[AoS 2 - Legion of Sacrament Discussion]

19 hours ago, SchleuderMann2 said:

Played my First Game with LOS today against BCR and I must say I am quite happy with the results.

My List was

Allegiance: Legion of Sacrament

[...]

Congratulations on winning! I run nearly the same list with some minor variations.

What made you decide on Decrepify on your Necromancer over the usual Overwhelming Dread or Fading Vigor? Is it because you knew your opponent was bringing a Frostlord on Stonehorn or do you generally bring this spell?

And about your artefact choices: I am personally always scared to lose heroes to shooting (or at least get them bracketed into uselessness in case of the VLoZD). Have you considered the Shroud of Darkness/Wristbands of Black Gold on any of your heroes?

[The Rumour Thread]

35 minutes ago, Still-young said:

Looks probably 40k to me but

I think there's a skull decoration on the front.

A black, gold trimmed, ornate boot with a skull on it could definitely be vampire thing.

[Your most disappointing unit in the game]

14 hours ago, Doko said:

But sorceress on black dragon remain as the single worst unit of all aos.vs every other similar cost mage

There's a worse unit, and it's even found within Cities of Sigmar as well: The Battlemage on Griffin.

It has the costs the same as the sorceress, 300 points, but it has worse spells, no command ability, no cast bonus and no synergies. I regularly forget it even exists, though, so it's not as big a disappointment.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 minute ago, LordAlpharius said:

I highly doubt it though since the reinvention has curbed the excesses that resulted in the "corruption" of the lumineth before the spirefall.   

Or maybe that's just what they WANT us to think! Wake up, Sheepaneth!

[The Rumour Thread]

4 minutes ago, LordAlpharius said:

Quite a silly conspiracy theory since Hysh shape is based on the symbol for the wind of light. 

Not disagreeing with you, but this is exactly the kind of vagueness I'd exploit if I was a writer setting up a twist. I definitely believe that some kind of plot point about Slaaneshi corruption still lingering within Hysh and the Lumineth is possible in the future. It would be set up well enough, given the history the Lumineth have with Slaanesh and how closely they are tied to their realm. Could make for a good stoty to spring on us in a few years.

[The Rumour Thread]

37 minutes ago, Thaliontil said:

It can be my bias, but I think (and I love) that these mortals of Slaanesh look like the dark side of the Lumineth. This guy has a helmet that could easily fit with the Alarith...

In any case, stunning miniaiture. Can't wait to see the rest of the range!

They might well be setting up a hint of chaos/Slaaneshi corruption within the Lumineth, given the repetition of bovine imagery in both armies. Plus, the geography of Hysh resembles an eight pointed star of chaos. @Thomas Lyons from Warhammer Weekly has been a proponent of this conspiracy theory since the Lumineth launched (although his pick for corruptor is Hashut).

[The Rumour Thread]

12 hours ago, Popisdead said:

it seemed so click-bait-y of a title so I skipped it.  Is it good? 

The title is slightly misleading, he mostly talks about how it's easier for you to be creative in AoS. For example, he talks about how, sure, you can make your own Space Marine chapter, but the setting still restricts how much you can do with them fairly heavily. By contrast, AoS is a lot more open, and the Mortal Realms are so huge that a lot of weird stuff is completely acceptable. There is this sense that you have to stick with what has been mentioned to exist in 40k (somewhat), while in AoS you can feel free to invent stuff that has not been mentioned anywhere.

And that's definitely true. It's fairly easy to see that GW set up the Mortal Realms specifically to allow players to be creative with their dudes and their lore. I would say that GW definitely recognized how the very defined and mapped out world of Warhammer Fantasy and 40k made it hard to for those that enjoy putting their own spin on things to do so.  This is also reflected in the complaints you get from a lot of people who like the Fantasy world better: That AoS has no lore. But this is by design. It's done so that you can tell whatever story you want with your army.

[The Rumour Thread]

2 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Lord of the Rings rumour engine

Could be anything, really.  Kind of reminds me of the guy who goes into the Hurricanum.

[Rolling run and remaining stationary close combat?]

57 minutes ago, aosrulesbest said:

 We don't know the sequence for starting a normal move, does it come at first, which would indicate you have to make that binary choice between running or staying stationary, or is starting a normal move after you have picked a unit to make a normal move (which enables running). I hope this answered you. From my understanding (and I'm still yet to hear something that rules this interpretation out by RAW) it is possible to go both ways. Comes down to interpretation of semantics. It's difficult to get around, and English isn't my main language, so I hope I explained it clearly enough this time around.

