Jump to content

Sumanye

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sumanye

  1. Sumanye
    I'm fine with these changes, and as others have said, nothing is a surprise except the LoC ability. Almost unnecessary since I'll be banking all those CP for Inspiring Presence now anyway. My feeling on DD now are that they feel a bit useless tbh. I think the changes were good, but with those changes AND the requirement to use 2 DD on 2d6, AND no modifiers, AND no Mastery of Magic... I feel like outside of an outstanding DD roll or buying DD reroll abilities, we will probably use DD once or twice a game for a big charge or cast. Maybe a few smaller charges. Not complaining, I think Teentch is plenty powerful. But I guess I'm saying, if I forgot to roll my DD, I don't think I'd really miss them. The DD roll use to be the most exciting part of playing Teentch and I'm not really feeling that anymore IMO.
  2. Sumanye
    Destiny dice in BS does not count as modified. It says the result is still modified by the model slain, which is totally different and doesn't matter for Horror Icon Bearer ability. Using a 1 DD is still an unmodified roll. Read another way, models slain don't count as a "modifier" in the same sense that other modifiers count, such as "+1 to hit".
  3. Sumanye
    But, as was said many times before, you were never able to summon him; rules were very clear despite instance otherwise in this thread. This wasn't a change, as it was in the Designer Commentary. Also, shout out to the real MVP of this FAQ. Acolytes with Glaives and Shields!
  4. Sumanye
    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?
  5. Sumanye
    While I don’t disagree, I think the difference between a novice and experienced player is how reliably you get your units into that perfect world, and that can be done very easily for horrors. And I’ll say it again, the fact the horrors don’t need to take battleshock at all, whether it be from CP or DD, completely eclipses the fact that spending DD instead of CP gives Tzeentch more resources to work with and thus makes them slightly stronger. It’s true, DD for battle shock makes Tzeentch stronger, but in a way that is insignificant to how powerful horrors are. IMHO of course!
  6. Sumanye
    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.
  7. Sumanye
    The oversight in question is the fact that the number of models slain in a unit counts as a modification and thus, DD ignore battleshock. I still expect this will get FAQ’ed, though I really hope it won’t. Also, you have never been allowed to use destiny dice to modify spell damage. Everything that destiny dice can be used for in the new book is the same as the old book, except they can now actually be used to dispel too. It’s worded explicitly now in the new book about damage rolls, but even in the old book it says you may use DD to modify a “damage roll” and spell damage is NOT a damage roll. This is also explained in the core rules designer commentary.
  8. Sumanye
    I mean, I don't know how I could be anymore clear in explaining that this isn't the case, so I'll just agree to disagree. However, I do agree that Horrors are too good for a combination of reasons and any one change is not likely to fix them (without being so drastic as to make them useless). I just don't think DD is the change to make. Btw, this whole thing was in response to someone earlier saying the only fixes Horrors need is the DD for battleshock. So, I don't disagree that you shouldn't try to address something if you can't fix it 100%, I just don't think this is the change to make.
  9. Sumanye
    I mean, Locus of Change is a thing, so yes, I assume a competent player will have a hero next to their Horrors and also know how to screen it. Nobody said the DD on battleshock wasn't strong; it is strong indeed. I said it wasn't the reason Horrors are bonkers and changing it isn't going to keep horrors from being bonkers if you are a competent player.
  10. Sumanye
    Yeah, this is the ideal setup. Extra horn and banner is good in case your opponent can target specific models, but it’s not worth caring about imo; go for whatever you think looks cool.
  11. Sumanye
    When you are tarpitting your opponent with a unit that denies retreats and spending a cp is the difference between another turn or 2 of tarpit or your opponent breaking free, there is no question on where to spend the command points imo. That could win you a game on the spot; no CA is that strong. You also know if you’re going to tarpit, so it’s not like you have to guess if you need to save a CP or not. My point is, saving horrors from battleshock is going to happen no matter what. And spending DD to do it instead of CP so your army gets a +1 to cast is not why Tzeentch is wrecking tables. Idk what the solution for horrors is, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s removing DD for battleshock, at least for competitive play.
  12. Sumanye
    I like the current destiny dice to be clear, and I hope they don’t change it. I don’t think Battleshock immunity is why horrors are strong; any competent player would use inspiring presence on horrors instead of spamming LoC CA anyway and the horror issue needs to be addressed separately imo. I also don’t think spending DD to ignore Battleshock is any stronger than Battleshock mitigating abilities of other armies either, especially since it comes at the cost of a finite resource. I think ignoring rend is fun and interesting. I also like that you can’t modify cast rolls with DD, just makes things a little more interesting and I think DD are still stronger after the change than before, so who cares. Yeah, I’m a fan of our new dice. If it really is intended for battleshock, then I’m happy. When I roll my 9 dice with this book, I feel a lot more excited about the possibilities than I did prior.
  13. Sumanye
    I think destiny dice for Battleshock immunity will likely be addressed in the FAQ, but not because of balance, but just because it was likely never intended in the first place.
  14. Sumanye
    No it doesn’t. Modifiers are like +1 and -1 to cast, as I wrote.
  15. Sumanye
    1.) The condition on Fortune and Fate is casting a spell, once the condition is met, you can't do it again. But, you can fail your first cast, succeed with your second cast from Balewind and then trigger Fortune and Fate. 2.) No, the dice change is not a modifier. Modifiers are things like +1 to cast or -1 to cast. So yes, if you spend a 2 and a 4 DD for a Lord of Change, the result will be 8 and cannot be modified.
  16. Sumanye
    Well about whining, seems to me there is a lot more whining in this thread about NOT nerfing Tzeentch than there is about nerfing it. We all know it's going to get toned down. The good news is, this book has tons of solid options and even after nerfs it's still going to be a great book.
  17. Sumanye
    Summoning means taking a model off the summoning table, that is explained in the allegiance ability. There is no general “summon” rule in AoS, you have to go by the allegiance ability that lets you summon, and there is only one unit on the table that has the Lord of Change keyword. It even calls out the entry on the table by saying “instead of a Fate Point cost of 30 points”. I agree it’s very clear RAW, just not in the way you do I guess.
  18. Sumanye
    If you read the allegiance ability on summoning, it clearly explains that you can only summon units from the table, which does not include Kairos. There is nothing in the Guild of Summoners rules that modifies the summoning table and thus you can not summon Kairos RAW.
  19. Sumanye
    I don't think you can summon Kairos and my reasoning would be the following... The Guild of Summoners rule does not provide an alternate way to bring a model on the table e.g. "reduce fate points by 9 and place 1 Lord of Change unit within 9" of a hero". The rule says "summon" and even notes that the cost is not 30, but instead 9/18/30, so this is summoning we are dealing with and not an alternate method. Since Kairos is not on the summon table, you cannot summon him. It is weird it lists the keyword instead of the title, but that is not the only instance in this book of weird title/keyword choices (for example, Tzaangor Coven). I'll submit the question for the FAQ, but I honestly don't see a case for summoning him RAW.
  20. Sumanye
    No, not really. This is covered in a faq. Basically if it says 1/10 can have a horn, then the 10th extra Tzaangor you place could have a horn. You cannot, for example, place an 11th Tzaangor and give him a horn or 2 handed weapon, (I’m assuming your original 10 took all options available). However, if you added 10 extra Tzaangors somehow, your 5th, 6th could be a mutant and 2 hander and your 10th could be horn mutant standard or 2hander. But that’s how you would have to do it, so practically speak, probably not since you likely won’t add that many Tzaangors without losing any.
  21. Sumanye
    Whoever said that is wrong. There is no such thing as a "whole attack". An attack sequence is hit, wound, save, damage. You do one of these for each attack your weapon can make. If your weapons makes 3 attacks, then you do 3 attack sequences. The chain fire amulet will end the attack sequence for any attack that rolls a hit of 6. It sounds like you have been playing it right.
  22. Sumanye
    What are people doing to build their Kairic Acolytes with respect to cursed glaives and shields? This has always been a problem and it's always bugged me that you cannot really build Kairic Acolytes wysiwyg without conversion and I was really hoping this would be fixed in the new book. I'll probably wait for the FAQ before I build anymore acolytes, but honestly I think I'm just going to say hell with it and build my cursed glaives with shields. Not really interesting in converting a bunch of models, but also really hate things not being wysiwyg. I understand most opponents won't care, but I guess I just like my army to be accurate.
  23. Sumanye
    Well, I’m not advocating the tome, I’m simply answering the guys question. However, disagree about extra cast being better than reroll cast. If I fail to get arcane suggestion off for example, it doesn’t really matter if I have an extra cast for some other spell, I’m not casting arcane suggestion that round because I failed it. Also, unlike balewind, a model can move with the tome out. I don’t think anyone takes tome for parchment curse, they take it for rerolls and possibly a bit of a boost on spell range. Ultimately, the tome is another tool in the toolbox and I’m glad to have it even if I likely won’t use it much.
  24. Sumanye
    Obviously, people aren’t taking scribes or host duplicitious for every list. One other thing about the tome is it extends your spell casting range
  25. Sumanye
    I think it really depends on the battle plan which is going to be better. On battle plans where you need to spread out, that -1 to hit bubble doesn't do much even if your opponent brings range and host duplicitous ability to deny withdraw from combat is potentially huge. My first impression is (still experimenting with this book like everyone else), the better you are at this game, the better host duplicitous looks over eternal conflagration. You can make up for -1 to hit against your heroes or at least mitigate against needing it with smarter play, but you cannot make up for an ability that lets you totally lock your opponent down with horrors and deny them objectives. That ability just seems crazy strong if played well.
×
×
  • Create New...