Dankboss
-
Posts
462 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Dankboss
-
-
Just now, nuttyknatty said:
Ah, understood. 👍
I don't blame people for interpreting differently as it's all over the place with ifs buts and maybes, along with new terminology. To me it's only logical for Uniques to be able to take spells, the same way they'd be able to use Triumphs; the new Enhancement rules are fundamentally the same as they were before under a new name. I read it as rules as intended.
Facehammer, who I believe is a playtester also mentioned Nagash taking Flaming Sword (or whatever it's called). -
20 minutes ago, nuttyknatty said:
Is someone trying to argue that spells aren’t Enhancements?
Seems clear to me that they can’t be used by Unique units.
You now can't use your own faction's spell lore because that is an Enhancement.
-
1 minute ago, frostyeel said:
I reached an interpretation of the Unique unit / spell lore enhancement confusion that I'm happy with. 27.3.1 says "Enhancement's cannot be given to unique units", and the rules for command traits and artifacts both use the word "give" in phrasing that is very similar to the restriction. The spell lore enhancement (27.3.4) does not use the word "give". It is phrased roughly, for each wizard pick a spell, that wizard knows that spell. So unlike command traits and artefacts of power, the spell lore enhancement is not a thing that is given to a unit, it's just an enhancement that allows you to pick a spell for each wizard. Thus no conflict with 27.3.1, and the sidenote that says "every Wizard" doesn't necessarily need to be acting as an exception to 27.3.1, but is just a reminder that the spell lore enhancement affects all eligible units, unlike command traits and artefacts that affect a single eligible unit.
This is how I read it. You the player pick the Enhancement, which then allows access to spells. Otherwise, Unique wizards get locked out of their own spell lore, as that too is an Enhancement.
-
23 hours ago, Orchid89 said:
Do you guys think Rockgut Troggs will get a Wound increase up to 5? It would be nice if they counted as 2 for objectives.
If the rumor that gitz are getting a new book soon after 3.0 is true then I'm fairly certain they will; the reprinted Glogg's Megamob and loonshrine rules specify troggoths of 5 wounds or less. This makes me think they will, and that the loonshrine will function the same. GW are lazy when they can get away with it, and much like Slaanesh, Gravelords and BR Kragnos, they were printed with 3.0 rules/ points because GW had the material to hand, so they used what they had knowing 3.0 was coming anyway.
I hear a lot of people saying GW printing 3.0 points in the latest 2.0 battletomes doesn't make sense but it really does.-
1
-
-
So with the new rules of 3.0, I'm considering if I still want to take Glogg's Megamob; without the battalion what it gives is a forced cp generation command trait, a forced 5+ mortal ward (both of which have better generic counterparts), +1 to regen roles which are mostly meh, and the 4+ spell ward which is the best part of that's left.
Going back to generic allegiance still lets you use the Loonshrine, and gives you access back to command traits and artefacts. I'm tempted to return to Battle Troggboss with the new rules, as this edition you can get more CP which reduces the need for the 4+ generation.
Universal access to +1 to hit makes a massive difference, 6 rockguts hitting on 2s is scary as hell. It'll mostly be used instead of the Boss' reroll 1s unless i have lots of units fighting.
I will likely go +2 wounds and Amulet of Destiny for my Battle Troggboss. Support Troggboss is a bit boring. Finest Moment gives him +1 save and +1 to wound, coupled with +1 to hit will let him return to his old glory. Also, easy access to +1 save is important.
An alternative Battle Troggboss is Reroll damage dice trait and Manticore Venom or whatever it's called for +1 to wound.-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
If you have the choice between +1 rend and going from damage 1 to damage 2, damage 2 is mathematically always better or equally good.
Demigryphs get both -2 and damage 2
-
If everything goes up 10% then we're really only looking at one unit less per 2k army or so. Or no difference if the loss of your battalion absorbs the points increase of your current lists.
-
I hope they limit it to 1 per order.
-
5 minutes ago, SunStorm said:
Very weird going to the GW site to see what's new this week and being told I have to wait 50minutes.
It would be very interesting to see how this affects sales and site visitor numbers. I can't imagine casual buyers being happy to sit in a long queue and then only have 10min to decide before it kicks you off.
It's for the Dominion preorders.
