NinthMusketeer

RAW is currently a mess, my best recommendation is to play it as it used to work; When a model in range is slain, you can trigger the ability to heal one wound and they are no longer slain. If there are still wounds to be allocated, keep doing so. This means that if there is any damage 'left over' they will die again. Notably they ARE slain and any abilities which trigger based on that (Blaze of Glory) will go off. They are not removed from play however, so a rule which requires a model to be removed from play will not trigger. 1.6.2 (the rule for simultaneous effects) can be helpful here. If you are going to a tournament or event, however, it would be best to ask the TO how the rule will be handled.

One clarification; you do not HAVE to make the charge move after rolling. You can roll, have enough for a successful charge, then decide not to.

So it is a bit odd; Slaves to Darkness units with the Mark of Chaos rule can be coalition units but must take MoN. However they cannot be allies. Taking a markable unit with a different mark falls into an overlap where it cannot be coalition OR allied. Ultimately the answer to your question is no.

Correct.

See this is particularly funny to me because I don't play in tournaments but rather run and/or act as a judge 😆 But yeah, it is definitely part of the attack sequence. Failing an FAQ I'll be going with averages due to the impracticality involved with rolling each damage and save separately. I suspect RAI is 'greater than 1' and someone reworded it without considering the conundrum.

Lord-Arcanum is dropping the comet, so he's in no particular hurry to cross the board. As for the damage, my confusion results in the change from "greater than 1" to "2 or greater".

I disagree that the list of serious problems is really that long, nerfing even just the top 10 strongest units to a reasonable level would probably double or triple the number of viable tournament builds if not more. I raise that as a lead-in to SCE (and OWC); I feel they are almost in a good place. There are a ton of solid options but we can see just from this thread they get drowned out by just a handful of game-breaking cheese ones. And unlike some more 'intentional' army builds I foresee people stumbling into it by accident. A lot of people will be jumping on the stormdake guard because, well, SCE dragonrider units are totally awesome. But then that will lead to a lot of one-sided games and negative experiences because they are just so much stronger than almost every unit in the game. To me that is the saddest thing to see; complete facerolls even when both sides came in bringing models they personally like with no intent to power game. It doesn't overturn my excitement for the new tome, especially because the issues will be brought into line sooner or later, but it does put a notable tarnish on a release where the overwhelming majority of it is well-designed. Like LRL it is just such a shame.

Thanks for that RuneBrush. Anyways, looking at the artifact to re-roll saves against damage 2 or greater. Does anyone know how this relates to random damage characteristics? Is a d3 considered to be 2 or greater? A d6? With damage not being rolled until after the save it isn't really clear. Looking to put it on a Lord-Arcanum with Praetor bodyguard; the native intercept & negation of the Praetors combined with Cycle of the Storm makes for a potent defensive combo to start and I'm wondering how tanky I can push it.

I do not see how this translates to 'GW does not nerf powerful things', can you explain that connection?

Yes, lying to someone's face is considered disrespectful. And toxic move, implying that I am taking it as a personal attack just because people disagree.

The SCE thread may have turned into another rendition of "talk about the most competitive game-breaking combo possible or GTFO" but it will be temporary; the people passionate about the army still exist and will re-emerge when FOTM dies down.

GW has been nerfing strong stuff from the very first GHB. It has happened every year for five years now. He is basing an argument on saying that is not true. Are GW bad at it? Absolutely, but that isn't what he said. I dare to call out when someone is trying to undermine my argument with points that are objectively untrue but I'm the bad guy. Real friendly community you are promoting here, where members are criticized for defending themselves.

...because they have never nerfed anything else that's been a problem?

Sounds horrid. Completely different than what I expressed on every point, but definitely bad.

I am on the same page with the mindset, but when someone rolls in and just states an objective falsehood to my face as a response, what am I supposed to assume? When they raise a double standard where SCE shouldn't be nerfed but the other guys should, where's the good faith in that? How do I interpet that argument in a way where it isn't toxic? Because letting toxicity ferment without addressing it will just breed more.

Run leagues where people can play any number of games per round and take the best result forward. It reduces the incentive for competitiveness since a player can make multiple attempts and it encourages extra games rather than show up, play one, wait for next round. An endurance award where a random player(s) who played at least one game every round (and wasn't the overall winner) is good too since it means people can get an award just for playing. Free-for all or team matches scheduled during a relatively high-traffic period are great for snagging people's attention. Particularly for people in the US; de-incetivize competitive mindsets as much as possible. Nothing breeds toxicity like a competitive mindset. This can be in how rewards are structured to little things like complimenting people on army theme or looks while giving a shrug to the guy who brags about how many MWs he deals in a turn.

