as do all the various Gods, the Spirits of Durthu, probably Eltharion, etc. Of course, when your characters can never be in any real danger the story loses its stakes and becomes pointless. So they invent various mechanisms of "super-death" that can put these unkillable characters in peril... and then they come up with various contrivances as to why those methods don't actually get used on the special characters they want to preserve. They're gradually backing themselves into a corner.

That one's pretty straightforward, I think. GW never stated that those dice didn't count as "unmodified", they said that those dice were an exception to "counts as unmodified and can't be modified further". They then went on to say how those dice could be modified further, but didn't clarify whether or not they also counted as "modified". They're already an exception to the rule in that they are subject to modifiers as normal. The confusion comes from the way that every other dice roll works - the number shown on the die is the "unmodified" result, and the result after modifiers are applied is the "modified" result. There's no precedent anywhere in the game for a roll that has a modified result only - every roll has both an unmodified and a modified result, even if they're the same number. So it makes a certain degree of sense to look at the sloppy wording of this FAQ and think "Well, they probably didn't mean to create a bizarre modified-only roll state that has never existed in the game before... I guess they just meant that there was an exception to the bit about not being modified, since they then explained exactly how those rolls could be modified. And anyway, you can't apply modifiers to a modified roll - that's inherently the result after modifiers have already been applied - so the number on the die must still be the unmodified roll, just like every other roll in the game." I'm really interested to see how they clarify this FAQ.

One weird thing I noted: If you decide to split a Horror, but don't have room to place the models, then they are removed from play but very explicitly do not count as being slain. This got me wondering, in the context of the current discussion, what the implication would be for a unit to have models removed without being slain. I mean, there must be some reason why the Battleshock rules and the Split Unit rules so clearly state that the models that are removed count as slain, right? So what happens when they aren't? For instance, the Core Rules Designer's Commentary clearly defines that "A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees." A unit that had some of its models removed from play (but definitely not slain) could potentially be removed entirely from the board without being "destroyed" for the purposes of mission objectives, special rules etc. Thoughts?

Oof. I think it's a big stretch to say that "No, you cannot use abilities to affect other units while off the board" automatically means "Yes, you can use abilities that don't affect other units while off the board." That's a really dodgy inference. It's pretty typical of GW to clarify only the exact question asked, while failing to elaborate on corollary questions. I'd suggest talking it over with your opponent, TO, or whatever before the game. Most people will probably be fine to let Drycha do her thing.

From the Kharadron perspective, I guess you're right. KO weren't concerned about getting tarpitted by Horrors nearly as much as other factions, and that's where the DoT took most of the hits. I take your point, even if I think it's a little funny for KO players to complain about another faction getting to teleport a single unit anywhere on the board. While I think it will take some time for the new DoT to settle into the meta, I think it's interesting that they suffer from some of the same problems as KO. Specifically, it's now extremely easy for them to over-extend and get punished for it, and DD can no longer save them. Their shooting is still amazing, for sure - point for point, I have no doubt they out-shoot a similarly focused KO list, though they can't come close to the KO's ability to redeploy and focus that firepower where it's needed. I suspect the big change will be in the distribution of armies in competitive events. The DoT vs KO matchup might not have changed a whole lot, but the DoT matchup against most other armies has dramatically shifted. That will presumably lead to fewer DoT armies being fielded overall, which might in turn lead to the rise of Bonereaper armies that everyone was predicting, but which never managed to get off the ground because DoT stomped them flat. Anyway, should be interesting times ahead, and hopefully KO get some gentle downward points shifts in the next GHB that give them a little more of an edge!

In fairness, that version of the DoT battletome immediately got spanked out of existence. Tzeentch armies going forward should be a lot more manageable. I do think the new KO have a much higher skill cap than most other factions. They're a bit brittle, don't have many bodies on the table, and really rely on getting the most out of their incredible mobility, which is difficult to capitalise on in a melee-dominated, objective-focused game. It's extremely easy to over-extend them, and get terminally punished for it. That kind of finesse does take longer for players to adjust to than more straightforward armies, but I do think KO are capable of great things.