Either GW annoys people now with waiting or they annoy customers later with no stock XD
-
1
-
-
If they limit Dominion to 1 per order too this ought to fix the scalper problem somewhat.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Based on what a friend who worked in a GW store told me, they care more about getting new customers in than catering to old customers. Apparently the metric they used was starter boxes sold, even if a new player didn't buy it. The potential for new customers will definitely outweigh the one box of dudes less recurring customers buy for their 2k, at least in their eyes.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Malakithe said:
Does anyone know or have heard why there will be a points increase across the game? Does GW not want to sell more stuff? They attempted the same thing with 40k 9th but it backfired and they have sense been decreasing and reshuffling points whenever a new book comes out
My thoughts is that a 2k army is a bit of a gatekeeper to some people, since that's the standard level of play, and to new players that's a hell of a lot of work you need to put in just to play. I'm sure some people get put off at a glance. Reducing army sizes by say 10% will help the barrier to entry.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Expendable Grunt said:
If the Soulblight tome is anything to go by, we could see units with multiple weapon options have them condensed down to one (see skeletons as the prime example). On one hand, this would cut down some strategic choices, especially if units like Freeguild Guard lose their 2" range options, but on the other, it would reduce the chance of people building their models 'wrong' as weapon profiles change from edition to edition.
Personally, i'd love to see Demigryph Knights get the Blood Knight weapon profile (3/3/-1/1, with 2 damage on the charge), especially if we're losing the lancers battalion. Seems like a decent middle ground between their two current options and keeps them viable in a variety of situations.
I'd rather have the -2 rend personally. Plus, unlike most cavalry in the game, their mount can actually fight, which sets them apart from others in their weight class.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Doko said:
Im sorry if you taken it wrong,but usually i ignore hyperbole datas or anecdoticals games.
As you says i dont play your list,my list is around irondrakes.
But when i compare numbers i dont says that my 30 irondrakes kill 60 save4 enemys because every unit of the game if you stack buff on it do huge numbers also, so usually only unbuffed damage is used for compare.
But as i said unbuffed city behemots are a joke,you full buffed behemot is great,good for you but every other unit with the same buffs gonna outdamage all our behemots,but this for other post so i wont add more
That's why I said could/can, and that whatever damage it does do, it's almost always enough. Anyway, we are straying from the real topic at hand.
-
1 minute ago, Doko said:
Even then you wont do hit and wound with everything as you have said and also the enemy gonna save 33% of that damage and 16% of the beak,i can say that my irondrakes kill 100 models with save 2 each turn but it is false.
The fact is gryfon cost 320 and do 10 damage.
Now you spend battallion,relik,warlord trait,3 ca(that even in hammerhall you wont have so many even if you bring 10 banners) and he does as 50 after attack twice againsth no save,now againsth save4 gonna kill around 40 with luck. And then enemy does 14 mortals in one round to you deathstar where you soent everithing and you can surrender.
As i said base damage is 10 for 320points, if we compare to others behemoths buffed the list is long
What I have said is true in my experiences. Ifs buts and maybes only go so far. I have done this and continue to do this; regardless, my griffon always does enough damage when I need him to, 30, 40 or 50+ it doesn't matter, it's enough. It's also not my Deathstar XD My Demigryphs are the real work horse of the army; the Griffon sometimes doesn't even get to play (in part because Be'lakor says no).
If you don't play my specific army it's probably not wise to tell me what I can and can't do. Everyone's experiences are different depending on local meta.
(Also, Saint's Blade is -2 so it's also 16%)
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Doko said:
Explain how you do 50 damage with him.
Even with the sword relik(that only work with the rider weapon) and using the sword,the battallion and his ca,his damage is around 15 even attack twice is 30.
Now i can also say the damage of fec behemoths with his spells of extra d3 attacks and doing two attacks but pretty for sure gonna be as double than 30 and dont need battallion,neither ca neither relik
It CAN do up to 50+
If I really want something near the objective dead I use reroll 1s to hit from All out Attack, and my command trait gives me reroll 1s to wound; with +1 to hit and wound (Lancers), and another +1 to hit from his CA to make the claws hit on 2s, I literally cannot fail my attacks (hyperbole). I have so many CPs I can do this at my leisure.
5 attacks with sword doing 3 damage for 152 from beak doing 8
6 from claws doing 12
That is a potential 70 damage when fighting twice, not accounting for the few that will be saved by a 4+ (before rend).
I can and do blow whole units of 30 Longbeards off the table.
Edit: doing even 30 damage should be enough to rinse most things in the game.-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Doko said:
Not he isnt.
Cost 320 and do around 10 damage with save 3
Idoneth turtle for 360 points do 21 damage,have save 2 and more wounds and give two auras of +1 hit and +1 save.
Or seraphon trex cost 210 and do 14'4 damage with save 4
Our behemots need do as double damage to be balanced with every other faction behemots. Even magmadroths that everyone know how bad they are,are better than our behemots
Pretty sure you've made this argument before.
