NJohansson
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by NJohansson
-
-
9 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:
I’m inclined to agree with this. It’s clearly against intent to generate more models from Battleshock.
The actual relevant wording is:
So we have - slain - remover from play.
Regarding Battle chock:
Once again - remove from play - count as slain (same meaning, reversed words). Note that the unit does not flee - not any of their models, simply remove from play - slain. Regarding the spawning:
Spawning triggers on slain...
Are people really arguing the semantic between counts as slain and purely slain?
I do get that people feel the need for additional nerfs (I am probably in the same camp feeling Tzeentch is still on the higher end of the power curve) but this is getting ridiculous.
-
6
-
-
Just now, Rentar said:
Alas. ****** FB team jumped the gun again.
During the age when GW had their own forum there soon became a prevailing understanding that unless official answer (as in FAQ) then there is no actual answer. Until they make a full interpretation (either direction) In the official FAQ I will keep playing it the way that it always has been (a 1 return Pinks).
-
9 hours ago, Sedraxis said:
I disagree, both from a design perspective and from reading the rules.
Battleshock reads: remove them and count them as having been slain. Just as some teleports read: the unit counts as having moved.
When a model is slain through allocating wounds however a model is first slain and then removed from play. There is a separate section for this in the rules.
Now these are all very minor things, same for the unmodified stuff on battleshocks and banners, but they have a big impact on the game. RAW they would both end up as not being allowed the way I read it, but those terms tend to just be put aside by populair demand when it suits.
What ruins it for me is that Tzeentch is the only faction that gains a big amount of power from shady rules mechanics and lack of clarifications, such as the thigns mentionned above, casting spells without targets for extra fate points and killing your own models with endless spells since they don't specify enemy targets and then returning extra models through healing/banners.
These things aren't tactical choices or faction mechanics, they're (likely unintended) bits and pieces of extra power that players draw out after interpreting the rules.
I don't understand why we as a community applaud these things.
So far I have not seen anyone play it any other way than that battle chock counts as slain and thus creates new models. Sure you could maybe argue the other way around but unless FAQ says otherwise it seems very counterintuitive to argue that counts as slain and slain means different things.
-
26 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
That doesn't work very well in competitive play. Many competitive armies are stacked to one end of the game to take advantage of bad rules or bad balance. Thats just a reality no one here is going to change.
I think this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Some armies (like Idoneth and Fyrslayers) have few options overall and even fewer competitive (as in cost efficient once) and their armies will generally be very stacked with the same type of units. But in general there are more than one or two different ways to build competitive builds from most army books. Just take a look at the top armies at Cancon - even among the armies from the same faction there were very diverse builds. Naturally some army books tend to have fewer ranged options (e.g. Flesh-court) and others much more (e.g. Tzeentch).
-
13 hours ago, Sacrednikki89 said:
So the new one with Mark of Tzeentch buffs StD Wizards with his command ability and is good in melee, is he a waste of points without any StD wizards basically?
I would say that the Prince is more or less a waste of points in Tzeentch regardless. If you need a semi beater - better to take the Sorcerer on Manticore (who is also a caster with a great spell and has a good ability) or Be’lakor who is equally good in combat as the prince as well as a 2 spell caster with one of the best abilities in the game (IMHO). Yes the prince is cheaper but only marginally so.
-
30 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
Yeah. A mastermind spreadsheet lmao. I'm not remotely getting into a math debate on these forums, some of you and your strict adherence to math not mattering makes it not worth it.
Still - would be really interesting to see the thought process. I assume it is something down the lines of unit X averages Y amount of hits/wounds (then various amount of damage subject to rend) divides by unit cost?
The above seems fairly easy to evaluate. Then one can do the same for a units toughness (wounds/save, special abilities to -hit/wound and also divided by cost). Once you have offensive and defensive output you need to somehow evaluate what is worth the most.
Here it starts to get really tricky because even if you get offense/defense right you then need to add movement, range, special abilities, synergies with other units, possible buffs etc.
I am not saying that it can’t be done, but I don’t see how it is achieved in a spreadsheet - but if possible I would love to understand how?
-
19 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:
They gain almost 50% of their footprint whenever they split. Don’t play with the assumption that the player put their splits within the range Locus of Change or Inspiring Presence. Make them check whenever a set of attacks resolve.
The most common is that the Tzeentch player will place the new models further back (i.e. closer to Locus and IP) especially if you are using them as a tarpit (no need to increase the footprint for extra attacks). So naturally you are right that it is important to double check - but has never been a real problem in my games.
-
5 hours ago, Sinfullyvannila said:
Yeah, Stormcast, Ogors and Slaves.
You don’t need to do 100 damage. You need to do 20. You just need to get rid of the icon bearers.
