swarmofseals

Do you know of any official rulings that cover any of these situations? or are we just going on inference about what we think the rules should do?

I'm not sure that I quite follow this. I can't think of any abilities that actually say that they count as movement for the movement phase. What they typically say is "you cannot move in the following movement phase" or "instead of making a normal move". A few say "count as that unit's move for the following phase" but it doesn't specify that the act is movement -- just that it counts as movement. For example, Lauchon says "‘The unit you set up cannot move in the following movement phase.’" Soulscream Bridge says "That unit cannot make a normal move that phase." Then a unit like Tree-Revenants' waypipes ability reads "instead of making a normal move..." -- in this case I think clearly you could only use it if you could make a normal move, but I'm not sure that the ability would actually count as moving. There are a lot more examples like this. The Seraphon's Lords of Space and Time and Skaven Gnawholes say "this counts as that unit's move for the following movement phase." Here I think it'd be a bit more reasonable to infer that it counts as moving, but it's still not clear cut.

Had a pretty interesting game yesterday taking a freeguild list for the first time against my opponent's Thunderquake Seraphon list. My list: Freeguild General (steed, lance, shield, war banner, general: indomitable, Ignax's Scales) Freeguild General (steed, lance, shield, war banner, Writ of Dominion) 30 Freeguild Guard (sword and shield) 10 Freeguild Guard (sword and shield) 10 Freeguild Guard (sword and shield) 30 Freeguild Crossbows 30 Freeguild Crossbows 10 Freeguild Archers 10 Freeguild Greatswords 5 Pistoliers 5 Outriders 3 Demigryph Knights Battalion: Freeguild Regiment His list: Slann Astrolith Bearer 3x10 Skinks 3 Ripperdactyls Bastilodon (Solar Engine) Engine of the Gods Stegadon Knight-Incantor with the comet endless spell 2 Salamanders 3 Skink Handlers Battalion: Thunderquake Starhost We rolled up the Battle for the Pass and set up scenery. My initial impressions were that the battleplan and matchup were very unfavorable given that he was playing a list that was content to hold back with most of its force, the deployment areas were very awkward, and the distance between deployment areas is about as large as it gets (24" at the closest point, but the vast majority of the deployment area is even further back. Given that most of my damage dealers are slow, didn't expect this to go well. Things got even worse when he won the roll off and stuck me with the side of the table that had a large, entangling piece of terrain right in the front part of the deployment zone and a large overgrown piece of terrain blocking my LOS to the objective in my right. Once the battle actually begun, it went downhill from there. Even though I would prefer to play second, I thought that I needed to go first in order to get to the middle objectives right away. I knew that if he took both on the first turn I likely wouldn't be able to get them back until turn three at the earliest. Even though this decision compounded my problems, I think it was correct and kept me in the game. My first turn run rolls were abysmal, hitting 1s and 2s (which were largely reduced to 0 by the entangling terrain) on all but one unit. I was still able to get to both middle objectives and take them. At that point, nearly everything went wrong until turn 3 or so. My opponent hit the "summon" result on his Engine of the Gods on both of his first two turns, and managed to double turn me right away from turn 1 to turn 2. He was able to take one middle objective on turn 1 and the other on turn 2. As I predicted, I wasn't going to be in a position to reclaim either until turn 3 , although far below average combat roles didn't do me any favors. Unfortunately I lost the roll off on turn 3 as well, meaning he was able to take another 5 point turn. On the bottom of 3 we realized we were about out of time and shortcutted our way through the rest. At this point I was finally able to bring my firepower to bear and do real damage. We figured that I would be able to easily take one of the objectives back due to numbers, but the other objective was close. We played out that combat and due to fluffing my rolls quite a bit I barely missed taking it. He won initiative for a third time and at that point we figured he was extremely likely to win. If I had managed to take both that turn it would have been very close, likely a toss-up. So overall, the takeaway for me is that while this army looks quite crappy on paper, it actually performed quite well despite a number of factors: The battleplan and terrain were very unfavorable, and the matchup was a tough one. I know Thunderquake isn't exactly a tier 1 list, but I actually think that it's a more difficult opponent for Freeguild than some of the more competitive elements in the meta. Over the course of the game the dice definitely favored my opponent particularly in the first few turns I lost all of the initiative rolls Even so the outcome wasn't really fully decided and given a small nudge I could have been very much in it. Overall it leaves me fairly optimistic.