I'm honestly not even sure what the "cannot be rerolled or modifier further" stipulation was supposed to achieve. What would be the point of rerolling a die whose value you'd set using a DD? That's literally just wasting a DD for no reason, unless there are circumstances where spending a DD would provide some other advantage... but I strongly doubt it would be difficult to burn any number of DDs if that was all you wanted to do. Would it somehow be a problem if the DDs were affected by other modifiers? Most players have a tendency to think of their rolls in terms of what they need after modifiers anyway. The modifiers that are really important, and would be of greatest benefit to the Tzeentch player to ignore, are the ones they're no longer allowed to ignore! I don't understand why they felt the need to make this rule so convoluted. They could have just changed it to "In addition, any rolls that have been replaced count as unmodified rolls, and are subject to any modifiers or rerolls as normal." The world would keep turning, and nobody would be confused - you literally just replace the die that you would roll with one that has a predetermined result, and then treat that die exactly as if you had rolled that number.

The "e.g." there is just an example of the kind of timing that would prevent such a unit from being placed in reserve. It's not the only case. If the Gutter Runners' contingent isn't already on the battlefield by the end of your first movement phase (e.g. if their contingent's arrival is Turn 1 or Turn 2 rather than Start), then they can't use Sneaky Infiltrators. Instead, they would have to be set up at the same time and in the same deployment area as the rest of that contingent's units. If you want your Gutter Runners to use Sneaky Infiltrators, they will need to be part of the contingent that is deployed at the Start of the battle (the Spearhead, or sometimes the Main Body - check the battleplan). When you deploy that contingent, you can deploy the Gutter Runners into reserve.

List specifics aside, I'd start by thinking about general tactics. You need to be aware of your opponent's and your own ranges. There are three that I think are significant, and that I tend to refer to as threat range, screen range and retaliation range. Threat range is the simplest: How far away can your opponent's shooting units be at the start of his turn, and still put shots into your army? If you're outside of this range, you're completely safe. If they're using teleports (as most shooting lists do) then this range may be effectively unlimited (but not necessarily for all the units in their army, and not necessarily guaranteed) - in that case, just accept that you'll almost certainly get shot, but be aware of anything that might disrupt those plans. A strong unbinding bonus can counter a Soulscream Bridge, for example, and leave a Cities shooting force floundering out of position for a turn. Screen range is a little more subtle, and only matters for highly-mobile and short-ranged shooting. Let's say your opponent has devastating firepower that can teleport anywhere on the board at least 9" away from your units - how far behind your front line do your valuable key pieces have to be in order to be safe, or to significantly reduce the incoming fire? An Arkanaut Frigate's main gun can probably reach anywhere it wants, but its Aethershot Carbines only have a 12" range, so if your elite units or heroes are more than 3" behind a screening unit they will avoid a big chunk of its firepower. Retaliation range takes your own forces into account as well. After the enemy shooting units attack, how close to your forces will they have had to come, and what do you have that can close that gap? If you're constantly getting shot from outside your retaliation range (i.e. "kited") then you need to address the fact that your list might be too slow-moving to survive in a shooting meta. Unless you're running a list that can get shot for the whole game without punching back and still hold objectives (massive units of Gitz, maybe?) then you're going to have to find a way to speed it up.

A little disappointed to see that this question wasn't addressed in the FAQ, even though The Change-gift specifically got a mention (you can only add basic Tzaangors, not Enlightened, Shamans, etc).

You still have to pick the faction allegiance for your army - if you pick Slaves to Darkness you get the StD allegiance abilities, and if you pick Disciples you get the DoT allegiance abilities. The rule simply allows you to include the battalion in an army of either allegiance.

There's certainly no restriction that a Realm Artefact must be given to a man-sized creature. Both of your movement cases seem fine to me. You can break movement up into steps, and those steps can let you end up where you started while still passing over other units.

Fair enough! I think it's funny that their clarification says the exact same thing as the rule, only with the words "terrain feature" replaced with the word "skyvessel". But it's great that they're dealing with these questions so promptly.

Is that... not clear? "The range and visibility to or from a garrisoning unit is determined to or from the terrain feature instead." Since the "terrain feature" in this case is flying and visibility is determined from it, the garrisoning unit will be able to see through a Wyldwood even though the unit itself cannot fly. There's no further clarification in the KO battletome, but I don't see how there needs to be.

