NJohansson

Depends I guess - Be’lakor and Archeon is often seen across the board, so is the Gaunt summoner and Khorne/Nurgle Daemon Prince. Unit vise marauders are sometimes seen in Khorne and warriors sometimes in Tzeentch (although probably not on a competitive level). Lots of STD spells are also taken where possible. But I definitely agree that Maggot needs them more than the rest (the book is definitely weaker than for example Tzeentch or Hedonites).

I was probably to short in my answer. I fully agree that it would be nice if every army book was 100 percent competitive. But my point was that the Maggotkin army book actually includes all mark of Nurgle units so marauders with mark of Nurgle are part of the book. STD actually is sort of a supplement (providing mark of Nurgle units) to Maggotkin - not just to be seen as allies. One of the main strength of chaos is its variation and endless possibilities to mix and match from different books (IMHO).

He does have great synergy with Kairos so he could have a place in a Guild of Summoners list with Kairos - but probably not the ideal choice anyway.

Marauders are battle line in Nurgle. So it is a pure Nurgle army. What you are actually saying is I want to only be able to play “insert a specific type of model” and I want it to be as good as any carefully build army out there. Not going to happen - not in this game. I play mostly Tzeentch and I regularly add STD units - never feeling that I am no longer playing Tzeentch.

Just one minor comment regarding playtime - they have significantly made it easier to keep track of summoning and placing new units BUT the amount of dice that you are rolling for attacks from horror units is really becoming an annoyance for me. They should have just had an increased damage/hit potential and decreased amount of attacks (IMHO) since rolling up to 100 dice (Extreme case - but 50+ is a regular occurrence) at a time is not fun for anyone.

Maybe wrong place but has anyone tried playing Nurgle as a Legion of Chaos Ascendant (First prince) list. You could go with 1-2 Great Unclean Ones, Be’lakor, 3 Units of Plaguebearers and Drones/other Daemon of Nurgle units and you will get: Better resilience (legion trait), better summoning(average of 10 plaguebearers per turn), better attrition (return d3 models on a 3+ from Be’lakor) and a monster of a character in Be’lakor. Seems much stronger than going regular?

Sorry if I came around offensive - was not my intention. But my point still stands - if a unit is costed correctly it will be a useful tool no matter its rules. Just look at a clan rat or a Lord of change. Opposite scale of the equation - few people would say that either unit is not good for its points. My example was purely that for 20 point the piece you said was worthless would simply become the best in the game and if you cost it correctly it will become something that people will play with since it has decent rules for a 100 points model (although I have no idea where the actual threshold should be at - but it needs to be significantly lower than now).

You unfortunately miss the single most important aspect - this is a point based game (if talking matched play). Due to this the single most important variable is how much does it cost. Be’lakor is one of our most powerful models - but he would be useless (as in severely over costed) if he was 1500 points. A Formoroid for 20 points per model would be the most broken thing in the game. Almost anything can be fixed (as in made playable/more balanced) by increasing/deceasing the actual point cost.

Yes the new covens are from the Wrath book. Also regarding Archaon - just chose Tzeentch and under leaders he is first choice (at least for me).

To be fair in the actual storyline OBR and Nighthaunt never fight together - they are in the same campaign but never engaged at the same place so fluff wise it is not that big of a discrepancy. It is the same as Stormcast has fought side by side with Vampires and Destruction in the various novels - definitely not allies but with a common interest.

Point for point the spawn is sort of underwhelming (yes I know every model can have a use etc. - but generally you could spend the points better). Therefore Tzeentch would be my main suggestion. Kairos, the Icon and a Magister could potentially create 3 spawns per turn. Going for a Host Duplicitous army (where your opponent can’t disengage) could even make the spawn actually useful. It’s probably not the most competitive build but definitely not bad and you will have a lot of spawns.

I would say it is just a flat one extra per roll (so no stacking), at least that’s how we have interpreted it.

It’s funny that the list went 4-1 in a cut throat environment and only lost to a list that ended up top 10. Most lists that auto loose to anything end up much further down. Yes the new DoT are very strong but this is a list that really has potential (naturally pending on opponents/opposite list). Saying that something is auto loose is just throwing everything back To ”StD sucks - we need a new army book”. I play DoT as my main army (STD as my second) and I would not feel that the list in question has no chance against any of my lists - I might feel that some of my lists should have an advantage but definitely not an auto loss in any way.

But here in lies the problem - if both sides agree it’s fine - heck half the time we play with Warmachine LoS rules because they actually make sense - but on that I agree with my gaming group, it’s when you don’t agree that you need rules/how to read them. Then It becomes more practical to use RAW and try to use rules as close as possible - making up your own rules when in disagreement rarely works.