I just double checked the FAQ to see if there was an official note on this, but I'm not seeing anything. If an ability is preventing a unit from moving (eg: "this unit can't move until the beginning of your next hero phase"), can it still be removed from the battlefield and set up somewhere else if an ability would allow it to do so? Similarly, does being removed from the battlefield and set up somewhere else count as movement for abilities that check whether or not a unit has moved? I am under the impression that the answers are yes and no respectively, but it would be nice to be able to point to this being officially stated somewhere!

I still think people are underestimating the potential value of a full unit of 30 tree-revs. They aren't particularly efficient, but the ability to teleport anywhere on the board with a built in charge reroll will massively complicate things for your opponent.

Hey all! I've posted about this before on the Norcal facebook page, but I host people at my house in SF on a semi regular basis, so if you want to get a game in particularly on a weekday during the day (currently working evenings a lot) drop me a PM!

Even with WHFB the dominance of heavy cav would be highly questionable. Even with mass formations of infantry, there is still a lot of gunpowder not to mention Mongol-esque horse archers, elf archers that would make Agincourt look like a picnic lunch, magic, undead that don't break and would easily bog down heavy cavalry, and, well, giant monsters that heavy cav would smash into like a brick wall. Overall I like the point that @Beliman is making. I think there could be a lot of potential design space in creating clearer roles for certain types of units. These already exist in a soft way: Infantry tend to be the most efficient Monsters tend to be better at concentrating damage in a small space Artillery tends to have bonuses against larger blocks of troops Cavalry tends to be good at charging and mobility Missile units tend to be good at killing glass cannons These effects are usually pretty small though. I'd like to see more interesting design space opened up. Perhaps something like this on heavy cav: LINEBREAKER: When this unit ends a charge move within 1" of an enemy unit, that unit counts as only having one model for the purpose of calculating bonuses until the end of the turn. SHOCK CHARGE: When this unit ends a charge move within 1" of an enemy unit, that unit must take a battleshock test at the end of the turn. Until the end of the turn, if an ability would cause that unit to not take battleshock tests that ability does not apply to this unit. These abilities would represent a heavy cavalry charge disrupting the formation of an enemy unit and/or causing panic among otherwise levelheaded troops. It would offer some counterplay against hordes that is, imo, more interesting than abilities like the Warpfire Thrower or Gaunt Summoner which simply melt large units.

While there was a historical period in which this was true (and plenty of examples of battles that were decided by heavy cavalry charges), there were also long periods of history in which heavy cavalry did not function like this. For example, even though heavy cavalry was often a decisive factor in many ancient battles (see the major victories of Alexander, for example) it was rarely due to a simple frontal charge. Similarly, there are plenty of examples of heavy cavalry getting absolutely wrecked even during the heyday of armored knights (plenty of examples during the crusades and especially during the conquests of the Mongols). The medieval dominance of heavy cavalry was largely a function of there being broad homogeneity in military tactics and technologies in Europe for a period of time, and that dominance collapsed under technological diversification and contact with military cultures that used dramatically different strategies and tactics to those of Europe. Given that Age of Sigmar represents a technological and tactical diversity far beyond anything that has ever been seen in the real world, I'm not sure that it makes sense for heavy cav to dominate.

I'm curious to know if any of you have any competitive experience with a list like the following: 2x Freeguild General (likely one with banner, one general with shield, indomitable, and probably the writ) Luminark with White Battlemage 2x20 Freeguild Guard 1x20 Freeguild Crossbows/Handgunners 3x30 Freeguild Crossbows/Handgunners Random endless spell up to 40 points 2 extra CP Alternately you drop the endless spell and Luminark for a general on griffon Such a list is definitely slow and will basically never have the choice of turn, but the amount of shooting damage that it can do is tremendous and it's going to be very hard for the enemy to engage you at all. You should be very difficult to flank, and any unit trying to engage with you head on is going to have to weather a massive amount of fire before attacking. I do certainly worry about getting to objectives quickly enough, and the lack of anti-magic is potentially really problematic.

