[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

On 6/9/2021 at 4:36 PM, Athrawes said:

Nothing in the core rules says I'm not allowed to smash your models with a hammer, but I probably shouldn't if I want to make the game enjoyable for me and my opponent. 

The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't.  That's a completely invalid line of argument and does not appear to be made in good faith.

9 hours ago, Fuxxx said:

"Ok guys, before we allowed you to take smaller units if you lacked a model or two. But you have to understand us as a company. We have to make money somehow. So the lax times are over, even if you want to you are not allowed by the rules to take smaller units!"

Ok just making fun of it, and to be frank: You always only have one unit of a type that is too small anyways, you would have to run them small on purpose to have more..

I have odd numbers of both skeletons and grave guard.  It sounds like I would not be able to use odd numbers of both under these rules, but I'm not sure what they mean by "type" of unit.  I could see that as referring to either each warscroll being a "type" or each role being one.

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Thoughts? How about "any community that thinks it knows more about the game than the people who wrote it, any community that changes rules rather than learn how to play with them, any community that thinks about changing rules before they have even played one single game using them, is a community that needs to be nuked into oblivion and stop crying."

That's my thought.

Rules comp is one of the Unholy Octet of Warhammer Evils.

The mtg communtiy has found broken combos in cards before they were even released just from previews alone, and WotC has found that they were correct and had to ban/errata the offending cards to fix it.  So were those mtg players wrong for "thinking they know more about the game than the people who wrote it" and therefore should be "nuked into oblivion?"

[Soulblight Gravelords FAQ question collection]

17 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think it's contentious because I believe the core rules say it works one way, but the Flesh Eater Courts FAQ say it works the opposite.

So really, we need an FAQ (or battalions being dropped from matched play in AoS 3).

The Flesh-Eater Court Errata changes the battalion organization for Royal Family, it doesn't say to change the rules in the core book.  It seems a lot of people are interpreting it as saying that the core book rules should be read differently for all battalions for all factions, but that's not what the actual errata says at all.

This is the text of the errata:

 

Quote

 

Page 73 – Warscroll Battalions, Royal Family

Change the battalion organisation to: ‘A Royal Family consists of the following units:

• 1 Abhorrant Archregent, or 1 Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist, or 1 Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Zombie Dragon

• 2-6 Abhorrant Ghoul Kings that do not have mounts’

 

That's pretty specific in what it affects.  I get why people might hear that the flesh-eater courts battalion has a certain ruling, and try to generalize that to other armies, but looking at the actual text, it seems pretty clear to me that nothing changed in the rules for how to read battalion organizations; what changed was the organization requirements for this specific battalion. 

If they actually wanted to change the rules for battalions in general, I would think that they would have done so in the faq for the core rules, which was published on the same date.  I don't think the problem is ambiguity in the rules; I think it's people making assumptions about the rules rather than looking at what they actually say.

 

Of course, it's entirely possible that these battalions are going away with the new rules, which would render the whole thing moot.

[Soulblight Gravelords FAQ question collection]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Battalions always refer to Keywords.  

They can refer to titles OR keywords.

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't have the book on me to check, but I believe Vampire Lord not in KEYWORD BOLD in this instance. So I believe it refers to the name on the warscroll, not the keyword in this instance. This should still allow you to take Vampire Lords on Zombie Dragon, because there is an FAQ entry somewhere to the effect that you can ignore the small print modifiers on warscrolls for battalions like this ("on Zombie Dragon" being small print in this case). Named Vampire Lords should be out, though.

It's from the core rulebook.

[AoS3 - Soulblight Gravelord Discussion]

3 hours ago, AHexInScarletRed said:

I know, right? I was really keen on knowing if there's Skeleton Guards in Crimson Keep or if they only summon animals, but turns out, they usually raise Zombies. It's mentioned twice, the Wolves and Bats too, Skeletons not at all. I'm okay with using Zombies if my Kastelai Vampires are said to do so all the time, but I also thought the two other Battleline options to be more probable. 

It says that they sometimes raise zombies, but that doesn't mean they only raise zombies.  And the line "Kastelai vampires will resurrect slain infantry from local barrows and corpse pits if need be" could include any of the undead infantry types.

[Soulblight Gravelords FAQ question collection]

7 hours ago, El Syf said:

Do the crimson court gain the relevant dynasty traits for the army you take them in?

They don't have a lineage keyword on their warcroll, so they should.

