Sinfullyvannila
-
Posts
481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sinfullyvannila
-
-
And I will also give you an example of "must" used coercively in-game.
The Bray-Shaman's Devolve states:
"Your opponent must move..."
Even though you can't reference rules that explicitly cover this movement, your opponent is compelled to do it.
-
10 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
I'm not going to waste a ton of time digging up 3 rules for you, but I'll give you one simple one. Shooting a unit with ranged attacks. In the core rules you pick a unit in section 13.1. Then in 13.1.1 the first line of the second paragraph says:
The target of a shooting attack must be within a number of inches of the attacking model equal to the Range characteristic.
You don't pick up the target unit and put them into range of your ranged attack. The unit doesn't magically change to be in range of the unit because the rule says they must be in range. The rule is saying they must be in range in order to proceed with the attack. Same thing with the coalition rules. There the rule is saying that the unit must be given the Tzeentch keyword, not that they are given the keyword. If they aren't given the keyword then you don't get to take them in your list using the coalition rules.
The rule doesn't say "pick a unit, the unit must be made a target within the shooting range". Must is used qualitatively here.
"Must" can be used qualitatively or coercively. Like I said, if a rule exists and the language allows it to be completely non functional or functional depending on linguist factors, you pick the interpretation where it functions. Rules exist to function.
-
9 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
Last post from me on this. From my reading the current rule in the Tzeentch book doesn't grant the keyword, it makes a requirement that the unit must have the keyword in order for it to be included in the army. Those are two very different things. Units aren't included in the army arbitrarily, they are only included if they can meet the requirements laid out in the coalition rules. If it says they must be given a keyword but there is no way to give them that keyword then they don't just magically get the keyword. It's just like any other rule that stipulates a requirement, if the requirement can't be met you don't just get to do it anyway.
Can you give me 3 examples of rules written under conditions of your last sentence?
This simply isn't how interpretation is practiced. If there are multiple linguistic interpretations and only one of them precludes the rules from ever functioning, you use an interpretation that only precludes it from functioning in certain cases.
-
12 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
I'd disagree because the Mark of Chaos keyword won't do anything outside of the S2D allegiance. The current coalition rule doesn't grant the Tzeentch keyword, it stipulates how the current Mark of Chaos rule on the warscroll must be used if the units are taken in a Tzeentch army. It says they must be given the keyword, but the mechanism for giving keywords outside a S2D army won't exist. Maybe it's just me being picky on wording, but if they changed the Tzeentch rule to something like 'Slaves to darkness units taken as a coalition in a Disciples of Tzeentch army are given the Tzeentch keyword' then it would work properly.
Its absolutely you being picky about wording because the mechanism for giving the keyword is very clearly included on page 65 of our Battletome.
"...must be given the **Tzeentch** mark of chaos keyword"
The must is coercive/compelling. It means that its is given regardless of any other options that are normally considered.
-
26 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
The rule in the Tzeentch book currently says:
2 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the Slaves to Darkness faction that has the Mark of Chaos keyword. Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword.
That works with the current rules for Marks of Chaos because they're written on each individual warscroll and aren't reliant on being taken in a given allegiance, the keyword is assigned at list creation step regardless of what army you're playing. In the new book they dropped all the warscroll rules and moved it to an allegiance ability specifically for the S2D faction. Once the new S2D book releases the current rules for S2D coalition units won't be valid anymore due to the conflict of being forced to take something that is impossible to take. If they want to give S2D units the relevant marks in the different god marked books (which is pretty likely honestly) they'll either have to fix the coalition rules in the god marked books and make an exception, or change the rules in the S2D book to add a clause for giving marks when they're taken as coalition units.The units in the new book still have the Slaves to Darkness and Mark of Chaos keywords listed in their keywords section on their warscrolls. Thats and the units having an entry on the Slaves to Darkness pitched battler profile are all that matters.
-
31 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
Unfortunately the way the Marks of Chaos rule is written currently slaves to darkness units only get marks when taken in a slaves to darkness army. It says:
... When you pick a Slaves to Darkness unit that has the Mark of Chaos keyword to be a part of a Slaves to Darkness army, you must give it one of the following keywords: Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh or Undivided and write it down on your roster.
Not impossible that they FAQ it and change the wording later, but as it stands now slaves units brought into Tzeentch (or any other got marked army for that matter) will get precisely nothing. Might still be worth it as chaos warriors, chosen, and knights are all significantly better than they were before, but it'll be a tough call for sure.
Our coalition rules are written quite clearly to give them(exclusively) the Tzeentch keyword when taken as Coalition units in a DoT army. It's on page 65.
What it says in the Slaves to Darkness Army rules is 0% relevant. The only thing that matters is if it has the Mark of Chaos keyword in its warscroll.