I don't think it works this way. A Legions of Nagash gravesite is not a terrain feature. Just because a terrain piece is thematically a graveyard (like the sigmarite mausoleum) doesn't mean that it counts as a gravesite for LoN. Similarly, the Sylvaneth terrain feature is "Awakened Wyldwood" not "Wyldwood". The Wyldwood on the terrain list doesn't do anything special for Sylvaneth armies. Furthermore, if you use the "unique" option to place faction-specific terrain then it no longer uses the faction terrain's warscroll; it just counts as generic terrain. That said, there are some corner cases of strange warscrolls that have abilities that reference particular non-faction terrain features. It should be much easier to use those abilities now, although it remains to be seen whether tournaments will actually use this part of the pitched battle rules given that it adds so much more setup to the beginning of the game. The general rule is that all units in a battalion count as the allegiance of the battalion. This was faq'ed in a while ago and ruined quite a few builds. Like @michu said the only reason why BoC can do it is because their faq explicitly says that they can.

Mathematically Stormvermin are actually pretty solid at 450. Whether such an expensive unit is a good idea in the competitive meta is another question, but in anything but the hardest competition I think a big block of Stormvermin will be a unit to be feared.

The DoK version shows as having been updated, but the links (the links you posted and the ones on the errata site) are to the old version with no changes. Weird.

Yeah, I'd love to get an excuse to use my Mierce Kholuk model. Might be a bit large for a Shaggoth but I can live with that in a casual game! I'm still pretty torn about including one in a competitive list though. I've got about 3/4 of my Desolating Beastherd sorted out but those last 500 points are tricky!

I see what you did there! 😁

is there new evidence that this is range-wide? I haven't seen anything suggesting it's more than the items listed in the images we've already seen.

I'm definitely with @The_Yellow_Sign on this one. Shaggoth is just not efficient enough on offense or defense to justify taking for a combat role. Obviously you don't just treat him exactly the same as a Bray Shaman, but neither is he suited for combat against any target that can really fight back. Hailstorm and Sundering Blades are both great though, but I'm just not sure if I can afford to drop 180 points on it. Ancient Beyond Knowing is probably out as I think I'll likely be running Gavespawn, although maybe I shouldn't.

I've been working out a ton of different BoC lists and am currently working on using the actual beasts allegiance instead of one of the god themes. I'm currently wondering what your experiences have been like with the dragon ogre shaggoth. The DO lore has two great spells (the rend one and the move one) but 180 is a lot of points to pay for a wizard with no cast modifier. As an aside, I really wish we could ally everchosen...

Just some thoughts about your thoughts! 1 - I'm not worried about this. Against a single target they will probably destroy it even if I can't get everyone in range, and I do intend to hit multiple units when I can across a broad front 2 - The only ally I am taking is the Gaunt Summoner. The BoC stuff doesn't count as allies when you are using the Brass Despoilers battalion. 4 - Yeah, I'm clearly taking at least one other hammer unit, likely either a second unit of Bestigors or a larger unit of Centigors. I don't really want to use things like Skullreapers or Khorgoraths as they will increase my drops. I'm also not sure why these would be good choices compared to things like Bestigors/Bullgors/Centigors. Khorgoraths are 12.5 points per wound with a 4+ save compared to Bestigors 10 points per wound with a 4+ save and Centigors 8 points per wound with a 5+ save (4+ in melee). Khorgoroths' offensive efficiency is also really mediocre, worse even than plain Gors. 10 Skullreapers has the same 30 wounds and 4+ save that 30 Bestigors have, but costs 60 points more. Skullreapers have modestly better offensive efficiency (.0629 vs. a 5+ model unit) than Khorgoraths, but they are still worse than Bestigors. Even in the worst case scenario (vs a unit between 5 and 9 models, not charging) Bestigors have an offensive efficiency of .105. They also benefit more from extra attacks, can run (at +1) and charge, pile in +1", and have 1" more move to begin with. I just don't see a good reason to take Skullreapers over more Bestigors. 5 - This is totally valid, and I'm not sure that the Khorne framework is at all advantageous vs. a BoC framework. I'm mostly just seeing where I can push chaos-god aligned lists to see if they are worthwhile. I'll likely make a post at some point in the BoC thread covering the comparisons between all four god options and straight BoC. 6 - Yeah, I don't really know either. The advantages are that it reduces the number of drops and allows a second and even third Slaughterpriest plus the increased range on the Bloodsecrator, which potentially a big deal. But it's also forcing me to take Bloodreavers and Blood Warriors and I don't get nearly as much of a benefit out of the extra artefact.