You also don’t have the -1 to hit if a hero isn’t in range. And since you only have 1 TP per turn, you can’t teleport a hero within range
Once again - I don not think that the sky is falling, a lot of armies have counter play to Tzeentch. Saying that - if you kill even 30 (as in your example) the rest will not just disappear. Battle Shock will take another 20-30 models but you really need to take out much more to get rid of them. As to inspiring presence and -1 to hit the Tzeentch player can move a disk hero 16 inches forward (so should be in range) but then again killing the hero is always a possibility.
-
4 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
Why is this happening? Changehost is one drop, you're going to know exactly where the flamers are, their exact threat range and you get to compensate for all of that before deploying anything meaningful.
I agree in principle - in play my opponents (and granted they may not be world class players) have had great difficulties to deploy outside of Flamer range (if I have more than one unit) while not giving away full board control. If my opponent deploys 27” from everything in my army I will simply give them first turn and aim for the double turn (in truth I will do so almost every game if I do not see great alpha strike potential in my opponents list since close to nothing survives a double turn from our guns right now.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:
The new Faq says it counts as unmodified
"In addition, any rolls that have been replaced (with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests) count as unmodified rolls and cannot be re-rolled or modified further."
Or am i missing something?
Just b.c a faq says you can no longer use an ability in 1 spot doesn't mean its instantly something else, it just means there are more restriction on that ability.I think you are missing the following commentary:
Q: If I spend 2 destiny dice to change the casting roll for a Lord of Change, does the ‘Mastery of Magic’ ability change the result of the destiny dice that I used for the casting roll?
A: No.
Hence the follow up questions. -
1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:
Isn't it a little early to be saying the changes aren't enough? Probably needs a few big events and us to actually play some games first. Don't get me wrong, Tzeentch is still going to be a strong list, but hopefully the changes/clarifications will bring down that feeling of impossible odds a bit.
At this point everything is speculation. Personally I believe the changes were on the lighter side - things like flamers, Changehost and the Host Duplicitous/Eternal Conflagration will still be super strong. On the other hand - the meta will quickly adjust so there will definitely be more anti shooting lists in the coming tournaments. Will be very interesting to see but Tzeentch still feels like it is a very powerful gunline that will absolutely destroy any list that is not directly geared for handling it.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Grotruk said:
Yeah but Fatemaster is also terribly good with big block of acolytes (especially with the one which will shot 2 times ;p)
Just to clarify- Fatemaster is great. He is fantastic for e.g. Flamers, big blocks of acolytes/Horrors and many other things. Was only commenting on Fatemaster - Enlightened combo.
-
2 hours ago, Grotruk said:
Fatemaster seems nearly a must have in this kind of list in fact, especially if you run 6 or 9 enlightened
Not necessarily- Guided by the Past is a stronger ability. Depending on how you are planning to use them Fatemaster might be good (if you send them against something that can kill them straight up) but generally they are still better if they just strike after another enemy.
-
3 hours ago, Malakithe said:
I treat Enlightened as a tax as far as Witchfyre goes. They cost too much for what they bring to the battalion. 3 is next to useless so naturally you want to bump it up to 6 to get some use. Now you need a Shaman to make them better. All that is taking away points from the focus of the Pyrofane + Witchfyre list which is heavy shooting via Acolytes and magic.
You usually get more out of them taking 9 than taking a shaman. So if you take the shaman for the sole reason to get something out of the enlightened you probably should just take 3 more (unless you take the fatemaster instead).
-
1 hour ago, Ksym77 said:
What if the player who spent fewer points could choose who took the first turn? They would be paying an actual price for it at that point in not taking a full army. And players would have to make a decision on how much they could leave out to try and get the first turn.
To me the greatest problem is not how first turn is decided - the greatest problem (IMHO) is that it is certain prior to first turn. Having an uncertainty is more complex and forces both players to plan for both defense and offense instead of one player deploying for all out assault and the other for full defense.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Malakithe said:
Yes I should have said that. I figured it was a thread about the competitiveness but ill specify next time.
In that case I still stand by my statements lol
I sort of agree with you that the rest of the other battalions are not for generic all round use - but there are several that can be made to work - even competitively. They are also (IMHO) properly/semi-properly costed/structured in that it actually is a difficult choice between taking a battalion or going without. The Changehost is a bad battalion in that it is idiot proof to take it, almost zero drawbacks compared to all the benefits.
-
1 hour ago, Lord Krungharr said:
I think Flamers are certainly better than they used to be, way better. But still they're pretty easy to kill at 2 wounds each with a 5+ save. Also I think we'll be seeing the Prismatic Palisade in use more often now. Shooting is becoming far more prevalent in AoS now.
