Boar

And hence ward 5+ can be tought of as additional 50% wounds as @NinthMusketeer wrote. If you have 12 wound hero you need to deal 12 wounds to kill it. But if it is equipped with amulet of destiny it goes to 18 wounds as it will resist 33% of those. Ward 5+ does not increase wounds by 33%, it reduces incoming damage by 33% and this reduction is important thing in how it maths out.

Now with more armor everywhere -2 rend on charge can be useful. In 2.0 I would say it's probably not that good, but new rules gives Fellspears new lease on life.

When it comes to damage Daemonforged Blade are the best weapon from Varanguard. And even if you would use Slaneesh+Ensorcelled, still Daemon Blasdes would be slighlty better. Khorne + Daemonforge Blade is generally best combination for offense. It will give you rereoll ones close to hero, which gives you more chances to score those quite important nowadays Mortal Wounds. And if that hero is general it will give you +1 to wound. Vs high saves there is really noticable difference there, thanks to those MW

You have to chose one of effects to apply.

I mean, that would kinda suggest that limit for non-wizards is zero (and so effectively Wizard keword is required). Then perhaps maybe it's unlimited for non-Wizards, tough it would just sounds strange from persepctive of intent/lore. But there is also this bit: Yeah, you are right.

If it's not the same unit doing parting shot and unleash hell.

Problem here is that to move spell you need to control it with caster who need to be... Wizard

I of course assume that as we all debate to our hearts content, at the same time we send questions to GW. So they can rob us of those masochisitic pleasures. Right guys? I send mine, just saying.😉

Just as confrimation Core Book and GHB 2021 (along with pitched battle profiles) are directly listed under Core Rules, and only those.

I mean on surface it's quite simple. Add all modifiers, than apply cap. From this interaction however arises possibility of negating rend, especially nasty when used on already decent save unit (4+ and more).

You add up all modifiers first, and only than you apply caps. So you can modify original to hit or to wound roll by maximum +1 or -1, and save by +1 (no negative cap). So Skinks have base 6+ save: and shield +1, and priest ability +1, so it is +2 in total. So end result due to cap will be +1, so 5+ save. But if in this example your Skinks are attacked by rend -1 attacks, it will be +1+1-1 for total of +1. So you will ignore one level of rend that way, and still need to roll 5+ to save. And if you stacked say Mystic Shield on them, that would allow you to get 5+ save against -2 rend. Tough it wouldn't get you anything more than 5+ against both 0 and -1 rend.

Generally speaking yes (vs rend 0), but stacking of save bonus will offset rend.

Unfortunatelly, besides your example, f.ex. S2D warcry warbands has sometimes few special models. Who is champion there, nobody knows🤔.

Yeah, you can actually find defined Champions in Soulblight battletome, but it's exception as book was made with 3.0 in mind: CHAMPION: 1 model in this unit can be a Kastellan. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of a Kastellan’s Templar Lance or Blade.

I didn't even notice it myself, some KO players brought this up on other site EDIT: not necessarily as they want to play that, but they were sending FAQ qusetion to avoid problems with that But so is Unleash Hell, I just want a bit of clarification. And this was ust example for some contentious thing, let's just maybe stop

I wonder why I wrote that I will play Redploy as blocking Unleash Hell? . Unfortunately in past GW ruled in such way not in line with such line of reasoning, making rules that makes you scratch head, as they are almost unbnusable. And your bit about "whole community" is simply false, I have different experience and one thread on oone forum does not make for community. But this just looks like your inference not fully supported by rules. Take in mind that often rules and laws are interpreted that specific law/rule overrites general.