-
Looking at the leaks in the Slaves to Darkness books and it seems like Cultists are going to be Undivided only. Their warscrolls aren't up but one of the enhancements gives them the Mark of the General. So it looks like they'll be Allies only.
Also Chaos Warriors are getting a huge glow up.
-
1 hour ago, Duke of Mousillon said:
I was actually flirting with the idea of a unit of 9 Screamers to use fold on in Host Arcanum. Maybe it would be overkill but I am quite excited to test out their new profile.
Yeah ill probably do that eventually. I think I have exactly 9 screamers but I really dont feel like building any more this week. Lots of kitbashing exhausting me.
-
23 minutes ago, Duke of Mousillon said:
You just reminded me that fighting in two ranks is not part of the core rules and that if they do not remember this for the upcoming Ogor Codex the Ogor book will have a completely useless half again.
But yes. I am afraid that Screamers and Tzaangors would suffer a lot from loosing that rule. To be fair you can still string out Tzaangors in a safe line because they are only on 32 mm bases?
Yeah thats a good point. You still kind have to get like 7 models in there for them to be worth it. I kinda have a feeling Battle Bonds is gonna get patched in because it's AFAIK universally popular among influencers.
IMO, 3 screamers in a list are always going to be a solid choice just because of their high move and being only 5 points away from the lowest cost unit. 6 is probably also gonna be fine with anything that knows all Daemon Lore spells for Fold Reality.
-
I have a game planned for this wednesday, first on for 3E. Planning on bringing the following list. If you can't tell im more comfortable with high drops/chaff. Planning on summoning in an Exalted Flamer if the Flamers last. The Fatemaster has the tome so he can back up the Flamers and/or the Tzaangors. Eventually ill replace the Flamers with Skyfires but I only have 3 painted and its difference of about 20 hours between getting 6 Flamers tabletop ready and getting the Skyfires to go with the ones I have painted.
[b]++ **Pitched Battle GHB 2022** 2,000 (Chaos - Tzeentch) [2,000pts] ++[/b][b]+ Core Battalion +[/b]
[b]Core Battalion: Bounty Hunters[/b]
[b]Core Battalion: Expert Conquerors[/b]
[b]Core Battalion: Warlord:[/b] Extra Enhancement: Artefacts of Power
[b]+ Leader +[/b]
[b]Changecaster, Herald of Tzeentch [140pts]:[/b] Fold Reality
[b]Fatemaster [145pts]:[/b] Bolt of Tzeentch, Warlord - 2-4 Sub-Commanders
. Arcane Tome[b]Fluxmaster, Herald of Tzeentch on Disc [170pts]:[/b] Fold Reality, Nine-eyed Tome, Staff of Change, Warlord - 2-4 Sub-Commanders
[b]Magister on Disc of Tzeentch [145pts]:[/b] Arcane Suggestion, Cult Demagogue, General, Warlord - 1-2 Commanders
[b]+ Battleline +[/b]
[b]Kairic Acolytes [120pts]:[/b] 10 Kairic Acolytes, Cursed Blade and Arcanite Shield, 2x Cursed Glaive and Arcanite Shield, Expert Conquerors - 2-3 Troops, Scrollholders, Vulcharc
[b]Screamers of Tzeentch [200pts]:[/b] 6 Screamers of Tzeentch, Expert Conquerors - 2-3 Troops, Reinforced
[b]Tzaangors [175pts]:[/b] 10 Tzaangors, Expert Conquerors - 2-3 Troops, Musician, Savage Blade and Arcanite Shield, Savage Greatblades, Standard Bearer
[b]+ Other +[/b]
[b]Flamers of Tzeentch [380pts]:[/b] 6 Flamers of Tzeentch, Reinforced, Warlord - 1-2 Troops
[b]Raptoryx [85pts]:[/b] 6 Raptoryx, Bounty Hunters - 2-3 Troops
[b]Tzaangor Enlightened [95pts]:[/b] 3 Tzaangor Enlightened, Bounty Hunters - 2-3 Troops
[b]Tzaangor Enlightened [95pts]:[/b] 3 Tzaangor Enlightened, Bounty Hunters - 2-3 Troops
[b]Untamed Beasts [70pts]:[/b] 9 Untamed Beasts, Tzeentch
[b]+ Allegiance +[/b]
[b]Allegiance[/b]
. Allegiance: Tzeentch: The Hosts Arcanum[b]+ Game Options +[/b]
[b]Battle Tactics (GHB2022)[/b]
[b]Game Type:[/b] 2000 Points - Battlehost
[b]GHB 2022 Rules[/b]
[b]Grand Strategy:[/b] Master of Destiny
[b]+ Malign Sorcery +[/b]
[b]Endless Spell: Burning Sigil of Tzeentch [50pts][/b]
[b]Endless Spell: Chronomantic Cogs [40pts][/b]
[b]Endless Spell: Purple Sun of Shyish [90pts][/b]
[b]++ Total: [2,000pts] ++[/b]
Created with [url=https://battlescribe.net]BattleScribe[/url]
-
3 hours ago, Alpidur said:
Hi guys! I am a sylvaneth player but I like tzeench so I want to begin a new army! What ca I buy to begin an army? I have 10 pink horrors, Gaunt on disc and 10 blu horrors and brimstone! Thanks to all!
