Duke of Mousillon

Well. Against the only 1+ safe unit in the game even -1 rend from your spell will not change anything as long as its on its top brackets. But as I said. Theoretically if your throw those 54 dice at the dinos face it should roll 4-5 1s on the armor safes and take some damage as long as you used all out attack. Which is not nothing.

Oh I beg your pardon. I ignored the rolling 2d6. I thought you only rolled 1d6. If you roll 2d6 and pick the better you should be at an average of 2.3 mortal wounds per turn. Not quite the average you would get from 1d6 damage every turn but more then I calculated in the beginning.

They always did. As I said before. 4 mounrfangs with gargant hackers always outdamaged a stonehorn. Even when both units charged 4 mournfangs with gargant hackers did more damage. The difference is in the past 4 mournfanga were the price of 1 Stonehorn. Now they are actually more expensive then 1 stonehorn beastrider with the new points. Edit: even culling clubs on 4 charging mournfangs outdamaged most charging stonehorn beastriders if I remember correct. I think only a 2+ safe made culling club mournfangs worse then a charging stonehorn.

The beast does not have a 50% chance to throw d6 mortals. It has a 1/3 chance to theow d6 and 1/6 to throw d3. This would average out to 1.5 mortal wounds per turn if I am not mistaking. Which yes. Tzaangors would need 3 wizards close by to do that on average. To your lack of tzaangor damage. Do you play double blades? Shields are not the way to go. The sheer amount of attacks should leave a mark in most things even without rend. At least if you have a full unit of 10 of those attacking (33 blades mutants and leader have on additional, 21 beaka on the charge leader has one additional). If your tzaangors do not fight first they will probably get beaten up. They must be the ones charging. If they are widdeld down on range before getting into melee yeah they will not perform. They must play more aggressive if thats your problem. Even if they just kill screens its better then killing nothing while being shot down. If the full unit attacks on the charge with just all out attack (which you should have the command points for) they still put almost 5 wounds into a 2+ safe unit. That is without any rend. I have not yet played tzaangors myself because I barely come around to converting lately but if you have a specific situation that you are underwhelmed by Tzaangors in please share your experience.

I beg your pardon? How do you revive tzaangors? I would like to know that piece of tech because I do not see it in the list you presented to us Disciples. Not sold on it. He is less wounds then a unit of Tzaangors who also throw the ocasional mortal wound out there but has substantially less punch in melee and fill a generic battleline requirement. And he is even a tiny bit more expensive.

Sure he can run around and is fairly tanky but he does not do much on range. The Hunter would be better shooting and might be similarly tanky if you can keep him somehow in cover to not be targetable. But we agree the hunter is dissapointing. More interesting. We always just had to think off the Tyrant for trophy rack because we had our artifacts split between tyrants and butchers. The new trophy rack is not limited to tyrants. Its Gutbuster. We could have a butcher standing back there with the buff aura of trophy rack. Obviously not a Firebelly because GW hates the firebelly but we can have slaughtermaster or butcher carry the trophy rack. Still no shooting hero but some spells would work from back there maybe. Edit: Even just having the Butcher caster in-between the Ironblasters for the Blubbergrub Stench for when is Rinox-Go-Time seems reasonable.

I think about letting a Bloodpelt hunter lead my Underguts because he can take gruesome trophy rack gets his +2 to hit command trait and be basically unsnipable when he sits in cover close to my artillery or gunline? He would still be lackluster in range because he would mainly support 30" range units when himself being 18" at best but I guess his ranged is still better then a Tyrant sitting back there doing nothing? Not sure though. I am not sold on the new Hunter being useful.

175 for the two.

This exactly. In the past they theoretically at least outdamaged stonehorn beastriders a bit potentially in a unit off 4 for the same price. Now the Beastriders are 310 and 4 of these are 350 and still have the worse charge and count for less models on objectives. I really love the idea of their new anti shooting ability but I am afraid of their actual use. I guess they consistently run and charge now at least and are now the more damaging and survivable but also more expensive battleline option for the beasclaws. They still synergise better with the Bloodfeast spell than our other units in the book because of their mounts gaining the bonus attack too. And yes for just charging for mortal wounds theoretically leadbelchers are the way to go because they are our cheapest 3+ model unit but their melee just is not comparable to the other units. If some madman wants to play 10×4 leadbelchers with 2 Tyrants who both have the Big Name to count as a Monster for the charge damage in Meatfist I want pictures of those 42 bellies just charging things.

