Phasteon

Ok, I can see that. We can switch „common sense“ with „being a good sportsman“ then. I thought that everyone can agree that being a good sport is important therefore making it common sense regarding wargaming. Maybe I‘m wrong on that and its just my personal opinion.

Definately true. The german FAQ states 2 things: - destiny cubes are „unmodified“ rolls - destiny cubes used for saves and battleshock get modified by rend/lost models. No exception, which means that a „1“ should still trigger the banner. But if we take the german wording now, my „Prayer of Ash“ works on a 3+ now instead of 4+ because it is printed that way and was never FAQd and we can now choose which translation fits our purpose best. Right? (This is no offense, but the german translation is often full of mistakes, where they leave important things out or straight up copy a wrong/old wording)

Maybe drop the 3rd unit of HGB and take a unit of Vulkites instead. This way you have 260 points left and could take 10 Auric Hearthguard that can protect your foot heroes. Or you could drop the invocations and take a Grimwrath to join a unit of HGB. Or maybe you can go for 1 unit of 15 HGB and a Runesmiter to tunnel them. This way they drop where you need them and can surround the Smiter so he cant get charged. Just be aware that HGB drop like flies once your Heroes are dead, so you want to have 2+ Heroes accompanying every HGB unit ideally. (Thats why most people just play 1 unit of 20)

I think we might have a different definition of common sense. You talk about it as if its something that effects people negative, in my country common sense quite literally means that you „think like a sane person“

So after all you agreed, lol. It should be common sense to find a solution both players can accept. And its the basic concept of fair play that before you accidentally cheat you better tripple check something. And if its not 100% clear to both players you either ask a judge or roll off.

1) Because you as the „active“ player gaining something from a misinterpreted rule is worse than taking a „disadvantage“ by not getting something you maybe shouldnt have. Thats common sense. 2) I did not generalize, I talked about a very specific kind of toxic players most certainly everyone knows.

Just 1 thing to consider: - How do you keep your Heroes alive long enough so your HGB dont lose their 4+? You cant really split your forces so you will struggle holding more than 2 objectives at a time.

Absolutely, but sadly thats often not the case. Thats why I make the point that its on the players in this case to be a good sport and interpret the rules in a way that makes for a fun and fair game experience for both players. When someone always interprets questionable rules in a way that benefits him, winning games here and there sometimes just because of that, also often against new players or players that dont rule lawyer at all and just take it, that person dont need to be surprised if he gets called „that guy“ and avoided by the others. Edit: Even worse, there are people that build a ONETRICK list that just consists of abusing that questionable rule. I have no words for that tbh.

I absolutely agree, but until a clarification comes out the player with the rule in question should play it safe and dont force others to accep his interpretation of RAW as the right one. Thats a kind of behavior I rarely see people doing, except some wargaming channels on youtube. Respect for that sportsmanship!

The sad thing is it was already stated by Age of Sigmar on FB and he still argues against it. -.-

Its no coincidence most people I know dont like „tournament players“. Disclaimer: There are for sure many people playing competitively that are not this way. You read horror stories about things people did just to win a game in a tournament. Mindgames like timeplay, asking the opponent to play quicker just to force him into a mistake, measuring distances wrong on purpose, loaded dice, rule bending, even breaking parts of their models for LOS advantages and, and, and. Sorry but thats not competitive play, thats „the better cheater wins“. And even in forums you can often see who plays at tournaments just by the way they talk about the game and hobby in general. They more often than not say negative things about armies, balancing, background driven armies but couldnt care less about those things as all they care about is winning a game. Not in a fair manner of course, because if they get unlucky rolls they might lose. But then again those people are always the loudest when it comes to pointing out „poor ruleswriting“ or „bad balancing“. THEY are the ones abusing both to the max, willingly. Back to topic: If a rule is CLEAR its everyones right to point it out and dont feel ashamed to take maximum advantage. BUT if a rule is controversial and you play it to your advantage without at least talking about it with the other player (or if he starts discussing it as it comes up) you are just a bad sport. Thats not a thing of interpretation, thats fact. „I lose 5 Horrors to battleshock, now I can place my 10 Blue Horrors as the Pinks count as having slain“ „Uhm what? I dont think its like that“ “Of course it is, the rules say they are removed and then counted as being slain and the rules for Horrors say ‚when a model is slain‘“ If you get away with that, fine. You might or might not just won a game by winning an ingame discussion, not by superior tactics. If he still believes „being slain“ and „count as being slain“ are different things he has the same right as you and you should at least roll off for the game. Feels bad to have a 50/50 chance to be right? Well guess what, in this particular case you are not more than 50% right. A good sport would say „I dont want/need that discussion to win, I play as if the rules are definately not that way“ A WAAC will say „But I am definately right here, RAW they both count as slain give me my free win already!!!“ (hint: I might have exaggerated the WAAC part, but anyone who faced that kind of guy before knows how they argue during a decisive point of the game)

As soon as a FAQ says „Horrors that are removed by battleshock will still split“ its perfectly fine. But before that its 50/50 and as it makes a huge impact on the game I‘d advise every player to take the safe route and just remove them without splitting. What truely competitive player (not talking to you WAAC „that guy“) would want to win a game because he abused a rule that wasnt 100% clear.

