Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Squirrelmaster's Achievements

Lord Castellant

Lord Castellant (8/10)




Community Answers

  1. Heartrenders have better rend than Prosecutors, if my mathshammer is right they have higher damage output vs 2+ saves normally, and vs 3+ when they set up, Prosecutors being better vs 4+ or worse. Heartrenders have slightly lower points/wound, making them more resilient vs mortal wounds and high rend, but not by much. Obviously Prosecutors are much more tanky vs low rend. Heartrenders hit a lot harder in melee than Prosecutors, not that I'd recommend putting them there in the first place if you can avoid it, and the bucklers can deal some retaliation damage though again, it doesn't make a huge difference. Heartrenders are faster but I think the Prosecutors' longer range wins out there. Heartrenders have higher bravery but being single-wound counts against them, I'd say that cancels out though. Cheaper minimum unit means Khinerai are better for grabbing objectives I guess. If you want to run larger units than the minimum, the Khinerai scale up slightly better on damage output — but then why would you? I guess strictly speaking I should look at how the allegiance abilities compare and the role each unit plays within their respective armies, but I don't know Stormcast well enough for that. In conclusion I'd say they're about the same? But like I said, Khinerai are more specialised in taking on armoured opponents.
  2. The crypt horror thing seems like a good idea, I might end up with a whole lot of these and I wouldn't want them all looking the same.
  3. Thanks guys, those pictures really help me see the size difference. It looks like I'd have to bulk out/elongate the models with a lot of greenstuff, maybe even bash two flamers together to make something big enough. I'll have to think about that…
  4. Yeah… from close inspection of the GW pictures, it's the flames they're shooting that make the most obvious difference, but that kinda feels like it's just a question of posing. The "real" difference is the extra arms (regular flamers have 2, pyrocasters 4, and exalted flamers 6). If they're not too different in size (that's my main worry), I could probably get away with larger bases, left-over bits, and greenstuff.
  5. So, given the difference in price I can't help but wonder: How difficult would it be to convert Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch models from a "normal" Flamer of Tzeentch kit? I realise the rules difference is minimal, I'm mainly thinking of 40K where the rules are completely different, but are there any AoS players out there who have both models and can compare them? Any advice or suggestions on this, purely for the sake of saving me money?
  6. Honestly I still find terrain very relevant, even when all it's doing is +1 to saves for models inside it. That said, I actually put my characters in the terrain, where they do get the save, rather than putting them behind the terrain and then complaining that it offers no protection. With that in mind, allowing my characters to claim +1 save for intervening terrain or models wouldn't really affect me, since they're already getting it. As for some shooting units getting a penalty if enemies are within 3", we already have that — it's just down to individual warscrolls instead of being a global rule. For example, skeleton archers only get two shots each if there are at least 20 models in the unit and no enemies within 3". There could perhaps be more warscrolls written with this type of mechanism, but I don't see any need to implement a global rule on top of the penalties that these units already have.
  7. I guess it's a question of how complicated you want to make the rules, and what you are hoping to accomplish. Is this about making terrain more relevant? Making lone non-monster characters more viable? Making positioning more important against shooting? Improving "realism"? Nerfing shooting in general?
  8. "In front of" would not only be very hard to define, but very difficult to just "common sense" in many cases. You could measure a straight line from each firing model to a single target model (chosen by the attacker, I guess?) (since normally you target a unit, not a model), and then see how many other models that line "passes over". That would be easy enough to write, but a pain in the neck to put into practice when dealing with unit-to-unit shooting. (Especially since you could then fire through the gaps between models in a unit.) It would also be possible/make sense to talk about that line passing over an intervening unit, including the gaps between models, and you could potentially rule that each intervening unit gives +1 save to the models behind or some such (in fact I believe there's already a Stormcast unit that works this way?). But deciding how many "rows" that unit has would be extremely difficult to do, without invoking some very complicated wording.
  9. Except for stuff like the Spirit of Durthu's "Solemn Guardian" rule, or the "Black Amulet" Death Artefact. At least one GW author seems to think you can make saves against wounds, even though the core rules disagree.
  10. Regarding summoning, I think the main problem is that you have to go all-or-nothing. If you only take 1 or 2 fragile summoners, you risk losing them before your first turn even starts, causing all your reinforcement points to be wasted. What if you had some guaranteed (but not especially useful) option to bring reinforcements on, even if your casters were dead? For example, you could rule that each player is allowed to bring on up to 10% of their total points as reinforcements, minus anything they've summoned that turn, and only if they have the points set aside, anywhere within 6" of their own table edge, in each of their movement phases. Maybe with the added restriction that you have to note down in advance what unit(s) you want to bring on, and when. Or maybe a cheap, indestructible terrain feature (like an obelisk or something) that sets up in your own deployment zone and has the sole purpose of casting up to one "summoning" spell per turn, as if it were a wizard. Available to all armies, limited to whatever grand alliance you are using.
  11. Regarding battleline, you could remove the required minimum on battleline, but provide a discount on the first "X" battleline units taken, possibly dependant on faction. For example, in 2000pts, Death players could get a 40pt discount on each of the first 3 battleline units they chose, if they included any in the army. It would allow players to take an army with no battleline, but would provide them with an incentive not to.
  12. Would that include bucklers? What about Iron Fists? You do realise Elven Shields already give a bigger bonus against shooting than combat, right? I think by the time they'd gone through and re-pointed everything to take this rule into account (and clarified any special cases), it wouldn't be worth it.
  13. Improving the balance of the existing command traits and artefacts would be a start.
  14. I'd rather see new lores of magic, giving every wizard additional spells to choose from, than a change to the Rules of One.
  15. Skeleton Archers already have "Battleline if army has Tomb Kings allegiance and High Queen Khalida is the army general". They aren't the only ones. Karanak makes Flesh Hounds Battleline, various other non-named characters make units battleline. They could do something similar for other units & characters, but why put it on the warscroll when the GH is already the authority on what is/is not battleline?
  • Create New...