drkrash

Except that Durthu's stomp is *also* a "Start of Phase" ability, which is why I assumed whoever's turn it is would get priority. It *seems* the FAQ clarification only applies when these effects are applied in different phases, or different sub-phases in the case of the combat phase (i.e., "Start of Phase," "Combat Phase," and "End of Phase."

OK, this is my point. So if it is the Bloodlords player turn, his attacks would occur first rather than Durthu's stomp. If it is the Sylvaneth turn, they'd get to roll for Durthu's stomp before the Bloodlords General attacked. That was the rule based on a priority article put out by GW (link available on request). BUT this new FAQ uses the example of Locus of Diversion and Smashing and Bashing. The locus specifically says it occurs in the Charge phase and then S&B occurs in the combat phase. Clearly a case where the *new* effect takes place instead of the *previous* effect. So does this new ruling change what happens when BOTH effects occur "At the Start of the Combat Phase"? Do the previously released priority rules still apply? OR - as I suggested in my original post - is it the counter-intuitive effect that whoever's turn it is LOSES priority to the other player (which is stupid)? "It's my turn. Start of the combat phase, I attack first." "At the start of the combat phase, I can make you attack last." "OK, but since it's my turn, I attack first." "Yeah, but since it's not my turn, my attack last effect comes after yours and you now have to attack last even though it's your turn." See the confusion here?

Based on 3 different perspectives here, I'd at least say this is not an intuitive ruling.

I honestly don't know how many effects there are that make an enemy unit attack last in the combat phase, but it seems the FAQ's "clarification" on attack first abilities limits the primary reason to take the Bloodlords,

I think this new "clarification" is more opaque than before. Let me propose a common scenario in our club: Khorne Bloodlords vs. Sylvaneth. Bloodlords General attacks at the start of the combat phase. Spirit of Durthu does a stomp at the start of the combat phase that makes a unit fight last. Prior to the December FAQ, whoever's turn it was took priority. On Khorne's turn, he'd strike first. On Sylvaneth's turn, the stomp could go off before Khorne attacked first, dumping him to the end of the sequence. Pretty simple. Has this new FAQ changed that in any way? Because if effects are resolved in player turn order, it seems the above scenario is now *reversed.* For example, Khorne player turn: General attacks first because it's his turn. At "start of phase," Durthu successfully stomps. That effect occurred second, so now Khorne General attacks last in his combat phase. However, on Sylvaneth player turn, stomp goes off first because it's his turn, and then Khorne supercedes the effect and goes first because it is applied second. Am I reading this right? Is this as counter-intuitive as it seems?

It does. Thanks. No offense taken. I've been playing AoS for 4 years. it's not at all uncommon in a game whose rules are as loose as this to play things incorrectly for years. My position makes perfect narrative sense, so I never questioned it. Nor did my friend till someone at a con pointed it out to him. So I wanted to check.

Disagreement at our club last night. If you start a unit on an objective at setup and then move away on turn 1, do you control the objective? I think the answer is yes; another person said you don't start controlling them and if you move away on turn 1, you never controlled it. (He got that from a NOVA TO.) Thoughts?

I hate trees...but only because I lose to them all. The. Time. My friend's Sylvaneth army went 3-2 at NOVA this year. My Khorne army went 1-4.

I'm not on the StD train yet, so I suggest a unit of Wrathmongers and the Icon for the hell of it. Not sure about general, though.

I only attend 1-3 tournaments each year and still consider myself a tournament newbie (especially since I usually do poorly). I run BoK for the practical reason that it was the only army I owned until recently. However, I also would have chosen it because I like the scary demons and the blood and because it's fun to kill lots of things even if I lose. I find that many players find the army scary - for the 1st 2 rounds anyway!

Funny. I run 4 w/Skarbrand, Tyrants and no Murderhost. I've never lost against Seraphon with this list. I'm just saying it's more than just the lists involved. To add to the conversation, I second Bloodlords and more 'thirsters. Prioritize Flesh Hounds over 'letters. I ditched the Bloodletters, replaced them with reavers that often never leave the backfield, and added 5 Wrathmongers. (I also don't use a 'secrator because I prefer 2 priests.)