@Myrdin @decker_cky does the newsletter say how long this promotion is on for? It's not mentioned on their website as far as I can tell.

Lauchon is one of the new endless spells. Basically it gives you a free 12" flying move but kills a model as the price. The idea here is to use it to enable a turn 1 attack with your 30 Bestigors: 12" Lauchon move + 6" regular move + run (+1") and charge should easily get there in 18" gap battleplans and have a very good chance on 24" battleplans unless your opponent deploys far back off the line. Even then you've got a shot especially if you use a CP on the run.

@Grimrock + @Smooth criminal -- thanks for the responses and advice! Perhaps I should provide some more context. I've got a lot of Beasts of Chaos and have been thinking about doing some chaos god specific armies. In each case the bulk of the force would be in the BoC battalion with god-specific units to support. I am approaching this primarily with a competitive mindset, fwiw. For Khorne, I arrived at this basic framework: Beastlord (90) Bloodsecrator (140) Slaughterpriest (100) Gaunt Summoner w/ Familiars (160 - ally) 3 x 10 Gors (210) 30 Bestigors (300) 5 Centigors (80) Lauchon the Soulseeker (60) Brass Despoilers (190) That's 1330 points right there and forms the core of the list. It's 4 drops at the moment. I know the Gaunt Summoner is heresy, but it seems like by far the best way of getting Lauchon into the build so as to be able to hit the opponent on turn 1 with the Bestigors if desired. Beyond this, there are a couple of possible directions to go in: I'd like to add another main combat unit if possible, either a second set of 30 Bestigors or a set of 20 Centigors (+300-320 points). Another possibility would be to swap the Beastlord for a Doombull and add in a unit of Bullgors, but I'm not sure it'd be worth the loss of mobility. Bulking up one of the sets of Gors to 30 would be nice as well (+130 points) Adding further small units is an interesting possibility. I think units of 5 Centigors are ideal as they are efficient, work well in the context of the battalion ability and add a huge amount of mobility to the army. Tuskgor Chariots are also possible. They are slower and weaker but only cost 60 points. The idea with these units would be to harass the opponent, contest unexpected objectives, keep the battalion buffs active on units that matter, and just generally get in the opponent's way in order to slow them down and eventually convert into a relatively cheap blood tithe point. Add in Gore Pilgrims (+410 minimum, but would allow removing 1-2 units of Gors) - this would allow me to cut drops down to 3 while fitting in a second Slaughterpriest (and perhaps even a third). Having 2-3 Slaughterpriests is quite attractive and the extra range on the Bloodsecrator is quite welcome. Add in some sort of combat monster. The most annoying thing about this list is that it feels like I'm wasting the Slaughterhost benefits as well as most artefact benefits as I don't have any heroes that I really want fighting. That said, I'm not sure the benefits of taking a combat monster (likely a Bloodthirster) really justify the points outlay (not to mention going up to 5 drops, which is a big deal). Any thoughts?

Yeah, that's what I was trying to communicate with the whole "you need more units in combat than your enemy has" in order to exhaust is activations. But now that I go back and check the core rules you are correct insofar as your opponent still gets to pick his unit and fight after your bloodthirster does. Passing doesn't end your combat participation, just allows your opponent to pick again. So the value here is really quite limited -- it doesn't even really allow you to break sequence except against things that strike first.