Is there a battalion that one can put a bunch of Flamers and not much else within? No tome yet, maybe tomorrow I can go get one.
The Warpflame Host - 1 Exalted Flamer and up to 8 other “flamer” type of units. The reward is meh but can be worth it if you want flamers but no Changehost.
-
10 minutes ago, Deathtone_shade said:
I don’t know where you see that flamer can reroll to wound or have -2 rend but you’re wrong at this point 🤷🏻♂️
-1 rend with confrag, absolutely no rend without this coven
reroll all to hit with the fatemaster command and need to be WW 9’’ of it
+1 to wound with the artefact aura of mutability WW 9’’ of the bearer
Sometimes typing while doing other things makes you a moron (so thanks for the correction) should definitely have been -1 on rend (with conflagration) and just re-roll to hit - was sloppy and did not check all numbers before posting. The damage (and rend) goes down to 20-36 on average while the rest of the post still remains the same. Still not seeing that it is not a very (to strong unit).
once again - sorry for wrongish numbers:)
-
Lost and the Damned and Slaves to Darkness really got me stuck on chaos (first Slaanesh and later Tzeentch). The art - where Blanche (and the many other talented artists - I just always associate the dark type of rough paintings of that Warhammer time with Blanche) really captures the essence of chaos. Also the stories/fluff was/is fantastic (I still have my copies just for the fluff).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LordPrometheus said:
Flamers are fine, why does everyone keep freaking out about them? Oh noes, can't let Tzeentch have good shooting! /sarcasm font
9 flamers have a threat range of 27”. They will generally hit on 3+ (Minimum) and wound on 3+. In some instances they will also re roll attacks and wounds. Depending on one big unit or three small ones you are looking at 28-30 attacks of which around 12 will wound (more like 20+ if you do things properly) which will be 24 - 40+ wounds -2 rend. This is without any Changehost or other special tech and if translated to points will easily erase more than a quarter of your opponents army. That is some real serious damage potential - just on average.
The flamer unit(s) cost 360 point. A lot of people are saying how squishy they are but what can really touch them? Most shooting or magic will be top priority and the Tzeentch player has in addition to the shooting mortal wounds through spells in abundance - so range supremacy is more or less guaranteed (99 percent of the army has good shooting/magic). We can also summon in more of them if they start dropping/Fold reality back sporadic losses and to add insult to injury we have some of the games best screens so melee is not going to touch them either. Sure - there are some armies that can deep strike/pull of some really long range threat that will realistically be able to hurt them but those armies are far between.
How people think that they are fine is beyond my understanding. Don’t get me wrong - I love Tzeentch and it is my main army and has been since 7ed, but the unit is stupidly good for its points. A -1 to hit would still make it a very good unit point for point.
-
1
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Paniere said:
my 2c on how balancing things out. 1) rewrite aura of mutability , too strong 2) if you take the changehost batallion, no arcanites allowed ( no fatemaster, no gaunt summoner). 3) modify changehost: either 1 teleport or 2 but within 18/27". Thoughts?
Most Changehost (including those at the resent tournaments - not counting the Cancon one) did not include any arcanites. Aura of mutability is strong but for example the host duplicitous does not really care and one teleport will be enough to still stop a lot of things in their tracks. More effective (regarding changehost) would (once again IMHO) be to remove flamers/exalted flamers from it and only allowing min units.
-
1 hour ago, PraetorDragoon said:
So regular battletome standards then.
Actually no - much better. There are half a dozen other playable ones - it’s just that two of the battalions are really outstanding and on an whole different power level (especially Changehost).
-
32 minutes ago, Sumanye said:
Ah interesting. My battletome does not say that, it’s just says damage roll without the ( e.g.). I must have an older printing. Well, guess we are both right lol?
Posted just for clarity - I guessed that we had different editions. Probably a clear example why the best way forward would be a living e-rulebook with clear dates regarding which edition is the last. Best for the game although I really love to have physical prints in the shelf.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Sumanye said:
That actually isn’t stated. It just says “damage rolls”, which is often confused by people thinking generating mortal wounds is the same as a damage roll, which it isn’t, hence the designer commentary. The new book does not say damage roll, it’s says “damage characteristic of melee or middle weapon”, which is what “damage roll” always meant, it’s just stated explicitly since this seemed to be a point of confusion.
-
1
-
Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Intent is a very dangerous notion simply because intent to me is probably not the same as for you - it is not objective but subjective. RAW, while at times is stupid, is much more clearer. If the designers want us to use intent - they clarify it in a FAQ. RAW any DD were possible to use to auto pass battle chock - that was not the intent and has been rectified. Let’s leave it at that.