Isotop

A Lord of Change does not change the dice roll with MASTERY OF MAGIC: "When you make a casting or unbinding roll for a Lord of Change, change the result of the lowest dice so that it matches the highest." (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-lord-of-change-en.pdf) As you just said, changing the result of a dice roll is indeed a modifier (it is adding/substracting basically). Changing the dice roll itself is something different however and is not a modifier: "Q: Some abilities allow you to either pick, change or replace a dice roll with the roll of your choice. Does this happen before or after any re-rolls or modifiers? A: Unless noted otherwise in the ability, it happens before any re-rolls or modifiers are applied." (https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf, page 3)

It would work if you could change the dice roll itself. It does not work with the Starseer´s CURSE OF FATES spell because it changes the result of a dice roll.

You are not answering @Maturin´s question. Or at least you use the wrong reasoning (Realm Artefacts are not allegiance abilities). However, we have this very general Designer´s Commentary: "Q: Can allied Heroes be given artefacts of power, and can allied Wizards be given spells from a spell lore? A: No to both questions." (https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf, page 10) Allies can not be given an artifact (wherever it may come from).

Yes, you pretty much answered your question yourself 👍

Ghyrstrike is (on average) better than the Gladius on a charge (vs 4+ safe and with + 2 attacks from woods): Ghyrstrike: 5 (attacks) x 5/6 (2+ to hit) x 5/6 (2+ to wound) x 5/6 (chance for the opponent to not safe on a 6+) x 6 (weapon damage) = ~17,4 damage Gladius: 7 (attacks) x 2/3 (3+ to hit) x 2/3 (3+ to wound) x 5/6 (chance for the opponent to not safe on a 6+) x 6 (weapon damage) = ~15,6 damage The only upside is that the Gladius has the potential for more damage (42 vs 30 maximal damage). The downside is that the Spirit of Durthu will not be getting the +2 attacks from charging in every combat phase (which lowers the Gladius damage to ~11,1 damage).

You are absolutely correct on this one. I calculated Outrageous Carnage for hit rolls instead of wound rolls. The real average damage of a Bloodthirster of Insansate rage against 4 + safe is ~7,8 (and ~1,7 mortal wounds against all other enemy units within 8" in addition). So I have to correct myself: A naked KoS will do more damage in a single combat activation than any BT (at least against a single target). The Bloodthirster of Insansate rage is pretty comparable, though. I think we are using different definitions of "naked" here. I simply calculated the raw damage output in a single combat activation against 4+ safe. I doubt that a KoS "can and will always attack twice", since CP are a limited ressource (even for Slaanesh) and I did not take any abilities of the Bloodthirsters into consideration that require the spending of an additional ressource. You are getting this the wrong way. You are making the statement that all armies, without taking summoning into account, are balanced between each other and that summoning adds a free layer of abilities not included in the strenght of an army as a whole. Summoning being a "free" rule of some sorts is not the Status Quo, therefore it is you who has to show that your statement holds true. Maybe just give us some tangible arguments for summoning being a free, additional layer on top of an army.

New Slaanesh player here. I am going for a first 2000 points list similar to @Magnus The Blue´s one. I am really liking the Seeker Calvacade 6" pile-in. I am also tending towards Pretenders to try out first - reason being the monster called Keeper of Secrets-Sliverslash Impaling Claws-Strongest Alone-Strenght of Godhood™. I know this might sound a bit shallow and maybe I will "evolve" into a Sybarite guy - but for everyone interested in some numbers, here is the average damage some of our pieces are doing (in one combat activation vs 4+ safe): Naked Keeper of Secrets (Sinistrous Hand): ~8,4 Bladebringer, Herald on Exalted Chariot (being within 1" of 1 enemy unit): ~8,1 (+2,2 when charging) KoSSICSASoG™: ~16,5 (+2 once per combat phase) I hope this is interesting for some of you. I always like to have a rough number in my head when planning a turn. Additionally, I think there are a lot of wrong expectations floating around in people´s heads. I just crunched those numbers because somebody in another thread stated that a naked KoS is doing more damage than every naked Bloodthirster (which is wrong). I think it is easy to get a wrong impression about the KoS because the Impaling Claws can be very swingy. Everyone remembers the game they rolled two sixes to hit and wounded with all of the hits. But we forget the much more numerous times the KoS did more around the 8,5 stated above (allthough this can get up with Acquiescence or the Fane buff). I would be super happy to get some more discussion about our damge output and tactics in general. If you need the average damge for any unit, feel free to ask.