I want to emphasize that I believe running and remaining stationary is ruled out by RAW. I have laid out my reasons for this above, but once more for completeness:

You can decide to run when you "pick a unit to make a normal move" as per the core rules. So does "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" refer to this? If it does, you would have the option to run at that time. But it does not, because if it did, then "remaining stationary" would be a normal move. And if it was a normal move, you would not be allowed to end within 3" of an enemy unit after you perform it. But since that's impossible, "remain stationary" can't be a normal move, and "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" can't be the same as "picking a unit to make a normal move". Thus, "remaining stationary" must be not picking a unit to make a normal move, and declaring retreat is the actual point where you "pick a unit to make a normal move", and this is the point at which you can choose to run.

I believe this is RAW and not RAI, since due to the vague writing we are presented with two possibilities, but it turns out only one is consistent after closer inspection. It's not a case of "This is what it says, but this is what I believe it was supposed to say". It's "What it says presents us with two defensible readings, but only one actually works".

[Rolling run and remaining stationary close combat?]

2 hours ago, Planar said:

So if 0in does not count as a move, what if you move 0,0000001in instead? Does this count as a move? 😎 

Yes, but it is not a workaround for anything as far as the scenario that is being discussed goes. The advantage you get from remaining stationary being a normal move would be that you could roll to run when in combat, see if your roll is high enough to give you an advantage in positioning and if not you could just stay in combat like nothing happened. You gain a bit of information (the die roll's result) here without having to commit to a retreat. If you tried to pull the same thing and move an infinitesimal amount, you'd still definitely have to follow the general retreat rules: That is, you'd have to move outside of 3" of any enemy units. You could not just stay in combat.

 

1 hour ago, aosrulesbest said:

You make the run roll when you pick a unit to make a normal move. BUT when "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy" you can either remain stationary (stationary is not a normal move) or retreat (this is a normal move).

I want to just quickly say that I disagree here. I don't believe that you can have your cake and eat it in this case: Either "remain stationary" is a normal move and you get to run as part of it, or it is not a normal move and you don't. I don't think the option to run as part of something that is not a normal move is available. And that includes the scenario described above, where you start your normal move, declare run and then remain stationary (but without this being a normal move). I think the rules on running are clear here: You can only declare to run on a normal move.

 

1 hour ago, aosrulesbest said:

I think though, both interpretations are "correct" in their own way. Which is stupid/confusing/conflicting, and should not be like that. There is nothing  in RAW that completely shuts out the possibility of making the run roll and deciding to remain stationary. It comes down to semantics and interpretation on the sequence or combining the interpretation of rules regarding this exact situation (rolling for run and remaining stationary) to other rules that are not really discussing this situation (random movement, move phase generally), which is not water proof way of discussing RAW as it relies on interpretation of intent and not on exact wording of the rules.

 

The writing is definitely unclear here. It's fairly bad, even: If the rules for retreat just said "You can either choose not to move a unit when it is within 3" of an enemy unit or retreat", we would not be having this conversation.

But I disagree that the matter is up for interpretation. It's just complicated. As I see it, there are only two defensible options: The whole "start to move in combat" complex is a normal move, and you can declare a run as part of it, or only retreating is actually a normal move and "remain stationary" is not a move at all. I believe that the first option is contradictory with the sentence immediately before it:

"When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit."

The only exception to this rules is retreating, sp specifically not the "start to move" complex. If "start to move" with it's two options of retreat or remain stationary was a normal move, whatever choice you make would always be subject to the above rule. So you would be required to end your move outside of 3" of enemy units when you remain stationary. I take that to be a contradiction and that we should reject the option that remaining stationary is a normal move in favour of the one that it's not a move at all, with everything that entails. Because only the latter option is logically consistent.

Now for the further complication: Attempting to retreat, but failing. Ordinarily, this is not a problem. If you are straight up unable to move anywhere if you wanted to retreat, we could just say that you never had the option to make a move in the first place and must not attempt to retreat, because it would be an illegal move.

But in the case where there is a chance to retreat, but it depens on the result of your run roll, that's not the case. You should be allowed to try to retreat. In this case, what happens if you don't make your die roll? Like, if you need a 6 but roll a 1? The answer to this is not found in the rules, as far as I can tell. I would say that the sequence of play goes like this.

1. Activate to move the unit. This means you count as having moved.

2. Roll to run, fail the dice roll.

3. You have no place to retreat. Thus you fail to retreat and cannot move the unit.

So why do I think that in this case, you get to stay in combat even though that contradicts the rules for retreating? Simply put, because it's part of the logic of "must" that it implies "can". You can't be forced to follow a rule that is impossible for you to follow. This is not from the rules of AoS, it's a general characteristic from the logic of obligation that I am using here. I also believe, though, that your only option is to leave your models where they are, since any movement to a different position would be illegal. Since if you can't legally move, the only other option is to remain stationary, that's what you will have to default to.