See this, this is bad-faith. Either GW cares about stuff breaking the game and is willing to nerf other armies as well, or they don't and you should have no concern about them nerfing SCE. Secondly, they have repeatedly shown they are willing to act even if the implementation is far from perfect. Hell, one of those you listed (Archaon) was nerfed in the last round for FAQs. So either you don't know that and are trying to discuss this with me despite being uninformed, or do know that and are ignoring factss to create a double-standard. If you aren't going to treat me with even a basic level of respect, there's nothing else I have to say.

If an army doesn't have tourney winning lists that is a GOOD thing! Balanced. Armies. Don't. Win. Tournaments. We want to reign in the top stuff, because that's how to get an actually diverse array of tournament builds. Promoting top cheese just means each army gets zero to two viable builds. Tourney players who want to have options are best served by pushing as hard as possible to get the currently strongest ones nerfed. Even if power builds from other armies are left initially untouched, removing others from the picture highlights the problem elements making them more likely to be fixed in the future.

If we are seriously talking strict competitive sense, old paladins are already sub-optimal; nerfing translocate weakens them but does not affect their status in optimized lists because they already won't be there. The dragons are already so much better on multiple fronts on top of acting far, far more reliably than translocate as well as being more flexible and straight-up better for battle tactics. On optimized list is pushing dragons hard and that means filling the remainder with the cheapest units possible. Though vindictors will win out over liberators unless the point are really tight on fitting something in thanks to sheer efficiency. But paladins? They don't fill the objective camping roll as well as the battleline, they don't fill battleline except in Excelsior, they need a priest around to teleport them (in a meta dominated by armies that can snipe it), the prayer to go off, then they can still get screwed by a good redeploy, unleash hell, or screening. Dragons don't need the first two (but can still use it if they want), have a means to bypass redeploy/unleash by charging in the hero phase, and can fly over screens using their larger coherency to make up for their base size. On the casual end there are a myriad of ways to utilize paladins, on the competitive end they are inferior. Talk of using them is immediately in the 'specifically less than ideal' category of discussion. Which is fantastic; that's where most of the game is.

Paladins would be pretty weak without some means of teleporting in 9" away from the enemy. If only SCE had some means to do that outside of translocation, combined with some sort of aoe charge re-roll it could totally do the trick since with more than one unit it'd be unlikely for all of them to fail. Would be even better if a particularly important unit could be brought in closer, like 7" or something. And I know a flat ability to run & charge or teleport mid-game without needing a roll would be too strong but 1/game abilities like that could go a long way if used tactically. Alas, SCE simply have no mobility tools beyond translocation. (am i doing it rite? XD)

Clans Moulder have powerful fleshcraft, yes-yes!

Skaven have many-great model releases every edition! Greater than all others! Their smart-quick cunning is simply so great that us measly man-things are unable to witness them.

2.2 update is here! -Fully reworked tables for SCE and OWC! -Going forward third edition enhancements will have charts for random rolling put alongside the relevant warband tables, as well as content such as quests. The generic tables have been moved from the core rules to the first page of each warband tables document. -The Amulet of Destiny has been banned entirely due its warping effect on balance. (Hopefully GW will errata it in the future.) -Various minor touch ups in wording and formatting to make things more readable and concise. -Various minor alterations to warband tables, mainly dealing with starting options. -New quick rules! A one page print-friendly ruleset that goes over the basics in a brief manner for players who don't need/want all the details.

So the random thing that eventually led to me digging up this thread concept was noting how OWC and SCE did not get a terrain piece with their new 'tomes. I know not everyone is on the same page here but personally I like that only some armies get a terrain piece and only some armies get endless spells. It makes the ones that do exist more unique and more a feature of their army than an obligatory element tacked on to every 'tome.

Since @Kramer's original thread become lost amidst excitement & discussion surrounding a new edition, I felt it was appropriate to revive his excellent idea with a fresh one tuned for our new third-edition state. This is a thread for POSITIVITY, this is a thread for what you LIKE about Age of Sigmar. Have criticisms? That's totally fine! But this is explicitly a discussion for passion, good feels, and excitement; negative posts are off-topic in this thread and will be reported as such (one must try their luck in... literally any other thread). So, what are you liking about Age of Sigmar? Doesn't have to be specific to third edition or even to gameplay at all; feel free to talk about anything from much you liked one of the novels, to how easy a kit was to put to together, to how much you enjoy a particular scenario! Let's hear it!