Here is where your logic fails (IMHO). There is no rules telling how to play counts as slain - but clear rules regarding slain. According to your logic the players are better making up their own rules rather than using the closest and most likely thing available (just saying that they are the same)?

That’s the thing with this book - it has really strong elements and it is definitely not one of the weakest books if used properly - but a lot of people are stuck on chaos warriors. Yes I agree they are the staple (fluff wise) and I have 30+ laying around waiting for better days but if you want to go with higher win rate you probably should look at marauders as your foundation. The same goes for marks - Tzeentch is generally better left out of the equation (Gaunt summoner notable exception) while Khorne and Nurgle seems really strong.

Just noticed that In Azyr Be’lakor can take a spell from the Tzeentch Daemon list, that is a bug right? Need to be TD only or am I missing something?

I thought to just drop the argument (seeing as it almost guaranteed will not lead anywhere) but against better judgment I’ll bite. Common sense is not a universal understanding. What common sense is to one person is wholly different to another one (basic leadership/management/legal training has tonnes of literature on this phenomena) - it is a subjective (culture/education/belief etc.) notion. The concept of a toxic player has the same subjective assumption. We all can probably agree that a player that belatedly cheating, rage quitting, being offensive/threatening is bad for the hobby and is toxic. Beyond that it becomes subjective - you may want people to play nice, fluffy and balanced lists, other players want to face and field the most cut throat lists that are possible. Odds are that if these two types of players play against each other - one or the other will find the other player toxic (most probably the fluffy list guy - simply due to his/her list being wiped of the board) but in reality they just have very different ideas about common sense, rules of engagement and the game in general (it’s like having a communist talk politics with a capitalist - they will not come to any understanding). So in essence there is no real concept of who should yield or whose common sense should prevail - the best solution is try to follow the rules and agree on them where possible (usually not a problem when both players have similar common sense), use RAW when in argument (the communist plays the capitalist) and hope for clarifications when even RAW becomes impossible or just in the end roll-off. Much more fair than asking someone to play by your notion of fairness.

The general ruling is that a newer book trumps an older one. You can’t play any warscrolls from an army that has gotten an update after the release of the GH. By your logic I should still be able to play the old LoC, Gaunt summoner etc. simply because they have a point cost in the GH. The new Slaves to Darkness remover the old Daemon Prince warscroll completely and replaced it with the current one.

Then please clarify the meaning “count as being slain”? Not with what you think it means but from the rules - because I have not seen any such definition (if there is I will gladly back down). I know there is a definition of slain - and a rule saying counts as being slain but no actual wording on the difference.

Just so I understand you right - you post a photographed quote of a ruling as proof of you point being right - knowing full well that said ruling was removed directly after posting? That is not even RAI - that is more “read as I want and wish for”.

Just to clarify - did they not pull said clarification from the FB and was it not clearly stated that that was not the official ruling but their opinion?

And here is where you actually completely lost me. Either one player will get an advantage or the other player will get the advantage. Both player can’t play in such a way as to give the other player the advantage. In my experience (totally biased based on my own personal interaction with other people) most people who argue RAI against me will always end up reading the rules in a way that actually favors them. That is why RAW is clearer (not the same as always clear - but clearer) in that read as it is written and do not try to find the hidden meaning of the design team - if there is one it will be in a FAQ.

Again now you are adding a subjective (personal) opinion “The slain part is purely for kill points”. If that was the case the rule would have said so. The rule simply states - remove from play, counts as being slain. The only real argument is if “counts as” is the same as purely “slain”. RAW - I would argue that they are the same simply because all rules share the same trigger - slain. The argument that why did they not write it the exact same is a weak one - GW has never been good at writing legal texts (rules are basically legal texts) and while better then previously they still are ambiguous and seldom perfectly worded. An important aspect is also that pure legal text tend to get very difficult to read for a layman - if they would writ perfect legal text the absolute majority of players would find the rules cumbersome and hard to follow. RAI - never liked this argument, but if going down this path - when looking at RAI (which a lot of legal systems use) one of the most basic principles is to look at how was the rule/similar rules prior to this - a change against previous principles is done through clear statement - ambiguity errs on the side of how it used to be. In light of this - my understanding is that previously the majority of players played that if Horrors were destroyed (even through Battle chock) you still got the summoning points. Slightly different mechanic but still a clear indication on the possible intent.

It has been removed from the app/Azyr - granted they make mistakes all the time but fully removing a warscroll should be a clear indication. Also - the book where it previously existed has removed said scroll so it really has been overrided (newer trumps General Companion).