Just a general question: Which Lodge is your favorite and why? Background, Color Scheme, Rules anything really. I prefered Vostarg from the beginning as I like their „proud inheritance“ „fulfill every oath“ thing as well as Bael–Grimnir very much. Ruleswise I enjoy being very fast (run and charge, +1 to charge rolls, auto 6“ run first turn), and the Command Ability feels also very strong against armies with –to hit modifiers. Have never played a different Lodge, although Hermdar* has the strongest close combat rules I‘ve ever seen. Even better than Petrifex Elite, which is funny because the Hermdar CA counters shield wall SO hard. But yeah, my vote goes to Vostarg. *I like the „we kill tyrants for free“ thing though very, very much.

This. Tbh I would call a Tzeentch player who splits his Horrors after battleshock losses a cheater. There is a difference between building a powerful list or bending the rules in a cheesy way. And thats whats discussed here. Not the attempt of some Tzeentch players to create a competitive list but to use a thing thats unclear but potentially very game decisive for their advantage without 100% knowing its RAW that way. Thats cheating. If I dont know how to interpret a rule I interpret it to my opponents advantage so I dont win because of an advantage I shouldnt have had. Thats called sportsmanship and thats what most people seem to forget when talking about competitive play. Unfortunately even in casual hobby gaming many people are bad sports. Edit: And before you start to argue „that its clear how to interpret this rule“ – no its not. „You cant shoot after retreating“ – THATS a 100% clear rule. „Is being slain and removed or being removed and count as being slain the same thing“ is not 100% clear. RAW there is a difference because otherwise the battleshock rule could just say „the models are slain“

AoS is also very rock, paper, scissors, so the following (simplified) summary might help: hordes beat low volume of attacks* low volume of attacks beats elite** elite beats hordes *Low number of high rend, high damage attacks, mortal wounds. **Units with good saves and high points costs where every lost wound hurts. In reality you want to search for units that combine 2 or even all 3 of those qualities, those are typically the competitive choices. Example: Hearthguard Berzerkers (HGB). While being expensive they have a reasonable model count, high wounds count (a 20–man unit has effectively 60 wounds due to 4+ wound ignore) and high volume of strong attacks. And they can potentially fight twice and be buffed to a 2+ save. Top–Tier unit Now take Retributors in comparison. They are expensive, have a low wounds count for their cost and a mediocre number of attacks. They can be buffed and comboed as well but will get outperformed by HGB every single time. „Bottom–Tier“ unit Now lets look at Evocators. They have the same kind of defense as Retributors but deal a lot more (and reliable) damage but are more expensive and still lack in defense. But they scale very hard when buffed and are able to delete most units on the charge. Still less efficient than HGB but definately better in the elite role than Retributors. „Mid–Tier“ unit. This example showed 3 different units with the same role, but with different „Tiers“ of power. So long story short: You can absolutely play „quality“ over „quantity“ but if you want to be competitive you need to find units that can fill more than 1 role (rock, paper, scissors) or your „paper“ gets „scissored“ by the wrong opponent. Hope this helps Edit: To answer the original question. Its definately worth to change Sequitors to Liberators and leave Evocators out to take the Celestant Prime in a 1000pts game. At this points level he can drop 2nd turn, kill the one unit thats able to kill him outright and then he has pretty much free reign. If played as a unit of 5 Sequitors are just a little bit better at everything than Liberators, so its not a real loss if you need to save those points. Evocators are also very strong at 1000 points but can easier be alphastriked than your Celestant Prime. And they are slow.

It can be nice if you are rolling hot (hehe, get it?), but statistically its not really worth 60 points if you can take something else instead. If I had exactly 100pts left I would go for the Wall and the Flamespitter but atm its 140 so I‘m going for Wall, Infernoth, CP.

I‘d say as a general rule of thumb take elites to clear objectives, take hordes to hold objectives. Its of course much deeper than that, but I prefer my elites/ monsters for a reason 😉

It will be fun to play against a „competitive“ Tzeentch player. 90% rules discussion 10% playing the game Tzeentch players could at least have dinner with the rules before they * them.

Then we will just take your word for it 😉

I‘m pretty sure a changehost is either 1 drop or 9 drops.