My answer is solely dependant on how cool your local group is with off brand proxies. If they're cool with it I'd say get the Vanguard Box, Endless Spells and it least two more boxes of Blues/brims(1 for enough models for splits and the extras for summons). If you're confident with your conversion skills you could get a second Vanguard and convert the Magister into a Fatemaster(Maybe use half of an axehead from the Tzaangor kit as the Glaive head and use some greenstuff to attach a shield to where his sword would be sheathed on his back, the official base size has changed from 40mm-Large Flying base which is roughly 60mm so I'd recommend using something similar to the Tzaangors if mentioned below). With this you'd want some cheap chaos spawn proxies like Reaper's lovecraftian inspired stuff or DND's Roper or Grell kits. They need to be on 50 mill bases but you can get the DND ones for super cheap.
If they arent cool with it I'd say get the Thaumaturge and try to track down the Battleforce box if available.
In either case I'd recommend getting a total of 30 Tzaangors, then you could use your Tzaangors with the Savage Greatblades as Enlightened on Foot. Mout them on the 32s and then get some extra 40mms, then put a piece of ferrous metal on a 40mm and a magnet on the bottom of the Tzaangors original 32mm. Now theyre future proof.
At any point a Lord of Change kit and a Burning Chariot kit is a good buy. Its possible to magnetize the BC kit to swap between Herald on Disc and Herald on BC. The LoC is good with either the Shooty rod or as Kairos.
There is unfortunately not a straightforward or cheap way to build a Tzeentch army. I'd actually recommend holding off and saving up until GW restocks the Endless Spells and we find out if Battle Bonds from the current season is sticking around(because if its not our Tzaangors are going to suck) unless you can find a battleforce box. It's really not an army I'd recommend without serious reservations.
-
1
-
-
On 9/24/2022 at 11:29 PM, Rors said:
You still pay points for the endless spell you can autocast at the start of the game yeah? Just looking through a lot of lists here and people don't have any of them so I'm wondering if it's a free option they're not putting into lists.
Also, sigil looks really fun with some StD cultist allies. 70 points gets you 10 fangs that bring back a model every turn.. you could just sit the sigel with a couple units and summon 4 spawn a battleround while deck chair guarding a home objective.
Yes you do have to pay.
Im also planning on running some Untamed Beasts and Raptoryx for chaff.
-
7 hours ago, Jabbuk said:
I was watching Coach's DoT review with Kaleb Walters, super good. Some guys in the comment section are saying that the auto-cast from Arcane Armies and the 2+ auto-cast from Blue Scribes don't generate FP because they are not "rolls" per say, even if the designer's note says that you generate a FP when your wizard or enemy wizard successfully casts a spell.
Honestly I feel like this is stretching the rules a bit. I mean, intentionally, in the game, the wizard casts a spell anyway, whether he rolls or use some other mechanic... he would generate a FP. Usually GW try to match what's going on on the battlefield with their rules. What do you guys think of this?
Probably could use a FAQ but I dont think other casting roll replacementmechanics like Teclis got FAQed out of Fate Points from earlier books. Come to an agreement with your TO or opponent pre-game until now.
FP on the pre-game endless spell is a pretty big deal IMO since it significantly helps for a first turn summon IMO.
-
1
-
-
On 10/9/2022 at 1:18 PM, NinthMusketeer said:
It can't change. Mortals don't have true names, daemons do. On becoming a daemon they get a true name, it's intuitive and fits with the established rules of the setting. The writers aren't being lazy at all; personally preferring it to be different doesn't make it dumb.
Just because the writers spin the trope doesn't make it good or intuitive.
-
On 10/5/2022 at 4:36 PM, NinthMusketeer said:
It is a metamorphosis, a total transformation of being. A lot of factors come into play while others are removed; they can no longer die, they require magic/worship to summon & sustain them, they are utterly slaved to the will of their god, they can be affected by bindings and wards against daemons, etc. Getting a new name is pretty minor in comparison, and it is probably one the god gives them at the moment of ascension.
The whole point of the trope is that it's a vulnerability. If your true name could change, there would be no threat. That's the reason its called true, because it's fixed. It's dumb writing.