I think an argument could be made that if you fail to move, you don't count as having moved. I'd not be against this. It's a logically available option, but it would require "undoing" your activation to move and returning to an earlier game state which I don't think is ever done in AoS. I see this scenario as a genuine rules bug, where there is a chance that you have not option but to break a rule somewhere when you get yourself into this state.

[Rolling run and remaining stationary close combat?]

2 hours ago, aosrulesbest said:

I would say it is (I hope it wasn't though). My argument:

The rules of running say "When you pick a unit to make a normal move, you can declare it will run". And rules of enemy units and retreats state "Units starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or retreat".  I have not found any rules or official clarifications, that you would not be allowed (by RAW) to roll the run, and then decide afterwards, you are going to stay stationary. 

I'll try to explain it again: You "pick" a unit in close combat to make a normal move, and declare it will run. Roll the run roll. The unit is now starting a normal move within 3" of enemy. Then you decide, the unit is going to remain stationary and not to retreat. The unit has not now made a normal move (has not retreated), because it has remained stationary.  I understand your logic, and it is intuitive and the way it should be. But currently the rules are written so, that my argument seems to be valid from what I've researched. So you are able to roll the run roll, and still remain stationary.

This is confusing AF, and took me way too many hours looking into this. And my point isn't is this the right way to play when considering "The spirit of the game". My point is, is this RAW or not. I would not like this to be allowed (as it clearly is janky), so that is why I'm looking for a clear statement (raw/official clarification) this is wrong, but I have to admit I'm running out of ideas. 

I do still think, it's important to talk and discuss these kind of rules, which leave too much open. Discussing these will hopefully lead into more clear formatting of rules, and will help TO's to think these things through before a tournament to make their statements on the matter etc.

It's a surprisingly tricky question and shows that GW would benefit from more careful rules writing. I had originally come to the same conclusion, but now believe it to be wrong. Here's why:

I think there are two ways you can cash out "not having moved" or "remaining stationary". It could either mean that you don't activate the unit to move, or it could mean that you move every model in that unit 0". In the first case, you could not remain stationary and run at the same time, because running requires that you activate the unit to move. In the second case, you would be able to run and remain stationary at the same time.

So we have to decide which of these two alternatives is correct. I would say it is the first one. I think so because otherwise the rules of retreating don't make sense as written:
 

Quote

 

ENEMY UNITS AND RETREATS

When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit.

Units starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or retreat. If a unit retreats, it can move within 3" of an enemy, but must end the move more than 3" from all enemy units.

 

If "remaining stationary" was a normal move, then you would have to finish it outside of 3" of enemy units, as per part one of the rule. That's obviously not possible. That's why I would have to conclude that it is not one. Instead, we have to conclude that the part about "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" in the quote above has to refer to the moment in which you can decide to activate the unit for movement or not. And then your two choices would be to not activate the unit (remain stationary) or activate it and retreat (with all that entails, such as the possibility of running).

I believe there is also one more state you could find yourself in: Activating a unit, retreating, and then failing to retreat. This could happen if you retreat, but need a run roll over a certain number to make a legal move (maybe the unit is blocked by enemies or terrain).  Since you can't be required to make an illegal move, you'll have to remain in combat in that case. I would treat that case as still having moved, though, because the unit was activated.

[What kind of "normal Grand Alliance Order Human" Expansion would you like to see in the future?]

51 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

I would like to see Generic humans  lessened  for the most part.  I think it is less interesting to strictly focus on Humans as the primary or dominant faction.  Having said that I guess where do Chaos and Azyr get their chumps from then.   

Lessen is fine, but a fantastical setting does not work without grounded, familiar elements. If GW are smart they will keep the normal humans, elves, dwarves, skeletons and orks around to make the weirdo factions really stand out. Also to give us some normal people to care about.

[What kind of "normal Grand Alliance Order Human" Expansion would you like to see in the future?]

I'd like for Cities to stay and expand, and I'd love if that involved different mortals of the realms. I think it would be a shame to lose many of the subfactions that are currently part of Cities or to let then stagnate forever, but I also think it's not necessary to limit Cities to currently existing subfactions. There can definitely be new groups that could join the melting pot of the Cities.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 hour ago, Ogregut said:

As far as I can tell, these glorious and beautiful slannesh models don't solve any of the rumour engines. 

