Boar
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Boar
-
-
4 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:
I m thinking about fellspear + slaanesh for unit of 3 !! As glassa cannon unit should be so mutch dmg in charge!!
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.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:
Ok thx, thats sad:( now the question is : better Daemonforged blade with another mark or slaanesh with another weapon? Thats an hard decision:)
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
-
1 hour ago, Tizianolol said:
Guys if I play my varanguards with 6s to hit MW weapon with slaanesh mark, if I got a 6 to hit , it explode( slaanesh aura) + i got the effect of the weapon? What happen ?🤔
You have to chose one of effects to apply.
-
12 minutes ago, PJetski said:
There is a limit on how many predatory spells a WIZARD can control, but nothing requiring the WIZARD keyword to control a spell.
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:
16 minutes ago, PJetski said:Even if the spell is not controlled, it is "wild" and moves at the end of the phase anyway. Since you summoned it on your turn you can pick the first endless spell to move... so you always get to move your geminids regardless.
Yeah, you are right.
-
10 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:
Guys a question with the aos3 for seraphon. I played against a seraphon player yeatorday , he did unlesh hell + fang of soteck CA in the same turn... he retreat and after he used Unlash hell. Is this possible?
If it's not the same unit doing parting shot and unleash hell.
-
6 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Might have to use Geminids as my spell in a bottle to stop people from using All Out Defense in the shooting phase.
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.😉
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Liquidsteel said:
My understanding is that they're not included in the GHB or Core Rules and thus they have been removed. I believe the GHB 2021 lists which publications are legal and "in play". Malign Sorcery/Forbidden Power were missing (can't double check as at work) and obviously GHB 20 is superseded by 21.
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:I suspected as much. I know that list exists in the GHB 2021, but I don't own the book yet to check. But this situation really makes the most sense, I guess it's just Warscroll Builder who made a mistake (understandable, honestly, the rules are still really unclear right now).
Just as confrimation
Core Book and GHB 2021 (along with pitched battle profiles) are directly listed under Core Rules, and only those.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Barbarian Borelord said:
Golly gosh, leave it to Games Workshop to make these things overly complicated.... Okay I got it now, thank you.
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).
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Barbarian Borelord said:
I'm not sure I follow... From what I was told nothing can be stacked anymore, be it 'to hit', 'to wound', 'to rend' or 'to save'.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Barbarian Borelord said:
I haven't played a Seraphon or AoS III game yet: do I understand it correctly that Skinks are never going to have a better save than 5+ now?
Generally speaking yes (vs rend 0), but stacking of save bonus will offset rend.
-
1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:
Seems like something they should have FAQed if they weren't going to include a general definition, but I guess they couldn't be bothered.
Unfortunatelly, besides your example, f.ex. S2D warcry warbands has sometimes few special models. Who is champion there, nobody knows🤔.
-
1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:
While we're talking about holes in the rules, am I missing somewhere where "champion" is defined?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Marcvs said:
Do you have any actual example of people considering "contentious" the interaction between Redeploy/Unleash Hell apart from yourself in this very discussion?
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
1 hour ago, Marcvs said:Funnily enough, I am kind of aware that lex specialis derogat legi generali. If you want to put it into these terms I would argue that Redeploy is the lex specialis here as it specifically disallows something which would otherwise be generally allowed.
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
-
50 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Great, core rules say that "in you shooting phase, you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it", so the Redeploy limitation is never applicable. And, since we're here, retreating also says "you cannot shoot [...] later in the turn". But hey, the shooting phase says "you can pick a friendly unit and shoot with it" so surely all units can shoot after retreating??
I would suggest that, if your interpretation leads to absurd results which no one in the whole community shares, you should re-evaluate your reasoning process.
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.
56 minutes ago, Marcvs said:Essentially, generic clauses allowing something are not absolute, and should be read as "you can do something unless another rule forbids it"
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.
-
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:
*It's interesting to note the if we were not provided with the rule about contradictory rule, we would find ourselves arguing over being able to shoot in the opponent's Movement phase. Player A would try to shoot with Hell in Player B's Movement phase. Player B would say that the rules only allow shooting in Player A's shooting phase (as this is a permissive rules set). Both players would have a rule that contradicts the other and we would have a problem.
How would that work? I am not seeing that, care to elaborate? Some example?
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:You don't get to break one rule with another, unless that other rule specifically gives you the option to contradict the first rule.
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.
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:If Hell said "you can shoot even if you are not allowed to shoot by another rule" then we would have a contradiction with Redeploy. It does not. We do not.
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?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Just no
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.
-
6 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Unleash Hell doesn't contradict Redeploy
Redeploy disallows shooting, Unleash Hell specifically allows you to shoot, and is applied later. So it can be contentious.
-
1 hour ago, PJetski said:
Surely nobody is pedantic enough to argue that Command Abilities do not count as Abilities
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.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
Thoughts?
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?
-
39 minutes ago, Gauche said:
The Mega-Gargant is definitely fun but nowhere is he a named character, otherwise SoB couldn't give any of their models Artifacts either.
SoB cannot take those named Gargants, those mercenaries are different from generic ones.
-
2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
+++ MOD HAT +++
I've always thought wargames revolved around rolling dice.
Regardless though, this thread is about the games people have been playing and how they're finding the rules.
Sorry about that, I was typing post for a while already and didn't look at new messges
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Rachmani said:
We never took that for granted! It’s exactly like your graph says. The order makes no difference.
Only when the order gets changed or steps left out it does. Like with mortal wounds on 6+. Here hit is better than wound.
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.
8 hours ago, whispersofblood said:All out Attack is increasing the rate of success of the largest pool. All out Defence decreases the rate of failure of the smallest pool, and because saves generally in AoS are around a 4+ the distribution of failures can be anywhere between a 3 which is a marginal fail or a 2 and a 1 which are true fails, and the smaller the dice pool the more vulnerable you are to irratic distribution due to small sample sizes.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
3.0 Actual Games Conversation
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
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.