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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Lord Celestant

About Isotop

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Isotop

    AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

    First there is a technical difference in the way you are allowed to set up models for both: (1) When you use Forest Spirits (deployment in the hidden enclaves) to bring a unit on the table, all models in the unit have to be within 3" of a Wyldwood. (1.1) The unit forfeits its "normal" movement in order to teleport (2) When you use Navigate Realmroots (teleporting between Wyldwoods) the unit has to be within 3" of a Wyldwood (2.1) You have to roll on the Spirit Paths table (1=the unit can not do anything for the turn, 6=the unit can move normally in addition to the teleport) The big difference is that you can "conga line" your untis when using Navigate Realmroots. This can be handy for capturing objectives or zoning enemy units. Sorry have to work now but I would be happy to further discuss the topic later
  2. Isotop

    AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

    My post was not about 10 Hunters in particular. You can just divide the respective damage output by ten to learn about the average damage per model. I am sorry if this was not clear. Yes, both Scythes and Swords are good in general. But I have to disagree with your statement about the damage not being relevant for the argument. Imagine Scythes did as much damage as Swords. There would be no reason to ever pick Swords. Imagine Swords with damage 1 and no rend - no one would ever pick Swords at all. Tha fact that their damage outputs are pretty close to each other (depending on the target) and that the reach and flexibility of the Scythes can not be represented in numbers (for the most part) makes it hard for people to decide between Scythes and Swords. What I tried to accomplish with my post is just raw information about the average damge the weapon choices provide, so that people know exactly what they are talking about when they say "x is better than y" or "in case z, x does more damage than y". Another thought process when deciding between Scythes and Swords emerges from the design of your list in general. For example, I am playing Dreadwood Wargrove right now with Alarielle, a Spirit of Durthu and a unit of 6 Scythe-Hunters. A reasonable thought could be: I allready have enough -2 rend attacks with the Spirit and Alarielle - maybe Swords would suit this list better for overall performance. Another thought, and in fact the one I had when I first created and played the list, is: When I am using Subterfuge to redeploy the Hunters, it can be quite limiting if I have to get six 50mm bases within 1" of the enemy unit I want to delete or bind - so I took Scythes since you only have to fit three bases (with the other three attacking from the "second rank").
  3. Isotop

    Objectiv control

    You would still control it since your opponent failed to take control of the objective. As you mentioned, you keep controlling the objective until your opponent manages to take control himself. Likewise you can just leave an objective after you have taken control of it and keep scoring wihout any models within 6" of it (until you opponent grabs it).
  4. Isotop

    Whispered temptations

    Well I would say that this is your opinion then. Rules-wise it is pretty clear: The enemy hero does not have to take any re-rolls in order to be slain (when a 6 is rolled). I honestly do not think that there is anything broken about it - otherwise we would see tons of Slaneesh popping up in the top rankings of tournaments.
  5. Isotop

    Whispered temptations

    Why can´t it be right? o_O
  6. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    And yes, a 1 will still miss - even if it was modified. I just realized what might have been the disconnect between the two of us,
  7. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    The only thing I criticized is your claim a 1 can not be modified. There is nothing in the rules supporting this claim. And no, to reject your claim has nothing to do with the discussion that was conducted in this thread.
  8. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    It is quite telling that you do not even react to the point I criticized.
  9. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    As you probably have seen, we allready ended our discussion. However, I find it kind of toxic to post something like this without any rules backup. This kind of behaviour is the reason I try to provide reference for my claims in almost every case.
  10. Isotop

    Splitting attacks and "wholly within"

    There are a whole lot of different cases: (1) A model has to be within = just some part of the models base has to be in range (2) A model has to be wholly within = the whole base has to be in range (3) A unit has to be within = just some part of the base of one model has to be in range (4) A unit has to be wholly within = the whole base of every model in the unit has to be in range and (5) All models of a unit have to be within = just some part of the base of every model has to be in range
  11. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    Well, let´s say I am happy the situation will probably never arise. Unless someone brings 5 Warchanters to the table and a sixth hero with SoJ and manages to deliver this hero to an enemy hero or monster.
  12. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    Again, I never said it hits. It would be helpful to elaborate a bit more detailed why "it sounds" to you that way. Okay I guess I have to agree that we do not agree at this point. I feel like we are starting to talk at cross purposes regarding the "attack sequence ends" definition. Thank you for the discussion, though.
  13. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    I never said that. What I am claming is that you do not actually have to hit with the Sword of Judgement in order to cause the mortal wounds. All you need is a hit roll showing a 6 (or more). The argument between me and @BaldoBeardo is about wether the hit roll will be modified (to show the required result) or not before the attack sequence ends (due to a natural 1). The problem we are dealing with is, amongst other things, finding and/or agreeing on a clear definition what "the attack sequence ends" means.
  14. Isotop

    Mighty Waagh mawcrusha

    I chime in with @sorokyl. One small addition, though. Mounts can not benefit from command traits either. https://ageofsigmar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/06/AoS_Rules-ENG.pdf, page 17 for both artifacts and command traits
  15. Isotop

    Warchanter stacking attacks

    1) I fully accept that modifiers are part of the attack sequence 2) Exactly my point, I do not see how a "fail to hit the target" would exclude the SoJ mortal wounds to happen 3) Asserting this one as well - I, too, have a strong intuition what "the attack sequence ends" means, but I find the description of the SoJ telling me that it simply means "do not continue with the other steps of the attack sequence". This, in my view, does not stop you from finishing the hit roll phase. I get the feeling that 2) is the more problematic point (at least for me). Assuming you kind of made up the term "failed attack" was wrong and I apologize - I overread "the attack fails" in the hit roll phase before I made my comment. I get the strong feeling, though, that it simply stands for "the attack misses" as these two things are mixed up in the next sentence ("fails to hit") as well. Even if we give "the attack fails" a independent status, it is kind of vague in my opinion. 1) and 3) are working in conjunction for my argument. Yes, modifiers are sure embedded in the attack sequence, but, in my view, the attack sequence will not stop before they are applied. The questions I still have to ask you is: How do you refute 3)? Is the wording of SoJ unclear to you? Where do you get your understanding from "the attack sequence ends" from? I was searching for a valid explanation somewhere else than my intuition about it and found the wording of SoJ. What is your argument to challenge the wording of SoJ? And again, to be absolutely clear: I am not arguing for the sake of "defeating" your position - I value your type of argumentation a lot and I am happy to have the chance to have an argument like this with you. I simply think it is important to dismantle the problems GW has with the rules they are writing.