[Has anyone figured out a list in which Radukhar’s Court is effective?]

9 hours ago, Sutek said:

Using that argument only Mannfredd would be able to ambush because his is the only warscroll with the Legion of Knight keyword.  Surely they gain the keyword by being included in the list.  Page 72.

I think you might have missed an important sentence on that page.  From the second column under allegiance abilities:

"If a unit already has a lineage keyword on its warscroll, it cannot gain another one.  This does not preclude you from including the unit in your army, but you cannot use the allegiance abilities for its dynasty or legion."

[Black knights any use?]

22 hours ago, rosa said:

Ahem, Grave guard? They blend pretty much everything. A block of twenty toss out potential 80 damage?!

Did you quit reading his post mid-paragraph?  I'm trying to figure out how you got to the sentence you quoted, but apparently did not get to the one right after it.  🤣

[Soulblight Gravelords FAQ question collection]

16 hours ago, Dusktiger said:

yes, but them being brought up to a 3+ save, like with deathrattle, meant a vampire unit with a different save stat is now the same stat as the other vampire units; all the vampires in the book are now a 3+ save, and all skeletons are a 5+. thats not an omission, so much as standardization of the statline across all units of a given type. The VLOZD also lost his ancient shield that made him go from a 4+ to a 3+, and its now just a 3+ by default.  mannfred, neferata, vhordrai, duvalle, lauka, vengorian lords, vampire lords, VLOZD, and blood knights are all a 3+ now. and the vyrkos dynasty vampires are all a 4+ (so i guess lycan vampires prefer less armor).  the only 'normal' vampires with a save thats worse than a 3+, is the crimson court, but that entry has its own slew of problems.

I feel like that strengthens my point instead of countering it.  Black Knights remain the anomaly that lost their shield special rule and didn't get an improved save built in.  I find it more probable that this is an error rather than a deliberate nerf to a unit that doesn't really need one.  It is possible that it is an intended nerf, but I don't think that's the more likely conclusion.

[Soulblight Gravelords FAQ question collection]

1 hour ago, Dusktiger said:

after reading through my copy that finally arrived, i don't think this one was an oversight at all;

before, black knights and grave guard had a save of 5+, and skeleton warriors had a 6+.  Both the Knights and the Warriors lost the crypt shields' ability, but the warriors gained +1 save. 

I think it's actually 2 separate changes being confused for a single one because we're focused on the warriors;

• the first being removing the shields and making them unique to sword&board grave guard to make you decide if you prefer +1 saves or 2 Damage weapons on the Grave Guard. 
• The other, being them increasing the base Save of Warriors to a 5+ so they're in line with all the other deathrattle units that are not Leader caste.

It's conjecture on my part, i admit, but that seems to be the logic behind that one.

It's not just the skeleton warriors that got the increased save, though.  Blood Knights also lost the crypt shield special rules and got the improved save baked in.

The Black Knights are the anomalous unit, so it's reasonable to think that it was an error in their warscroll.

[The Legion of Blood Conundrum]

11 hours ago, Nullius said:

I feel like there is something very strange about the whole death rattle section of this book. The Warscrolls aren’t very good, but neither are they priced as expendable speed bumps. Only the skeletons have the resurrection rule that seems like all the death rattle units should have had, and the Wight King’s command ability doesn’t make sense. I see an faq for these units very soon. If black knights and grave guard stood back up upon activation they might actually be decent as trouble-maker units. Legion of Blood’s focus on the most confusing warscrolls in the book makes it a confusing allegiance.

I get the complaints about Black Knights, but you lost me with the grave guard.  They're one of the few units that got pretty clearly buffed from the previous versions, and they're lower points now, too (aside from the minimum squad size going up, but it's not like a unit of 5 would have done that much anyway.)  With great wight blades doing 2 damage and having a chance to do mortal wounds on top of that, they're one of the better damage dealing units in the army.  Also giving them a built-in ability to stand back up would be overkill.

[Soulblight Gravelords News, Rumours and Speculation]

4 hours ago, Thalassic Monstrosity said:

I've been looking over the Soulblight stuff that's released before the tome and I wonder: does anyone have a list idea for a vargheist-heavy list? Is Legion of Night the default option, even if I plan on taking plenty of zombies and dire wolves?

Vargheists also benefit from the Might of the Crimson Keep rule from the Kastelai dynasty (vampire units gain bonuses for destroying enemy units), so that might be worth considering if you're not concerned about filling out the battleline slots.