I was about to comment the same. How crazy is it that the rapier that made everyone think Sigvald might come back didn't even make an appearance?

Another thing I noticed while checking the rumor engines again, thoigh (probably already known):

These two include the same style of ruined pillars. Until now I thought that bird would Death and the paw would be something else. No idea what to think now.

[The Rumour Thread]

18 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

As far as tomb kings vs ossiarchs... Yeah the ossiarchs are clearly the spiritual successor faction and we can really hope for anything more. That said they don't really do much to scratch the actual Tomb King fan's itch. There are no mummies, no chariots, no actual skeletons, the aesthetic is watered down and confused. What appealed to me so much with TK is entirely lacking in ossiarchs.

they are a perfectly fine faction, and stand on their own merits but they aren't a good replacement od expansion like other recent reboots have been!

100% agree. I like OBR on their own merits, but they have nothing to offer to me as a Tomb Kings fan. It's not like High Elves and Lumineth, where they definitely work as a replacement (and even they are too far removed for a lot of people).

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

33 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:

I might be missing a trick here but how would you get gavriel wholly within 12 of the unit? He can't be redeployed with the battalion and stormkeep means no scions, he isn't fast enough to run to them. Vexillor for a guaranteed teleport? But now on top of minimum 950 for the battalion your up to 1180 with gav and a vex just to charge 30 +1 libs? Seems more efficient to just play old stormcast and drop gav with 1k of evocators. 

I was under the impression that Gavriels ability way within 9, not wholly within 12. But I have seen lists that take the stormkeep hero battalion which can include the Vexillor as well. Since that gives you the extra command points you want for Gavriel there is synergy here. Put in a Catellant as well and translocate him up for a chance at 30 2+ rerolling Liberators.

If that whole build turns out to be too much investment, though,  there is still Astral Templars with their 6" pre game move as another option.

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

2 minutes ago, jhamslam said:

Liberators can barely fight in two ranks, good luck getting 30 of those to fit wholly within 9 in two ranks

Wholly within 9 of Gavriel? Correct me if I am wrong, but his command ability is within, not wholly within.

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

7 minutes ago, jhamslam said:

Oh also, how in Sigmars Name do 30 libs get into combat with anything. Are we forgetting that GW design dept. gave them all a 1 inch reach on 40mm bases?

Give them +9 to charge with Gavriel Sureheart and tag multiple units.

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

The battalion  with 30 liberators is 980 points, so it's half your army

I was not including anything but the Liberators and Lord Veritant in the cost, because the other units don't need to take part in the alpha, so you can have 1400 points running around doing their own thing if you use this strategy. But I see your point for  general list building.

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

9 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Putting a large block of Liberators on the doorstep is a good strategy unless you are playing against armies that can easily screen and tear apart 30 Liberators over two turns (Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, Slaanesh, COS, Seraphon, Tzeentch, Lumineth, Gitz, Skaven, OBR) any deep strike army (Kharadron, Idoneth, DOK,  BOC, Nighthaunt) and only if you are playing on scenarios that favour fast objective play.

Great strategy except for all those scenarios!

I feel like you have not thought through all the implications of this battalion.

Depositing 30 two wound 3+ rerolling 1s bodies in front of the opponent turn 0 is definitely a good opener. You can combine this with low drops but you don't have to get the first turn, it's just that if you do you also guarantee you'll charge them turn 1. Yeah, maybe they will delete your Liberator block over two turns. But those are two turns that you gummed up their works and that the other 1500 points of your army can spend playing objectives.

If you are playing a deep strinking army just you will still tarpit their non-deep striking units. Or you can just not do this and dump 30 Liberators on a point instead or spread them out to zone out their deep strikes.

I want to stress that you can invest a lot of points into your Liberator alpha strike if you want. But you really don't need to. The battalion is cheap enough to include a big liberator tarpit in your list and still do another thing well.

[Broken Realms: Morathi - SPOILER Discussion + Lore Summary]

On 11/11/2020 at 9:51 AM, CeleFAZE said:

Interesting thing to note here: Sigvald was considered the son of Slaanesh in the world that was. Regardless of what the mirror from else in the story might hold, there's a nonzero chance that we could be seeing either Sigvald reborn as a proper demigod, or a new, similar entity.

I'm really excited to see where this goes.

Congratulations on calling it.

[AoS 2 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion]

I think it's best not to get into this too deeply, because in the end it's going to only get resolved by FAQ anyway. So (with no hard feelings, seriously) this will be the last post I'll make about this.

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Imo it is no mere interpretation. They add 2 conditions that must apply so you can take the battallions. [...] The wording is way too specific to wave it off or simply call it a "interpretation".