I right now am thinking about using bloodpelt hunter in a shooting heavy underguts list. I mean theoretically as long as he has his command trait for 2+ to hit he seems like an alternative to an Ironblaster? Otherwise a Underguts command trait would end up be a second big name maybe Deathcheater and Fateseeker but that is also not too exciting necessarily.

Also they count as 2 models which makes them even when less survivable probably still more valuable on objective fights? But generally speaking they are our cheapest and most reliable rend 2 source. Stonehorns are more expensive. And I am not sure about Gargant Hackers on Mournfang. With the rend and range i think culling clubs are now better on mournfangs?

Yeah. They are awesome. I would have been happy either if they were a great unit on their own without any rules or maybe if the Mage Subfaction of the guttbuster maybe had included them this time around and be generic for mages but eh. I converted mine so I will definetly find a place to play him and tinker around. No dust for the fire boy!

I prayed for me firebelly to get the his time to shine. Still dissapointed. I guess I can take him in Underguts for the -1 to hit bubble spell on me shooting lads but even then he feels a tough sell on me first impression.

@Baron Klatz Bloodpelt Hunter is a Gutbuster

@EntMan it will become part of your army. Inside of the allegiance abilities of tzeentch there is its own rule on how to create tzeenrch chaos spawns. Just look at the allegiance abilities again if you need more info.

Well. not too far off is it now. But I could not see the half of a Mournfang box coming. They still do this?

1. Yes 2. Its the truth. My opinion on it? It'd be stupid if it could make more then one spawn. Do not think that'd be good for the game.

I am not familiar with flying based from GW. Can you make a "safe" line with 9 Screamers? Safe line as in the one you can do with 32mm where you basically have 2 ranks of 5 with a little less then an inch gaps between the models in each rank and entertwine the two ranks so all 10 are in melee range of the engagement.

I am afraid my 9 man unit of Screamers will be all of a sudden way more pillowfisted then intended. At least I enjoy the Ogor teasers in the article. They all look grand and I have more Ogor painted up then Tzeentch actually.

The latest ogor mawtribes article made it sound as if the ability to fight in two ranks will stay exclusive to Gallet. "Gluttons now get a Range of 2 on their clubs and bluntblades, meaning big mobs can wade in and pulverise foes even outside the claustrophobic confines of Gallet" The underlined part is a hyperlink in the article to the old article about galletian veteran rules.

No bad manner was intended. I have just classified those parts I criticised as an assumption because there was no rigorous proof behind it as far as I can tell and elaborated. My apologies if it conveyed ill faith. A judgment can be made on assumptions. One does not exclude the other. And even a good judgement can be made on assumptions because we cannot prove everything in every situation. But as our stuntie said. We know how the rule will be played. It will be in FAQ one day. Maybe even before age of sigmar 4.0. But we know how it should be played for the time being even if the wording is off. I just enjoy rules and rigorous proofs.