It would be way better if it wasn't that way. It gives them Chaos Gods a real motive for seeking worthy mortals if they cant 100% rely on their warp spawned daemons.
-
4 hours ago, Jabbuk said:
Quick question. Does the Cult Demagogue trait keeps you from failing a cast with double 1s? I'm wondering if it does because it says: "If a casting roll for this general is a double, the casting attempt is successful and the spell cannot be unbound (REGARDLESS OF THE ROLL)
It's the regardless part that sounds like even if it is a double 1, it would still go through. What do you guys think?
Yes
-
2 hours ago, Adammck66 said:
Just noticed the Start Collecting Tzeentch box is no more, damn. Thought it might be due to 40k not having use for the disciples box.
I have LoC, Shaman, Gaunt on disc, Magister on Disc, Ogroid.
20 tzaan, 20 kairoc, 6 of each discgor and 3 screamers.
Absolutelt struggling to think how to use them lol. Also sad my tzaan have just 1 command and now useless greatblades
Even if I don't put them in my lists I'd summon in 3 screamers 9/10 games
-
1 hour ago, Halkbat said:
Great blades can be repurposed as enlightened on foot.
7 hours ago, Ganigumo said:I'm pretty sure Daemon princes are also bound by the "true name" rules, which is what I think is going on here. Mortal sorcerers granted daemonhood, but it seems like the lore is a bit fuzzy around what gaunt summoners are. Haven't gotten a chance to read through the lore in the new tome though, so maybe its cleaned up now.
That's just dumb writing though if true in the case of a demon prince. They'd never be able to get anything done. As soon as they ascend their lieutenants would abuse the hell out of that.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Duke of Mousillon said:
This. I always liked his utility. The same for Kairos old spell. The same for the OG Thaumaturge Fireball spell making Brimstones. RIP. But Magister was never "good". He did not change since the last tome. Him being suddenly so good? I think he is overhyped by some for example in that Warhammer Weekly podcast about the new tome. The only thing that changed is you can suicide himself to make the Incarnate go wild and my personal opinion is that the Incarnate should be removed from play or reworked. I do not like those things.
Edit: I completley overlooked how his double cast change. Yeah just ignore the "hasnt changed since the last tome" part. Im talking shite here.
It's his extra save on the disc and cult demagogue interaction. You get to pick which doubles proc goes off in his second spell. Spawns are better now than they used to be too IIRC they didn't fully heal within range of a successful spell.
He was still underated back then imo just because he was so cheap.
-
6 hours ago, Ganigumo said:
Page 24 of the 2.0 Disciples of Tzeentch battletome, under the section "Lords of the Silver Towers"
Maybe it was retconned in the new book or they've been inconsistent on them, but thats what the previous battletome says verbatim.
I apologize. I think its a retcon. It feels like they dropped the mortal stuff to make the Eater of Tomes' death and the fallout of it more significant. I always kinda felt the whole "True name winning" thing Archaon did to them really clashed with them being mortal though. That's classic "real world" daemonology.
-
2 hours ago, Jabbuk said:
Bumping this just to get some visibility. Hopefully you guys can help. Do you have the same thing on your app? It's pretty big if they dropped it.
Its still the old WS on my app.
Edit- nm, old app
-
3 hours ago, Ganigumo said:
Lorewise Gaunt summoners are the 9 most powerful mortal sorcerers of Tzeentch. They're essentially just a different kind of daemon prince.
Dude, I respect you the most here for your game knowledge but you should really read the lore section of the book
-
3 minutes ago, MitGas said:
To add to this: Yellow and Blue are the true „classic“ T colors. Gold came later, although he had lots of silver (first Aekold and Egrimm paintjobs as examples) at first too. In the end it‘s everything from teal (teal/green-blues are a very recent addition) to purple now as well as gold (which went from a desaturated one to rich gold) and slightly colored metallics (with a teal or purple hue in recent paintjobs), so to me they actually fit very well as Tzeentch is the God of many colors.
I just got this book and im super salty they haven't put back or replaced the old Arcanite color schemes from the 1e battletome.
-
Hot take I guess but Gaunt Summoners never should have had the Arcanite keyword in the first place. They are the least grounded and most alien creatures to the physical Mortal Realms in the lore except individual characters. Its an absurd notion that they'd be spending their day-to-day time micromanaging cultists and beastmen.
Also they only really lose out on Demagogue and Arcane Sacrifice. There really isn't any remaining keyword(like the old Tzaangors) bingo for the Arcanite tag other than to make the Mortal tag distinct. NBD imo.
AoS 2 - Disciples of Tzeentch Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
It seems like the other guy is the only one who thinks it's an argument.
But Blue or Pink Horrors in Conflagration are better summons.