Zappgrot
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Zappgrot
-
-
7 minutes ago, Beliman said:
I think that @Mutton is right.
The Praetor's ability triggers before allocating wounds or mortal wounds (as ward saves), and they even have the same effect: negate a wound before it's allocated (that's not the same as ignore a wound!!).
So, Yndrasta has a 4+ ward save.
Praetors have: Roll a dice before you allocate a wound or mortal wound on to that Hero while it is within 3" of this unit.
On a 1-2, that mortal wound is allocated to that Hero (Yndrasta can't use her Ward Save here).
On a 3-4, that wound or mortal wound is allocated to this unit.
On a 5-6, that wound or mortal wound is negated.
In other words: before a wound or mortal wound is allocated, on a conditional roll (within 3" of this unit) of 5-6, that wound or mortal wound is negated. That's exactly the description of Ward Save!
I mean this is just prime gw design. Making things more complex then necessary. I their main design goal. All that was needed to make supper clear. Was This rule counts as /does not count as a ward save at the end of the rule.
-
13 minutes ago, Reuben Parker said:
Yeah double additional enhancements and double free CP. maybe a nice build for MSU style armies that can just screen and tag objectives if forced to play first. It’s probably what I will do with Khorne lists. I never liked gore pilgrims or tyrants of blood (just died to shooting anyway) so normally I play mass drop high wound count in AoS2. Now I can still do that and get a bunch of buffs.
torc lizard lord
5+ shrug Bloodthirster
and a 3rd melee character maybe another lizard lord with +1 damage or gorecleaver
2 free CP
throw in a few priests
seems like a nice setup in a faction that can now have 5 ways to heal a lizard lord and 4 for the Bloodthirster.
also quite fluffy tanky khorne heroes that slay and slay whilst being rejuvenated.
you know what is sick. IF you have enough enchaments. You can take a generic one. And turn your bloodthister into a wizard. WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Dracan said:
Which begs the question, why do the AoS rule writers refuse to change the turn 1 priority to what it is now in narrative?.... They hate it so much they dumped all battalion switched over to core battalions, still couldn't get it right, that they then went and implemented measures to try and stop 1 drop 2000pts lists.
There where some inherent problems with battalions which was less about the bonusses and more about tax units ans certain factions getting plain better rules. But this feels like putting a band aid on a bubonic plague victim as you don't want to admit that there is a plague, and the band aid should work right?
I think because turn one is way to strong to be based on luck. PLayers beeing able to manipulate that and makeing it cost something. Makes for more satisfying play.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:
Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.
Considering that you can now re dress the ranks by moving your models 3 inch down the line. You can likely get a lot more models in range if your opponents lined you up in an unfavourable way. I think this changes is pertty big
-
1 minute ago, Boar said:
Triumph for battleshock immunity sounds like good deal for gobbos, and still they have shrine when skulking in their territory
Can we just accept that it became harder to keep low ld hordes from running away?
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Boar said:
So Battleshock does not appear to have unit size modifier and Inspiring Presence is limited to one per phase. Interesting
Yea got to kill of those horde amries (cries in 8000 points of gloomspite gitz)
-
1 minute ago, Fred1245 said:
Because you said they would? What did you think deliberately not following unit coherency was called?
I didn't say they would. I said ppl would probably be ,more lose in casual play. And that would lead to ppl being a bit slower whit the new rules in tournaments. But I guess you could interpret it a other way.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Neverchosen said:
As someone with a ton of chaos warriors you bet I will waste my points on ineffective units, and I have lots of fun trying to not get them smashed. I am not a big fan of the change in unit size but only because of the way I have already built my units 2x5 with dual weapons and 1x20 sword and shield. But I think having the mimimum unit size matching the models being sold is a great idea. I am concerned what that will mean for Warcry models though as they were initially sold in the size of a unit but the box got doubled upon later releases.