And here I have to disagree. In this moment you assume they would function identically. I will stay on the pragmatic level of rules here to stay true to my argumentation. "Keyword" is not the same as "Mark of Chaos keyword". What comes behind the "Tzeentch" matters. "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" is inherently different from a "Tzeentch keyword". How? Well we don't know the difference because we do not know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. Nowhere in our rules is defined what this is. Therefor we must assume that it is different because it is not the same phrase. We only know the attributes of one not the other. So by that we must assume that both are not equal until proven otherwise because of their inherenr nature of being named differently. Now you might say well keyword is keyword what does it matter. As long as it is written bold we know that it refers to the keyword. Well let me ask you this. Let us assume right now the rule would be written as "Those units must be given the Tzeentch keyword." Ok. We know what to do. What if the rule said "Those units must be given the Tzeentch unit." Wait. That makes no sense you say now. It makes no sense. Because we cannot give a unit a unit. And I agree! It makes no sense. Because "Tzeench unit" is no keyword. This phrase represents a unit with the Tzeentch keyword. Not the keyword itself. It only refers to the keyword written in bold. Oh. So. It does matter what is written behind the keyword written in bold. Does it not? Yes. The Tzeentch in "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" refers to a keyword. But the whole phrase does not inherently represent just the keyword. Just like in the example above the used phrase with units does not represent the keyword. It only refers to the keyword. "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" just refers to the keyword. But we do not know the definition of the phrase because it is nowhere in the rules we have access to. By just assuming that the phrase "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" is equivalent to "Tzeentch keyword" without knowing the definition of both, you are guilty of an assumption that has no basis in the rules. That is why I cannot agree to your argumentation. We cannot use phrases without them being defined.

The point is not if you could include the unit. You can even under rules as written. It is about the included unit not getting the Tzeentch keyword. That is what rules as written could be problematic. Which would make ex. Shield of Fate unusable on them. That needs a FAQ.

Ofcourse it is intended to give us units and give those units the tzeentch keyword. Thats why I am convinced that it will be a FAQ as soon as their new book drops. Nevertheless to play a bit more devils advocat here and so old Grimrock is not cornered alone. Imagine it like this. And be a bit pragmatic here. More like a computer algorithm that tries to apply our rules. All rules our army knows is written in our book, the core rules or on warscrolls. Now we try applying our Coalition rule as it is written right now and with the soon coming new STD rules. 1) Two of every four units can be STD with the Mark of Chaos keyword. Ok. I take one Chaos Knights unit. Great. It has the Mark of Chaos keyword. No problem. 2) Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword. Error. I do not know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. Nowhere in the rules I am allowed to use or on the warscrolls it is explained what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. I know what a Tzeentch keyword is. I could give it that but that is not what the rule asks for. The following Beasts of Chaos coalition rule asks for a normal keyword. Not this one. This one wants a Mark of Chaos keyword. I know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. But that is not what the rule asks for. What is a Mark of Chaos keyword (emphasise on this not being bold). In particular, what is then the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos Keyword. I dont know. My books and warscrolls don't tell me. I cannot follow this instruction. End of thought experiment. As said I am playing the devils advocat here. We all can agree that it is intended to just give the STD coalition units the Tzeentch keyword and be done with it. But I hope this was able to explain the criticism in the phrasing of the rules as they are right now for us and will be for STD. And we know why this problem exists. Because our coalition rule was written with the old (or now available) STD rules in mind. Where our Coalition units had the Mark of Chaos ability written on their warscroll. This phrasing was and still is necessary to stop the Chaos Knights unit from getting the Khorne keyword in a tzeentch army. We cannot just give tjem the Tzeentch keyword. We needed to stop them from choosing anything else with their ability. For the new and upcoming STD book the phrasing like in the Beasts of Chaos coalition rule would be more adequat for the second half.

To be fair I do understand him. I would personally also prefer different wording on the ability because the mark of chaos keyword is now an allegiance ability of STD and normally allegiance abilities only work in the army that owns them. That being said. They will clarify and faq that as soon as it comes out. No doubt. I think we are also waiting for something similar (not quie the same) with the Lord of Change/Blue Scribes. When other armies ally the Blue Scribes. They theoretically know the entire spell lores says their warscroll ability but that spell lore is part of our allegiance ability. So do they get access to the spell lore if he is allied into another army? Theoretically not. Same with the Chaos Mark. Because it specifically says to give them the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword. But any Mark of Chaos keyword is now an STD allegiance ability. The chaos mark one though is more obviously just awkward wording. They clearly intend for us to use STD and have them given the Tzeentch keyword. The Lord of Change spell lore one I could actually see them go either way there in the faq. @Halkbatbecause they are veterans inside Host Arcanum. I think even the summoned ones if I am not mistaking. But I also think Blue horrors will stay the one of if not the best and most frequent summon. With or without Eternal Conflagration.