Our activation wars is „I shoot all my guns where I want“ where their retaliation is „You have your turn, but I can calculate your threat range including doubleturn“. There were literally games where I knew the other player wouldnt get into combat with anything I cant withstand while losing everything vital for his victory if I didnt go for 100% wiffs. Is it top tier? I don‘t know, but being able to win games by pure tactical decision making feels really rewarding and strong to me. They could have gone for all the amazing „+1 attack, +1 to wound, +1 rend/damage“ stuff other armies have but then there coudnt have been fly high AND our points costs needed to be even higher than now, which would lead to us dying to a single alphastrike/doubleturn again. I prefer top tier–mobility with mediocre but reliable output and reasonable defense (for their points anyway). Edit: I see it that way. I once read an article about the „holy trinity of army stats“ or sth like that. It was „Damage, Mobility, Defense“ and lets face it. Our mobility is definately outstanding, our defense is pretty high too compared to the majority of AoS armies (there are many ways to give the enemy –1 and everything inside a boat is at least 3+ Save while our boats being 3+/4+ too. And potential rerolls! Even our probably weakest part „Damage“ is still sufficient as our supreme mobility makes sure that we will never lose a significant shot due to keytargets being out of range. An Ironclad with 10+ Thunderers (depending on Endrinwork) accompanied by Riggers and 1–2 Gunhaulers can deal so much damage to a part of the enemy lines that there is no retaliation left except for very fast units* and doubleturn. From there you can rinse and repeat. *those units often lack either damage, defense or both as well, depending on points. (Sure, Seekers will always reach our Ironclad but they wont to ****** against it) Hope my point gets clear.

This. Everything in AoS can and will eventually die if the enemy focusses it. So losing units should never break your morale as a player. Its just about how efficient he will do it and how efficient you take things in return. Imo a unit of 60 grots is the most efficient and most annoying thing you can play against a shooting army. They are easily made immune to battleshock and have a 4+ Save against shooting. And 30 can come back after the original 60 died. You would need so many points of shooting to clear them off of an objective that your other points worth of units should be able to control the board and kill chunks of his army. If he shoots the other stuff first your 60 bodies may claim multiple objectives to a point where it might be to late for him to get them off the objective.

The Errata fixed everything wrong with Tzeentch as far as I am concerned. 1) „OH NO 1 DROP IS OP“ I dont care if he is 1-drop or 3-drop when my army has 4+ drops anyway, so thats not a valid argument imo. Someone will always deploy faster and they declared Tzeentch as the „fastest deploying army“ now. Enjoy free counterdeployment after you‘ve seen where his most valuable targets stand. 2) „HE CAN ALPHASTRIKE EVERYTHING WITHOUT COUNTER HELP!!1“ Nope. Just 1 Unit that you can dictate where to land (see 1)) and then clear in return. 18“ on flamers is good, but not enough to target keytargets apart from suicide teleporting them, but without back up now that its only the 1 unit. 3) „HORRORS TARPIT MY WHOLE ARMY AND NEVER RUN OMG!“ Ok, partly still true as they are the cheapest unit in the game wounds per points (correct me if I‘m wrong but 200 for 50 is still nuts, I‘d like them to be around 240-280 - Gaunt Summoner +50p as well) BUT With autopass on every destiny dice gone they are much easier to handle, as they have basically no save (or should I say „defense“ as semantics seem to matter here ;-)) aside from number of wounds. Before the FAQ I was 100% with all the guys screaming that Tzeentch is broken and ruining the game by how frustrating the mechanics work out. But now its fine, everyone still yelling is obviously not good in „theoryhammer“ - those nerfs hit the spot, trust me. Changehost got 100% worse (2 to 1) And Horrors went down in efficiency by a bunch as well (no potential 9 autopasses via destiny) If you cant handle a 100 wounds tarpit or whatever else Tzeentch is throwing at you right now you are clearly not fielding a „competitive list“* so you should maybe create a better list first. *Which is totally fine, but then you should not cry about Tzeentch being still OP, as its just competitive Tzeentch being that strong, a list featuring the same fun choices as your „casual list“ will still be an enjoyable match up after the FAQ. Just my opinion on the matter.

Magmadroths are good. Its just the same thing as always on the internet. Other choice is % better statistically so you pick that. I‘ve won almost every game with my Fyreslayers and I always field Runefather and Runesmiter on Magmadroth. I just love the models and with Vostarg CA (+1 to hit) the Runefather is a beast in combat. So as always, don‘t take what the internet says too serious, its mostly hyperbole.

You can either put them down to 90 OR make them 3+ to hit. Both would be nuts. Also in a Lofnir army units of 20 can delete every Monster in 1 round combined with the CA and a Runesmiter to tunnel in range. Against BCR they are very good, just split the shots and hope that you slow all the Stonehorns.