Same with a number of Stormcast units that initially started in groups of 5 for start collecting boxes and starter sets but sell 10 in their individual boxes.I have no clue on how your personal love for chaos warriors impacts their effectiveness. I do however also like the idea of unit sizes matching how they are sold.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Fred1245 said:
While some players may choose to deliberately cheat, most people who intend to go to events will understand that they're going to NEED to play coherency correctly so are going to do so.
Of course they won't cheat? Why would you think they would?
-
1 hour ago, Fred1245 said:
People aren't generally going to 'get used to it' AT tournaments. Most players will be familiar enough for it not to be an issues. Especially at big events.
I kind of suspect a lot of players will not enforce that rule all that much in casual play. Since it really doesn't matter all that much intill it does cause something is on the line.
-
On 6/4/2021 at 11:09 AM, C0deb1ue said:
Because that won't be oppressive at all....
What's wrong whit a immortal dwarf that deletes units?
-
14 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:
I don’t know, but I think games would last too long if you play 2500 with new rules in a tournament.
I think tournament play will last longer no matter what. The new coherency rules seem like they will promote a lot of discussion. At least untill ppl get used to it.
-
4 hours ago, Neverchosen said:
Yeah it is going to be an interesting time seeing how these characters all interact with the new rules and the more prominent characters are all going to have the biggest changes. I am interested in seeing what happens to ye ol' Celestant Prime. For being Sigmar's right hand, this character has always felt like a slight afterthought on the battlefield which will now be compounded by a lack of Monster keyword. But it is very apparent that SCE are going to get an update to their rules and I can see ol' Prime getting a second swing at greatness. Although the Stardrake has always put the Prime in an odd position as both the named leader of the faction but also the discount centre piece for the army. I wonder if making him a priest would benefit his role on the battlefield?
Either way it is a stunning model and cool character that feels like a forgotten alternate choice to the many other cool centre pieces in the army. Yndrasta also compounds this issue by doing the angel thing in a more classical style...
I do like that the other major players all feel like they are going to get much better and GW either paired them with monsters or made them into monsters. I think the Celestant Prime is on my mind as I am hoping to get the Star Drake this model better fits my budget.I always tought the prime to be pretty effective in the game as counter to chaff units holding objectives. Comming in from the sky whit a gauranteed charge and all. But he just has wierd rules for a center piece model. I mean him getting better if you do not play whit him for 2 turns rewards dull play.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:
Depends, 10 wounds of warriors is easy to smash off an objective, 20 wounds much less so. A lot of stronger units don't benefit that much from reinforcing compared to just taking 2x the amount in aos 2. As a lot won't be able to attack as easily without breaking coherency.
There are pros and cons to smaller and larger 'elite' units.
Also, they aren't just 2x the cost, they're also 2x the models.
Either way I wouldn't fret too much based off rumours.
If you waste all your points on ineffective units. Then your army is going to be easy to smash. No matter if they are on objectives or not.
So lets hope point costs compensate for the rules changes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nacnudllah said:
I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the specific impacts of these new rules, but I'm actually concerned about complexity creep. With adding Heroic actions, Monstrous actions, generic Prayers, even more generic Command Abilities, the ever-growing list of Allegiance abilities, and more new corner case rules (like the new more confusing coherency rule or added list-building complication with whatever Reinforcements are), I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually play the game. My opponents still ask me what the CV of Arcane Bolt is, so as a 'beer and pretzels' player, I think 3rd ed might just be too much cognitive load.
I also doubt it is complexity whit much depth. 40K got pretty complex. But it's not all that deep. Stacking buffs is low depth complexity.
-
I hope that making unit smaller and single model hero's/ monsters stronger does not lead to hero hammer. I find that incredibly boring. I think warhammer 4-5th edition ruined that for me for ever.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:
Another factor is also the talk about a command to move d6 in the enemy move phase. If this can be done at the end of the phase, that could force armies like KO to be 6" closer than their max range to the unit they wish to shoot, to ensure the opponent does not retreat out of range for 1 CP.