How would that work? I am not seeing that, care to elaborate? Some example? I mean it is written that if effect of ability modifies core rules than all restriciton still apply, unless specifically stated otherwise. That is limited to abilities effects tough, so if f.ex. CA are not abilities. If you want to be "logical" about that nothing points in that direction besides part of name that is shared. It honestly seems to me, to rest on rule mentioned above, about core rules modified by abilities, and restriction still applying (actually are CA both core rules AND abilities?) Otherwise they are two sentences: you can not shoot, you can shoot. So in essence let say that "you can shoot" = A, and so Redeploy states: A is FALSE Unleash Hell states: A is TRUE This is contradictory IMO. If there is flaw in this logic do go on, I am genuinly curious. Generally that's why I would hope for further clarification from GW. In the mean time I will play it as blocking Unleash Hell. If there is flaw in this logic do go on, I am genuinly curious. And before GW gives it's ruling in one way or another, I am curious what You think about those -KO has an artifact that allows shooting in charge phase, does it work with Redeploy in your opinion? -there are various teleports (abilities allowing for set up) in game, some can be used instead of retreat. Do they just modify core rules, and hence inherit restrictions or are they "replacing" mechanisms of core rules and hence don't inherit restricions (cannot shoot/charge). Maybe other interpretation?

Well that is your opinion mate. I am not making argument about that, it's not worth it. It's just example how things can be contentious due to some things not being clarified enough, and I saw reasonable people pushing this interpretation in particular as possible.

Redeploy disallows shooting, Unleash Hell specifically allows you to shoot, and is applied later. So it can be contentious.

Well if they are abilities, than you can Unleash Hell after Redeploy, as with contradictory effects last one applied overrides earlier for instance (can/cannot shoot). In general terms I think changes in philosophy of making ruleset (so it's more "tight") can generate expectations of certain pedantry among players.

Well South Park was right, women will destroy us in tabletop games with better rules understanding😉. Seriously tough, I would be inclined to say that RAW she is right. But I think that this interpretation holds on thin margin. What rules lack here is description of game state that is "start of the phase". It is only written in reference too using abilities. That leaves out things like gaining CP, governed by core rules directly. My interpretation would use rules for abilities as there isn't anything else to reference. So I could place those effects somewhere, and hence put gaining CP form general and rally at same sub-phase. But it is only mine lline of thinking, and like I wrote pure RAW your opponent seems to be in the right. Tough that leaves core rules effects that affects start, or end of phase in kind of limbo perhaps?

SoB cannot take those named Gargants, those mercenaries are different from generic ones.

Sorry about that, I was typing post for a while already and didn't look at new messges

Just to be clear I am not talking about average, but distribution and variance. You can have same averages, but with different distribution. If you knew that good for you. I honestly wasn't sure. And just to further clarify it's normal order, just with +1 given once to one roll, than to another. Because first you write that order does't matter, and next sentence that it does, so I am not sure what you are saying. OK, this time you were clearer. This does not support conclusion that All out defense has lesser value. It simply works differently, ie. with similar "raw power", but with different variance. If that changes it's value for you this is your opinion, this is your preference, fine. But it's just that your preference, as across many games we will be playing in AoS 3.0, value of all out defense, much like save characterisitc itself will trend toward average. I already used this example, of elite attacks (40 of them) 3+/3+/-1 vs 4+ save. Where we can see that answering All out attack with All out defense lowers incoming damge even below what we could expect with no buffs on both sides. this time charts not mine, but courtsy of Stathammer interesting variance changes above But wait, there is more! If we don't answer all out attack, it drastically changes distribution in favor of attacking side. By using all out defense we are not only lowering expected average result. We are changing distribution that significantly increases chance of results that could be called failure for attacking side. As damage dealt has greater chance to not reach required threshold for achieving tactical goal by opponent. Or in other words introduces/increases uncertainity. There is still more! Now about gains from all out defense (or other such buffs) on lower number of rolls. As we can see moving one step (specifically from 4+ to 3+) on only 10 dice rolled, changes distribution of outcomes quite significantly. Mode changes from 5 to 7, and you have even not insignificant chance to roll 9 successes. done by me in excel, no sims, just binomial distribution So I would say conclusion is that we should not be afraid to boost lower number of rolls. They sure can fail more, but look how also lower results are reduced by this +1 buff. As bonus, change from 5+ to 4+, again only 10 dice Choice is yours dear reader, I know what I will do.

Double post, however something was bugging me. We are so far taking almost for granted that f.ex. 4+/4+profile will have less variance if to hit roll is buffed, than if to wound roll is buffed. Stemming mostly from smaller number of wound rolls. Even I granted it as such. This is distribution of attacks with either wounds or hits buffed by one. 5000 sequences of 20 attacks each. And one more: Third's the charm: It is another psychology thing, it sorta makes sense initially, untrue in the end.