Jump to content

Ganigumo

Members
  • Content Count

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Ganigumo last won the day on August 25 2020

Ganigumo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

375 Celestant-Prime

About Ganigumo

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wight kings are awful at the moment, they'll be a bit better if we lose the rerolling 1s generic CA. Their major purpose seems to be unlocking grave guard battleline (which is very good). Most of the Cursed city stuff seems pretty bad, after seeing the warscrolls Kritza and Annika are almost certainly from scrapped cursed city expansions. Vampire lords just give any summonable unit in the army +1 attack, they might be a bit expensive, but +1 attack is a good buff. My post did the math for grave guard which is amazing I wish we had the scroll for skeletons, but zombies are also still on 25s,
  2. Honestly I think Soulblight is looking to be a solid mid-upper mid tier book. There are definitely some strong units in there, grave guard, blood knights, and zombies are all looking strong and the subfactions are pretty interesting. I think Grave Guard are the big winners, 20 attacking (they have 25mm bases) with great weapons and no buffs will do an average of 22.78 damage vs a 4+ save. Adding the vampire lord's command ability for +1 attack brings that up to 33.89, the wight kings CA (once it's fixed) would be 26.57 damage (those number are 16.7/24.85/19.49 for shield variants). This stuf
  3. The intention is palpable, they're supposed to be able to jump over things and charge. Now the way it is written, no part of the rule actually overrides the general rules. It doesn't say "As though there was no unit within 3" " or something like that it just says the unit "can make a normal move" which is exactly what the core rules state anyways. Other units with similar rules of making "normal moves" at other times can also make retreat moves, its why the ironjawz Bloodtoof's command ability needs to specify that the unit can make a normal move but can't retreat. This is just a badly w
  4. No it doesn't. This is bad writing by GW. Per the core rules: They are doing a normal move, and starting the normal move within 3" of an enemy. So they need to either remain stationary or retreat.
  5. Maybe? This rule is weird because the core rules state Retreats are normal moves, and units within 3" of an enemy can already make normal moves (it just needs to be a retreat). This means either they can make an extra normal move (what?) or it's literally just saying the unit can make a retreat move (why?). But nothing here lets it actually retreat and charge. Maybe the rules are changing with 3.0 but still... "Watertight with no ambiguity" Mathhammer: 5 of these guys do 8-15 damage to a 4+ save on the charge (the lances have +1 damage on the charge), with no other buffs. 5
  6. Why is some battalions being stronger than others a problem? It doesn't directly correlate to army strength, this change is actually a buff to the best army in the game (seraphon). I understand the benefits of core battalions, not having access to battalions locks you out of artifacts and makes listbuilding tough, but the introduction of core battalions solves this issue. I think this is a good change, and makes sense, even though it doesn't necessarily make the game any more balanced. What I don't understand is why the removal of warscroll battalions is a good change, and how we can draw
  7. True. I'm not suggesting their source is wrong or that they're lying, it seems pretty clear they got access to the rules at some point. But we don't know if it was a full rulebook, or screenshots, or a draft. I suspected this when I watched the first video but there were some absolutely key details of the rules being left out, stuff like when charge reactions get declared, how the retreat action interacts, can you declare charge reactions for a failed charge, whether the increased range on command abilities came with a wholly within change etc. Whether this is because their source wa
  8. How so? Both scenarios add core battalions, but only one of them also invalidates parts of battletomes so I don't see how keeping both around is messier. We have both army specific and "generic" endless spells and it isn't a problem, this is basically the same thing but for battalions. Realm artifacts also worked literally the same way. Removing warscroll battalions and replacing them with core battalions invalidates parts of our books, and doesn't actually solve any balance issues in the short term, since by equalizing power disparity across battalions the disparities in other parts of a
  9. We should always take what community says with a grain of salt unless they're being super specific, but this sounds like we might not be losing battalions. I've had a hunch the core battalions might be an additive rule for a while, even after Smorgan's video saying they were gone. The wording between them being replacements or additive isn't hugely different and given his other video where he was talking about how command abilities got increased range didn't mention if they were changed to wholly within (which they almost certainly are) I wouldn't be surprised if he glossed over it or mad
  10. Yeah if he had the normal wurrgog ability to get a cp on a 4+ he'd be an interesting option since you could pass the wounds onto his warband, but without it he seems a bit overcosted.
  11. Do you have a source on that? Because in the interview as part of the reveal show they absolutely did not confirm the removal of warscroll battalions, just that "core battalions" address the issue of "haves" and "have nots". There's no reason core battalions and warscroll battalions can't coexist. Agreed. Battalions are part of an allegiance just like warscrolls, spells, and abilities. All removing warscroll battalions does is remove one level of rules, it doesn't actually address army power inequalities. That line of thinking is a joke when you consider BoC has pretty good battalions
  12. I was hoping to see the destruction stuff but that trailer is making me think spiderfang. We also got this spider leg shaped spear in the rumor engine...
  13. The 40k stuff was split across 2 days for some reason, despite not actually having much more to show than AOS. They're obviously saving something big and unannounced for saturday. We know Eisenhorn is coming, so it doesn't make sense that it would be THE big reveal of warhammer fest 2021. If they had enough on their shows they would've just had a day dedicated to them, and not stretched the 40k reveals to have the big one on saturday. They might have something to say about their shows, but I doubt it's all they're showing off because then why would they need to obfuscate the subject of the
  14. Yeah my thought is mostly that the spear is a bit reminiscent of a spider leg.
×
×
  • Create New...