The problem is not that the intention is unclear. It's that the text does not say what GW (probably) wants it to say. You are right: The wording is specific. And by the normal rules of conversation, they would not bother to explicitly allow an option if it was unrestricted anyway. The problem is that just on the level of what this says in the book, there is no restriction of who can take the battalion (even though it seems to be intended).  And that's just a problem of bad/inconsistent rules writing.

10 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

 By your way of argumentation every other Allegiance (SCE, LoN, Idoneth) should be able to have access to the Zainthar Kai  Temple Rules because it does not say "only if you do so, it has access to the Temple of Khaine rules...".

You know that the context is important here. Allegiance abilities and battalions work differently. Allegiance abilities are restricted by default and need to be explicitly allowed to be used, while battalions are open inside a faction by default and need to be explicitly restricted. Don't turn this on me, please, that inconsistent way of doing things is also on GW.

[AoS 2 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion]

12 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘s utterly meaningless where other restriction rule were written down. We have the rule, that allows Cobra Kai to take it and that‘s it

The way it is written right now is valid, it‘s unpleasant and maybe even unwanted but it is what it is

I am pretty sure it‘ll be FAQed soon, yet I expect it to stay only within Cobra Kai since it makes the most sense for it (and makes it a bit more valid vs Hag Narr)

I think you are right that the intention is to restrict the battalion to the new subfaction, so eventually I think they will FAQ it to be like you are interpreting it. But the rules writing does not reflect this at the moment.

You (and the GW rules writers, by extension) are making a really common logic mistake here, which is to confuse "if" and "only if". Currently the rules as written say you can take the battalion if you are in the subfaction. It does not say only if you are in the subfaction. Since battalions are open to anyone by default unless restricted on their warscroll, this does not forbid other subfactions from taking it.

To illustrate the difference, think about the statements "If it rains the streets get wet." and "Only if it rains the streets get wet." They are different statements. Only the first one is correct: There are a lot of ways that streets can get wet that don't involve rain.

But again, I believe what GW intended was to restrict access to the battalion, because otherwise they would probably not have bothered to explicitly mention that you are able to take it. It's just that they... didn't.

[AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion]

19 hours ago, Marcvs said:

So I am seeing a lot of kneejerk reactions to the new rules for SCE, and the idea of blocks of liberators blocking people in their deployment through the patrol battalion. This seems... excessive? While I don't deny that the new rules are good (I am painting some dusty liberators right now), the only difference with what you could *already* do is the shield of civilisation. What I mean is: you could already drop 2x30 liberators 5" from the opponent with Slayers or Gav Bomb 30 of them, which is in fact more flexible than the patrol battalion. Does the +1 to save (cause even with +1 to hit the damage is lackluster for the investment) justify these reactions? Am I missing something?

EDIT: Ok I just finished the Wahammer Weekly show and they even called for a FAQ to rein the patrol battalion in 🤷‍♀️

Increasing a save is provides more benefits the higher your base save is, so +1 to save for a  save '-' is not a big bonus, but for a save 3+ unit is insanely good.

Going from a 4+ save to 3+ like Liberators do is huge. It increases your effective wounds by a third against no rend. You go from a 2x effective wound multiplier to 3x. Also, rerolling 1s to save gets better if your save is better, because the reroll will be more likely to be successful.

Thirty Liberators at 3+ rerolling have 270 effective wounds against no rend. They are point for point more tanky than Mortek Guard, except they are also in your face turn 0.  Way too many wounds to just mortal wound your way through. And you can buff their save even more if I'm not mistaken. This is an insane battalion.

The +1 to hit is just adding insult to injury at this point.

[Kemmler and Krell]

9 hours ago, pho_king_D said:

So I dont know if Nagash is still keeping that old organization chart with "9 Mortarchs" in total. So I was thinking that they would probably have to do multiple Mortarchs in some possible upcoming factions cause I do not think they will make 9 factions for each Mortarch or anything close to that.  I was talking to my friend and looking stuff up about the dreams of having a Death mage and Dead Walker army , then something hit me ... they could do the old Kremler and Krell Kombo. A big zombie warrior Mortarch that kinda acts as a Krell and his partner a Necromancer Mortarch.

Anyways thoughts on this daydream.

.

I don't have a lot of nostalgia for many of the old Warhammer Fantasy characters. I feel like the two mortarchs we got that are new to AoS (Katakros and Lady Olynder) have been super cool additions, much more exciting that Kemmler or Krell (at least if they don't get reimagined). Besides, Arkhan is already the Necromancer Mortarch. I would not say no to a Deathrattle Mortarch, though.