Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Mirage8112

Members
  • Content Count

    689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Mirage8112 last won the day on May 27

Mirage8112 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

830 Celestant-Prime

3 Followers

About Mirage8112

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

835 profile views
  1. So the new FAQ says we can take Awakened Wyldwoods as primary terrain pieces by substituting them for any primary terrain feature. Then it also says we don’t use the warscroll if we do that. We roll on the table and then use that for the rules for the piece. My question is, is it still an Awakened Wyldwood or not? The allegiance abilities triggers off the name of the scenery piece, since we teleport near “Awakened Wyldwoods” which it neither a Keyword nor a Warscroll rule. If we don’t use the warscroll rules, but it’s still an “Awakened Wyldwood” we should be able to use all our abilities that trigger when we’re near them (dryads -1 to hit, teleport, Treelord’s awaken woods spell) but we wont get it’s random magic effects, or the change to do MW during the charge phase. I wonder also what this “wyldwood” business is on the primary terrain feature list, since we don’t currently have a scenery pieces by that name. maybe it will be an “awakened Wyldwoods lite” in the same way the mausoleum is a gravesite light for LoN? Thoughts?
  2. This is not confirmed. WH community seemed to suggest today that it was part of the Deepwood spell lore just on a different place on the page.
  3. The thing of S/T interactions is the majority of the time, it’s only going be a difference of +1 or -1 to the “average” dice roll. In WHFB you had the occasional interaction, where you’d wound on a 2+ Vs something really weak, or you were wounding on a 5+ But those interactions were pretty rare. Now things like toughness are built into the wounds pool to reflect how tough they are. Monsters used to be like 5 wounds max. Hero’s had 3 wounds max. All of the same strength and toughness “feel” are already built into the game, it’s juts spread out over different stats .
  4. I get that part. But I’ve heard it said that you can resurrect units from a mausoleum even if it doesn’t have a unit garrisoned insides I have no idea why because it desk to function juts like a regular gravesite under those conditions for all intents and purposes.
  5. I’ve seen this mentioned before, but I don’t understand why. Can you explain why they can’t resurrect new units from them?
  6. I believe the new kit is called “citadel woods”, where an “awakened wyldwood” is 3-6 of them. The warscroll is renamed, but still refers to “citadel woods”, the same way the old warscroll did.
  7. Again, if there are already 5 trees on the table I don't think it will be a problem for Nurgle players. I missed that spells and items are actually allegiance abilities and I guess I was only focusing on battle traits because batteltraits are all the Sylvaneth book has under Allegiance abilities. If I’m missing a page, and they are indeed on there, RAW they would be subject to those restrictions as well. If they aren’t (Sylvaneth will be the newest book so it could be a format change) then they wont be considered allegiance abilities since Battletomes trump core rules. But even that aside, I’m fairly certain will the FAQ will say that “Battletome rules supersede core rule/GHB rules”. Thats teh way its always been and thats a easiest solution to fix skaven gnawholes and Nurgle tree drops without rewriting them. That’s pretty much been the way they’ve always handled these conflicts.
  8. Yes I know that. I meant that after that. During the game both of them can summon more to the field that don’t have to follow the 6” - 6” -3 “ rule, They both follow a 1” rule to objectives, models or terrain. If terrain is no closer than 12” to any other terrain feature, then there should be a bunch of 12” holes all over the board. For Sylvaneth, the new woods are 10” wide, so 1” on either side, they should fit. Nurgle trees are tiny, but since they are summoned to the board via an allegiance ability they’ll be more restricted. The trees are tiny tho, so it’s possible. But I don't think they’ll need more than the 5 they can potentially bring anyway, they wont really benefit from more.
  9. Yup. Giving players as reason to bring more terrain, means they (ultimately) sell more terrain, and it ensures that factions who do use terrain in a competitive environment are going to more amplified from what it did/was before. The placement rules are quite restrictive either way, and it does make it of situational use, but it’s really pushing the game down the path it’s always been going. Big swift clashes with units where you roll lots of dice. I’ma actually interested in how it affects mixed order armies. KO players bringing Wyldwoods to block out the firing lanes of artillery line of sight, and making spellcasting that much more of a headache. Some terrain wont be as much use for some players (dwarves forge) but a bunch of fyreslayers as allies acting as super tanks for 1 turn. 4 grand alliances also get access to a cheap unit factories Destruction: You can bring 400 allies of Gitz and use the shrine as a cheap goblin mill. Death: You can take a charnel throne and an arch-regent to churn out minions with summon imperial guard. Order: Take a branch wraith and you can take a Wyldwoods and turn it into a summoning mill with dryads As a trade off, all