So is mine. Your interpretation is that you add 1 to the roll for the model that was killed, and an additional +1 for each model that was killed previously in the combat phase. Yeah, it really is terribly worded, regardless of which interpretation you're looking for. For example, there's no indication of what the result would be if you roll higher than a six, which is possible in either scenario. Sloppy is the right word for it. I think they were going for symmetrical language. Both rules use "each time a... model is slain" to indicate when they are applied, and somebody probably thought it made more sense for the rules to mirror each other that way. But yes, it could have been much clearer and simpler in fewer words.

I've seen an awful lot of discussions about balance, and I can't think of any where I noticed a balance-advocate being "hounded out of the forum". My general impression has been much as Overread suggests - almost everyone agrees that balance is good, but nobody agrees on how balance should be achieved. Perhaps that's just down to individual interpretation. (Also, you're the only person I can remember ever seeing outright state that balance would be bad.) Balance often proves difficult and divisive to define, especially when that definition involves fluffy concepts like "player skill". To my mind, the truest metric for balance in a game system is variety of representation. If all the available factions have roughly equal representation at competitive events, then the game is balanced enough for all practical purposes. If a faction has significantly higher or lower representation than normal, then the competitive meta-chasers have identified that it is unusually strong or weak, and the balance of that faction should be addressed to bring it into line. This has the primary advantage of being easily measurable, while things like win rates get muddied by arguments about skill levels and similar factors that are impossible to quantify or control for. A high win rate will inevitably push a faction towards over-representation anyway, and a low win rate will cause under-representation, so these can still be accounted for by this achievable metric. Variety helps to keep the game fresh and interesting. When I say I want better balance, generally what I mean is that I want players to feel like their competitive choices are less restricted, and they are free to base their selection on personal preferences instead. That means a greater variety of opposing forces for me, and a healthier, more engaging game for everyone.

Roll a dice each time a model is slain. Each time a model is slain, add 1 to that roll. A model is slain, and you roll? Add 1 to that roll. Another model is slain, and you roll? Add 1 to that roll. Each time a model is slain and you roll, add 1 to that roll. At no point are you instructed to add more than 1 to the roll. (Obviously the above is only my opinion. This is a terribly-worded and totally ambiguous rule, which could easily be argued either way. But in general, the trend is that GW comes down on the side of the interpretation that's reasonable, rather than the one that's totally bonkers.)

Bravo to Corvus Belli for taking such a proactive, data-driven approach to balance. Having put in the initial effort of setting up that reporting system, I imagine it has paid for itself many times over as an invaluable tool in their game design process. The fact that it's also an open portal through which the community can scrutinise the results of their balancing efforts (as well as run their own meta-analysis) is genuinely courageous. It's true that AoS is a different beast in terms of complexity, but I don't think that's the end of the discussion. The underlying fact is that CB and GW have very different corporate culture. CB is inviting that scrutiny, holding themselves accountable and being transparent about the health of the game, as well as putting particular emphasis on tournament play. GW takes a much more traditional approach - secretive, sales-driven, and communicating only via marketing. They could make a deliberate choice to change that culture, but given how well they're doing I strongly doubt they see any reason to rock the boat. So I don't think we'll see anything like that for AoS in the foreseeable future. It runs directly counter to the way GW prefers to do business.

I see it going one of two ways: Archaon's legions utterly destroy the Bonereapers in the field, but as he's exulting in victory Katakros reveals that losing this epic battle was always the plan. The real objective was <something far more important to Nagash>, and that's now been achieved by keeping Archaon distracted, mua ha ha; or Katakros and Archaon both win massive victories and suffer terrible defeats as the war rages back and forth, but eventually the essentially limitless nature of both armies makes it clear that this is a deadlock which cannot be broken by either side. Then <some unexpected cataclysm> rocks the Mortal Realms, shatters the forces and the confidence of both sides, and is revealed to be the work of a powerful third party making a decisive entry into the conflict. Reignited, the war rages on... (GW's storylines generally do not include any genuine surprises, and tend to focus on making everyone feel good about their choice of allegiance. Either of these outcomes allows players from both sides to feel like their team is still the best. Apart from that, it's a pretty basic Unstoppable Force versus Immovable Object situation - either they somehow both win, or they cancel each other out. I think it's extremely unlikely that either side will "lose" in any meaningful way.)