This is not true. The average damage a naked Keeper of Secrets (Sinistrous Hand) doing in one combat activation vs a 4+ safe model is ~8,4. A naked Bloodthirster of Insansate Rage does ~9,4 damage in the same scenario (and ~3,3 mortal wounds against all other enemy units within 8" in addition). I do agree that the Keeper of Secrets as a whole and Slaanesh are looking pretty strong right now, but feeding people with false information is not at all promoting a reasonable discussion. Where are u getting this from? How is summoning something "extra" on everything else an army brings to the table? As far as I can see this is simply an (in my view unreasonable) assumption of yours. If you are picking on a single thing one amry does better than another you can make the "OP-claim" for pretty much every army in AoS. Wanderers are better at shooting than Khorne? Sounds super imbalanced if you look at only this aspect when comparing the two armies. Speaking more generally, I think your arguments are way too simple and one-dimensional.

Running only prevents the unit from shooting later in the same turn. Therefore it will be eligible to shoot in the subsequent opponents turn. About Steady Aim: I am not a native english speaker but I can not imagine what "preceding movement phase" could mean other than "the last movement phase" (in your opponents turn).

In my opinion you are not allowed to change the position of the crewmen realtive to the Ballista after deployment. Most people play it more liberal, though.

The rules perfectly tell us how the work (most times), although I agree the Ballista is a bit weird in this regard. "Logic" is not dedicating that we should measure from the Ballista body. What you describe is an intuition how something should work from a real world point of view. Try to ignore this intuition of yours when trying to understand rules, it has no influence on how a rule is working. In the case of the Ballista, its rules tell us that the Ballista + crew are treated as one model, period. The core rules tell us that a distance between two models is measured between the closest points of the models bases. So yeah, if you are shooting something in front of the Ballista and you have a crewman in front of the "main Ballista" you will measure from (the base of) the crewman. Likewise an enemy model can charge the crewman and attack the Ballista as a whole. It may help to imagine the three bases of the crewmen/Ballista as one (very weird) base with gaps within itself and a pretty strange shape.

Since your contingents are brought to the board at the end of your respective turn, you always have a chance to react to anything placed within your deployment area. Alternatively you can deploy models next to your deployment area to partly block enemy units from being placed there via summoning/teleports. In my view the bigger problem is that a bigger contigent will not be able to be placed within the rather smal 12"x3" deployment area in the first place. Finally, remember that models not being able to be placed are slain, not units.

"Reserves are units that are part of your army" Summoned units are not part of your army before you summon them and put them onto the battlefield (as you pointed out). And more importantly: "[...] which have an ability that allows you to set them up in a location other than on the battlefield and deploy them later once the battle has begun." Summoned units do not have an abililty to set them up in another location. The reserve rules explicitly talk about units you put on the side during deployment (such as a Stormcast Eternals unit put into the Celestial Realm or a unit of Idoneth put aside with a Soulscryer). Maybe you see something in the rules I am missing. As far as I can see they are pretty clear, though.

But the rule applies to reserves. does it not? I do not have to book in front of me right now, so someone quoting the whole thing would be helpful. Summoned units are not reserves.

I am pretty sure that summoned units are, per definition, not reserves: "Reserves are units that are part of your army, but which have an ability that allows you to set them up in a location other than on the battlefield and deploy them later once the battle has begun. Setting up a reserve unit is not considered a move for the unit, but it may restrict a unit’s ability to move in the same turn. Any reserves that have not been set up when the battle ends are treated as if they had been slain when you are working out which side won the battle." (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/ENG_AoSSW_Rules_booklet_web.pdf, page 2) Assuming what the purpose of a rule often leads to misconceptions. That is why RAW (if possible) is the correct way to "interpret" the rules.

You can certainly apply both restrictions at the same time. No need to just use one publication.

Are you serious?

Just to clarify: Exactly 3" away is within 3 ". You just can not reach this "boarder" with a normal move.

You are not allowed to "halt" within 3 inches of enemy units: "When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit [...]" (https://ageofsigmar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/06/AoS_Rules-ENG.pdf, page 4) I hope this allready answers your questions. If not, feel free to ask further.

Pretty sure this does not work, since "armour enhancing" abilities do not modify the save characteristic, do they?

I had the same opinion. But it would not be the first time GW worded a rule very badly.

Not everyone agrees and it is an official playtester for the battletome saying differently. I guess this should be reason enough for at least some suspicion, should it not?

Remember that you can re-roll all hit rolls, not just failed ones. While being a bit off-topic in this thread, did they change the Coven Throne´s warscroll? As far as I know nothing about it is a mount.

Can you quote the clause you are talking about? I am pretty sure it does not exist, but I could be wrong.

It seems you do not need units on the field at all. Only the ratio after your deployment matters: