Heliums

Mannfred's Sword of Unholy Power ability gives a bonus if any models are slain by wounds from it. There doesn't appear to be a provision for tracking which wound slays a model. Damage allocation is a number of wounds equal to the damage inflicted which is allocated as the target unit's owner sees fit. I don't really see anything about tracking what point of damage comes from which weapon as the defender allocates, and even if so, I don't see anything that prevents them from allocating points of damage to multiwound models so that a point of damage from gheistvor never kills a model. Hopefully I've explained that right. Maybe there's something I've missed. They changed a lot of these kinds of rules before. It sounds totally gamey, and mostly an edge case. But I really wish damage allocation was cleaner. Compare with 40K where the damage never gets lost into a pool to allocate from and is always tied directly to the weapon from start to finish.

You're right, he's 140 not 160 at the moment. That hits pretty hard, I'm looking at upwards of 100 points increase on my current list now. Maybe Gutrot & friends is worth another look. Shame about their exploding 6s getting turned off so easily though.

I've been running 40 marauders as a screen and either a DP or CLoDM to support my plague drones. The new StD points increases hurt. Cutting the marauders to 20 down really hinders their use case for me. Previously I was rushing forwards the big block of marauders, hopefully with blades, and inspiring presence them to keep the handful that survive the enemy turn on the table to continue being some sort of a nuisance once stuck in. The CLoDM is worth his points increase since he got a damage buff and only like a 10 point increase, but the DP's huge point spike takes him out of consideration essentially. I'm not really sure how to fill this hole now. Marauders were a steal before but man oh man does it suck thinking of exchanging 40 marauders for something like 5 blightkings.

Hopefully this hasn't been covered elsewhere, or if I haven't missed the official statement. In the errata for the GHB 2019, it looks like they replaced Citadel Wood with Wyldwood as an option to select as a primary terrain feature. Now, I can't find another reference anywhere, as to what Warscroll is named simply Wyldwood that you would use. This isn't the Awakened Wyldwood they're calling out and I can't find anything saying that they've changed the basic Citadel Wood model to a Wyldwood (as would be my likely assumption). This isn't keyword bold either. The GHB is listing a warscroll that doesn't appear to exist. Can anyone point me to the official word on what they're referring to when they say Wyldwood since I can't seem to figure it out, or is it still unknown?

Oh, I agree it feels gamey and a abuseable. But I mean, who knows if setting up either infinitely small pieces of terrain or really long mausoleums is actually an advantageous strategy in actual play.

That raises a good point. What happens if all 10 pieces the players pick can't be placed? I didn't catch any ruling on that except for faction terrain. Do the other pieces just not get placed? Two mausoleums set up like that will probably mean no other terrain can fit. It's gamey and abusive but seems legal, so you can bet people will probably do it if they think they can use it to their advantage. But maybe setting terrain up like this isn't to anyone advantage and no one will bother.

Hmm, to my understanding the 10" limitation is for pieces of scenery that fall under Unique. Unique says: Any other terrain feature. This seems to me that Unique is talking about pieces of terrain that are not part of the 8 warscrolls specified like old kits or custom pieces. Hilariously there's no minimum size so you could essentially drop grains of sand as your scenery to give your guns firing lanes, or whatever reason you could think of why you might benefit from less scenery on a battlefield. Maybe since you don't also have to account for the footprint of the piece of scenery just 6" bubble, you could free up a little space to sneak in one of them new awakened wyldwoods? Anyways, the Sigmarite Mausoleum doesn't seem to have be beholden to the 10" limit or any restriction beyond being composed of the minimum number of pieces and the other restrictions on its warscroll which I've met in my picture. But I'm working off the GMG YouTube video on a phone, I could have missed it in another section. Also, just to try and clear a thing up with the dimensions. I see common reference to either 10x10x10 or 10x10, but the Unique section seems to be talking about a cylindrical footprint. It says no more than 10" across at its widest, which is necessarily a circle in shape. A 10x10 square would exceed 10" if you measured corner to corner. So to me it reads a cylinder, 10" across and 10" high. To be fair, I have no idea how to shorthand that.

Im fairly sure this is a legally placed mausoleum. It's one group, all pieces are touching the base of at least two other pieces, and it contains the minimum number of pieces. If I understand starstrike, which has no objectives on the board, this is a turn one drop you could make. I did use the longest fences pieces within a whole mausoleum kit. But it honestly didn't make much of a difference. It's still massive.

Up to 10 if both players bring only mausoleum.😅 Anyways, I can imagine gun line or sylvaneth armies might opt for infinitely small markers under the unique category. Unique doesn't have a minimum size at the moment. Sure there's still a 12" bubble going down anyway but it might recover enough space for a sylvaneth player to squeeze in a wyldwood, and makes the board fairly barren for clear lines of sight. Not sure how viable a tactic it is in play. I really like the idea they're going for here. I've always wanted battlefield set up rules, but there's a lot of work that'll need to be done, I think, and it goes beyond just being overly restrictive. I haven't heard anyone mention it yet, but Garrisoning is going to need an overhaul/clarification, there's a lot of ways to twist/exploit/game interactions because of a lack of clarity. Here's a few questions my friends and I have been debating: - Currently a garrison can be attacked. But Spells and abilities aren't attacks. Can you sling a spell at a garrisoned unit? With the new hedonites FAQ it's clearly stated that an attack must use the attack sequence to be considered an attack. Starsoul maces, warpfire projectors, they don't use the attack sequence. - Does a garrisoned hero also benefit from lookout sir? - If warpfire projectors do interact with a garrison, how many dice do they roll? If a piece is garrisoned by 30 models, are all 30 models counted in range if the warpfire is within 8"? Or is it just the terrain piece since the terrain piece is counted as an enemy model. Essentially, are you rolling 30 dice, or 1 dice? Of course, we'll have to see what they come out with in their FAQ, but I think there's a lot of potential for abuse with garrisons. Personally, I hope they just get rid of garrisoning altogether and remove the LoN specific rule on the mausoleum. For the actual set up, I'm hoping they'll ditch the edge of battlefield for faction terrain and make placement for all terrain more than 3" from other terrain and objectives. I'm still optimistic this can be adapted into an interesting mechanic while still making faction terrain playable, but not as reliable to place optimally.