This also goes the other way around and can really be a pain for a unit ending up 7" from a boat, which then retreat and rolls a 4 making the following charge nearly impossible.
I think the second effect is going to be much more significant then the first. Retreating all targets outside of shooting is harder and less impact full then failing a charge. I would not mind losing shots if the opponent increases the distance between me and the their units. The only things that really need to die are things on objectives and thing that can charge the gun line. Moveing units back saves them but also makes them less of a problem.
-
On 6/9/2021 at 1:32 AM, dirkdragonslayer said:
While it may feel like cheating, GW is probably doing this to counteract spaghetti line formation. IIRC they implemented it in 40k because of 30 conscripts in thin line bubble wrapping eachother requiring multiple turns of charges. These layers made it difficult for melee units to reach shooting units like Broadsides or Leman Russ tanks. With smaller boards and a greater emphasis on shooting this edition (from what rules we have seen so far) they are probably doing this so I can't put large narrow lines of spearmen to completely block off archers/artillery.
Personally I am excited to see my Dankhold do more to disrupt people's formations if they aren't careful.
Peronally i think the sollution to the shooting problem is. To nerf shooting. Not buff it even more and then nerf melee combat bij adding rules that make it much harder for melee units to get all the models in mellee. Screens are annoying as hell. But would not be a problem if shooting played only a supporting role. And while the new coherency rule stops screens some what. It also make melee units even more ineffective. while not impactin shooting at all
-
1 hour ago, Dolomedes said:
Being a new edition, it's highly unlikely that it will remain the game you like. Here's hoping they've done a good job and there's a good balance or rule fix for the coherency update.
For now, I'm thinking of ways that this coherency rule can be abused.
Ghorgons and Gargants just got really good.
Yea but the whole. I ate one model and now the rest runs away Stick is AWFULL. It's not fun to use and not fun to have used againt you. It basically feels like cheating.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:
For example's sake - if your army's favourite monster and un named heroes go down in points, but the unit costs go up for rank and file, you'll probably change your list to have more monsters and heroes. The new cohesion rule will apply to less of your army, so you won't be that bothered about it.
That's not to say that the points values won't get hashed though. It's early days yet - points still have a big part to play.That sure as hell a long way of saying it won't Cause that's the opposite of a fix.
I mean sure the game might then still be balanced but it would no longer be the game I like.
-
18 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:
Don't forget about points lads.
New rules anxiety can lead to overthinking.
Points distribution is yet to come.How the hell is points going to fix the bonkers unit coherensie rules?
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
GW designers: "6 men in a line shoulder-to-shoulder is IMMERSION BREAKING nonsense. But horses running sideways executing complex geometric patterns to satisfy our new coherency rule is is COOL AND CINEMATIC! 3.0: The Best Ruleset Ever Designed (TM, (R), (C), All Rights Reserved)."
Yea the new cohesion rule makes absolutely no ****** sense
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
anyone seen this on the subreddit? coherency doesn't look too bad when it's laid out like this
Except those are wrong. But whatever.
You can not make 2 groups of 5 whit a unit of 10
Well you can but if you take one shooting causality. Half the unit dies. seems a bad plan
-
3 hours ago, Ganigumo said:
NO. GOD NO.
You don't need to be the unit charged to use this, and you only need to be within 9" after the charge is completed, and it stacks with the Fangs of Sotek command ability.Some times i wonder if Gw ever listens to the player base. Players base: Hey gw your makeing shooting armies to effective. Could you please stop? GW: So you said you want shooting to be more effective? We got you fam. Np
AoS 3 New Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
If you look at the video's of ppl reviewing the rules. They sometimes show a picture of the first page of matched play. It states that you can not use warscroll batelions in matched play. So it's official. But i am willing to bet my left nut. That the new battletomes will have battalions you can use beside the generic ones.