mixed chaos stuff just gets more chaotic. Single allegiance armies will still be a thing, because of the really unique items and some of terrain features you can’t use very well without it (Gravesites, Sylvaneth teleports, Nurgle contagion points). In short, I’d be super pumped about this because the viability of a bunch of new builds Mixed order and single allegiance that juts became a whole lot more competitive because of this. As to the physical use of it on the battlefield, I know it can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but to some degree that’s just an inherent awkwardness in the 28 mm heroic scale. The models have to be big enough to see the detail on, (any smaller and the sculpt matters less) but small enough that you need to fit up to 200 or so miniatures onto a table together. Plus, since they bases to stand and be dynamic, they need to be mounted on bases. Playing with round bases means tricky terrain is just unavoidable when you need to sit a round base on a bunch of visibly sculpted things. The “Charnel Pancake” just doesn’t have quite the same visual appeal.
  10. You must be a holdover from the Kirby days. GW ended it’s streak as “the Evil Empire” a while ago now. Seriously though. Pour yourself a drink a wait till the FAQ drops before your torch burns out.
  11. It depends what army you play. The rules are pretty clear that that 6” - 6” -3” rule (as written) only applies to terrain summoned onto the board via an “allegiance ability”. The only two armies that currently summon terrain to table during the game are Sylvaneth and Maggotkin, and only one of those (maggotkin) actually summon terrain to the board via their allegiance ability. Sylvaneth have thier own restrictions based on summoning Wyldwoods to the board depending on the mechanic used. The allegiance summon already has the 6”-6”-3” rules built in, but all the other woods summoned onto the board (spell/warscroll ability/item) use a 1” 1” 1” rule. So it’s not really and issue for them. I will say, if T.O.’s scrap the terrain placement rules they should scrap the faction terrain portion of the rules as well. It doesn’t make sense to scrap half the rules an apply the other half, especially since the trouble with Maggotkin summoning trees virtually disappear since they can sub out 6 terrain pieces for their own trees. Indirectly: yes. In ones of the designers commentary, they answered a question asking if the Realmscape rules and Endless spells rules were considered part of the core game or optional. The answer they gave was something along the lines that points values for every unit across the game were written with every available rule to an army in mind, and if you don't play with them, the points value wont really reflect what the army can do. If that’s the case, then Maggotkin and Sylvaneth also have all the rules available to them written into their posts cost as well. Dryads are garbage outside of the woods, but great inside them. It doesn’t make sense that a unit like that should have single point costs and not factor in the disparity as a core mechanic of the army. The same goes for Maggotkin, they are very hard to kill but slow as ****. Trees are a part of both army’s core mechanics, it doesn’t make sense that GW would write the rules that way and not account for their terrain .
  12. I’m not sure how that will work. Tournaments usually pre-set tables, but I know at a couple off tournaments we’ve moved things around slightly (always by mutual agreement). We both agreed that was alright, since battelplans change between rounds anyway, and terrain is always incidental to that. Good tournament organizers should account for faction terrain anyway. I would prefer to place terrain myself, but if they don’t go that route, hopefully they’ll take fraction terrain into account. Well, I’m of two minds about this. If tournament organizers leave plenty space for faction terrain then it’s not an issue. What I worry about is the opposite, faction like maggot kin and Sylvaneth are at a real disadvantage if they can’t get their terrain out on the table. Armies that don’t use faction terrain don’t really need it (Daughters of Khaine for example) but armies like Sylvaneth have terrain cost figured into their units point totals (drayds for instance are much better in woods, and marginal out of them). Preventing them from using something that they have pointed into their cost is way more unbalanced than forcing them to play without it.
  13. Just to be clear, there is no “old” or “new” Wyldwoods. Because the warscroll hasn’t been replaced: just updated. What has changed is the “Citadel woods” model (well, once it’s officially released), since the new woods are a sculpt update of the old woods. The warscroll will update when the new Battletome drops, but for right now, they are pretty much exactly the same. I imagine the designers commentary on the new book will probably address how the old models interact with the new rules. My guess is that 1 old wood will count as 3 new ounces since the internal footprint is almost identical. For everyone saying that you wont be able to use the old woods, its important to remember that GW is usually pretty forgiving about allowing you to use old sculpt for current models. In 40k when models are updated, they even let you use the base size your model was originally released with. This isn’t a case of an old warscroll not being included anymore,. Because the warscroll hasn’t actually be removed.
×
×
  • Create New...