Quick question -- what is the current conventional wisdom regarding the best sequence breaking Bloodthirster build? The way I see it there are two ways to do it: 1. Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury in any Slaughterhost (probably Reapers), moves between 3.1" and 6" of the enemy so that they can't activate, wait until opponent has exhausted all legal activations and then choose this to pile in and attack. Advantages: you can strap on a useful artefact to either increase combat punch or provide extra mobility. You get access to the strike twice command ability, which is really powerful. You can completely prevent any "strikes at the start of the combat phase" unit from attacking altogether during your turn. Disadvantages: Much more awkward to use against units that don't strike at the start of the combat phase, as you will need more total units in combat than your opponent in order to fully bypass your target's attacks. It also isn't likely to work during your opponent's turn at all unless they make a mistake. 2. Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage in Bloodlords, artefact gives always strike first. Advantages: Strikes first on the opponent's turn except against models that strike at the start of the combat phase. Insensate Rage is probably better in combat at baseline. Doesn't wholly prevent enemy strike-first models from attacking. Artefact slot is taken up and no double strike command ability.

I'm not sure I have much advice for the Nighthaunt player, although it's possible that switching over to Legion of Grief would be helpful. Nevertheless, I'm aware that Nighthaunt are very much struggling and they have a lot of very questionable warscrolls, especially if paired up against an army that tend to have a lot of high bravery units like Nurgle. As far as advice against Legions of Nagash goes, I think it depends a lot on the build you are facing off against. That said, a couple of things that jump out at me: Most Nurgle units have relatively bad offense and relatively good defense. This is a problem against LoN because you really need to be able to destroy their units and zone out their gravesites to stop them from returning those units. Your lack of ranged firepower means that it will be difficult to kill their general. If you are getting out-dropped by your opponent you will be in a really bad place as you likely won't be able to get to the objectives first, which is an extremely difficult position to start from when you lack offense. So if you aren't already going under your opponent's drop number, you should really try to. Beyond that, Nurgle actually has access to some incredibly good offensive units, but they require branching outside the "traditional" Maggotkin framework. You have access to Plague Monks, which are by far the most offensively efficient unit in the game. A couple of big blocks of these guys will really help you burn through your opponent's units entirely while also giving you bodies to block his gravesites. Plague Furnaces are also great as they keep your monks battleshock immune, are quite good in combat in their own right and might keep a VLoZD away given that they can do a lot of mortal wounds. Another option is the Pestilent Throng, which gives you access to Bestigors and Centigors, both of which can be great against LoN. Bestigors hit hard, particularly against large units, and Centigors hit reasonably hard and are extremely fast (great for punishing mistakes and zoning out gravesites). Ungors and Ungor raiders are great too. I'm not sure if you are using Rotigus or not, but he seems very bad to me against LoN. You want concentrated damage, not spread out damage and Rotigus is too reliant on his spell which is a liability against LoN. Oddly, I think this matchup is a real opportunity for the Glottkin to shine as long as you keep him buried behind plenty of chaff. He will supercharge your offense even if you never manage to get his spell off. Particularly nasty with Plague Monks or Pestilent Throng stuff, and if you ever manage to resolve Blades of Putrefaction your opponent is going to get wiped out. Certainly, this reasoning is absolutely fair. I think you just have to try to understand the player's context when giving them advice instead of information. "That faction is generally considered to be underpowered right now and you may struggle to win games with them" is very different from "Don't play that faction, they suck". The first statement gives the person information and they can decide for themselves how important it is to them. The second makes assumptions and pushes the player based on those assumptions. A statement like the one you suggested is great because it doesn't make those assumptions. It also matters what context the person is playing in. If most of the locals are running old factions without battletomes or are playing largely softer lists, then taking a "weak" faction might actually lead to better games, but if the locals are running mostly recent armies with an eye toward tournament level competition then buying into a "weak" faction might be a huge exercise in frustration for everyone.

Back in AOS1.0 matched play there was a rule against increasing a unit beyond its original size. I seem to recall this being scrapped along with reinforcement points for summoning, but want to make sure that I'm recalling that correctly. Is there any limitation to adding models to an existing unit in matched play now? And has this changed in the new GHB? Haven't had a chance to pick it up yet.