Last time I tested against a 4+ save my Hammerhal Griffon could deal 50+ damage when fighting twice with Saint's Blade. Perhaps this argument is true for other cities, but it is not the rule.
As for the topic at hand. Aside from losing Hammerhalian Lancers, my army is absolutely winning, based on the leaks. Any points increases should be absorbed by the loss of a battalion, and my current list doesn't need the new ones unless they're free or the Enhancements are really worth it.
I generate so many CP that I often can't spend it all; last game turns 2 and 3 I had 10 CPs. The new generic CAs will let me maximize my unit's potential in every way. My favorite is Rally and All out Defence, since I almost never need another +1 to hit nor do I normally care for Battleshock. The smaller board size also helps my infantry a bit.
My army is also not affected by the coherency rules nor the new reinforcement limit. Losing Lancers sucks but the game should be overall more balanced for it, and easy access to +1 save should let my Demigryphs deal the same damage over the course of their life as they did pre-3.0.I'm also introducing one or both of the Ven Densts to my list which will give some much needed magic protection and support killing.
Overall it's very positive.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Grimrock said:
Not sure where the image is coming from, but is there any confirmation on whether normal battalions are legal in matched play?
They are gone, from what I read
-
1
-
-
With the new Hero changes I might consider taking Galen too. I think he could be a decent pinning unit/ dart to supplement my main workhorse units. Considering how prevalent monster heroes that are wizards are, I can see hiding him among an infantry unit and having him go Their Finest Moment on a manticore sorcerer or something could be good. An out of nowhere burst of damage; 9 attacks at 3s 2s -1 2 damage will hurt.
-
1
-
-
Just now, PJetski said:
I'm looking forward to seeing how they expand this new hero/monster action system in battletomes
- New monster actions, like a Troggoth puking up bile to deal D3 mortal wounds to an enemy within 6", or a Magmadroth doing a tail whip to
- Add 1 to dice roll for Roar and Smash to Rubble
- Generate D3 command points with Heroic Leadership instead of 1
- This HERO can use two heroic actions per turn
- This MONSTER can be selected to perform two rampages each phase
- This MONSTER can always use stomp even if another monster used it
- When this MONSTER uses stomp you can select two units instead of 1
- This HERO can use Their Finest Hour twice per game
- When this HERO uses Their Finest Hour they can reroll hit and wound rolls
What else do you think they could do with this system?
Honestly, I'd rather it stays as is. It's another rules area that GW will have to balance and they will mess it up at some point, guaranteed, creating another area of haves and have nots.
-
2
-
2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Based on my experience in 9th edition:
Its hard to quantify the overall impact since 40k had sizeable point increases to coincide with the decrease in size as well as significant rule changes (most notably secondary objectives). But I did note a sharp drop in castling armies and more focus on units that could both shoot and fight, (rather than dedicated shooting units). Terrain became even more important since it would often times be your only defense against faster units. Games definitely see combat faster since there is just simply less square footage to avoid it.
From a practical standpoint its good IMHO, since it allows more room for more tables at events and makes home games a lot easier to manage. Its also pretty close in size to the Blasted Hallowheart and Moonbase Klassius "board in a box" sets and I find those super convenient.
Note, when if first came out a lot of people on the internet screamed that "its just the MINIMUM table size, not the official table size" but I have seen the smaller table pretty much unanimously adopted by all events I have witnessed or attended. So I wouldn't expect a sizeable part of the community to stick to the old size. The smaller table WILL be the status quo going forward.
A minimum size without a max dictates a universal standard, so it makes sense most would adopt the minimum size.
-
For reference, this is what I've done for my board. It provides an area for dead models/ dice.
-
7
-
2
-
-
I marked out the new dimensions on my game board, and looking at it, there was a lot of space on the extremities that was simply not used with the old dimensions.
This will slightly help melee armies that tend to be slower; fast armies were reaching you turn one anyway, so this makes no odds to them, but does help less maneuverable armies.
AoS is a fundamentally melee orientated game, while 40k is fundamentally shooting, so a smaller boardsize benefits AoS while changing the nature of 40k to a greater degree, positive or negative.
I for one am happy with the change, at least the board size at a glance. I can't speak for smaller armies.
If you know, how much smaller did 40k armies get?
-
2 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
I hope not, they'll get that if used in Excelsis anyway.
They're generic Cities of Sigmar, so they can go into any.
-
1
-
AoS 3 New Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I do take that into account, as there are two instances later on where the ruling overrides the base rule.