SpiritofHokuto
-
Posts
281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by SpiritofHokuto
-
-
Unfortunately Navigating the Realmroots with Swift Vengeance isn't possible as it explicitly states that you can only teleport into woods at the beginning on your movement phase. Moving as though it were the movement phase isn't the same as it actually being the movement phase.
-
2 hours ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:
Yeah, I suppose taking the wraith as well is a good idea. Dwellers below and Regrowth are good. I wanted Regrowth on the unit that has +2 to cast on it, so they're less likely to get interrupted.
While having a reliable Regrowth caster is very nice, having a reliable Verdant Blessing caster is better most of the time. When you get past purely casual games, proper Wyldwood generation and management are what separates good Sylvaneth players from great ones. The synergy of a Branchwraith with Ranu's Lamentiri and Verdant Blessing cannot be understated. Getting a Wyldwood on a 4+ and 10 Dryads on a 6+ is just crazily efficient, especially considering that those same Dryads could very well hop into that Wyldwood you just created. This obviously goes hand in hand with the "launchpad" Wyldwood from Acorn of the Ages.
The only time I'd prioritise Regrowth over Verdant Blessing is if you have a Spirit of Durthu, as keeping him topped off on wounds is essential to retaining his damage potential. Even then it'd be a tough call for me personally.
-
4 hours ago, Nixon said:
Just a quick question: How to deal with 60 Handgunners (Freeguild Handgun)
Played a game tonight and got blasted away. After 3 turns scoring any objectives was impossible.
With Wyldwoods now having the Overgrown Wilderness rule from Citadel Woods, depending on the scenario Sylvaneth can be an absolute nightmare of a matchup for a Freeguild gunline.
-
A boy can dream of a new centrepiece model kit. A resculpted Shaggoth/Kholek dual kit.
-
The Sons of Breton are going to be reworked into an allegiance exclusive endless spell. Therefore that ability will be removed from the Blessed Lake. The Lake's improvement of Protection of the Spirits does key off models not units. Although with the changes to auras we may just extend the range a bit and specify units wholly within.
-
3 hours ago, Duke of Gisoreux said:
First, I really appreciate the good work that you did so far!
Here are some suggestions/comments/questions I have:
- Battle Pilgrims should become Battleline when the army contains at least one unit of The Returned.
- These are going to be changed to be battle-line if a Morrigna is the general
- The Silver Mirror: Change range to 30" as this is the new range for unbinding in AoS 2nd edition.
- This was missed out on our revisions thanks for the heads up.
- Field Trebuchet: Change the profile like GW did it for the new Celestar-Ballista. This means the war machine and crew have only one profile and not one for each.
- Yes this warscroll will be redone.
- Green Knight: He seems to be too expensive for what he does. There has to be a reason to take him over a Marshal on Pegasus. He could have 3+ to wound not only when he charges.
- This warscroll has been tweaked and points dropped accordingly.
- The Exemplar Order: Range 2" for Unrefutable Challenge seems very little.
- It would lead to some strange scenarios if the range was longer than his melee range.
- There is no option for a mounted standard bearer hero.
- We're still trying to work out how exactly to do the "Paladin" heroes.
- There is no option for a Handmaiden on Pegasus
- This is mostly due to lack of an easily obtained representative model.
- Marshal on Warhorse/Pegasus: Why does the Marshal on Warhorse have a reroll to hit against MONSTERS, but the one on Pegasus doesn't? A Hero on Pegasus is more likely to be a monster hunter than a one on warhorse.
- We're still working on how to make both of them distinct.
- Battle Pilgrims: Does the Reliquae have the same profile like the other Battle Pilgrims? When taking a minimum sized unit, would it be 4 Battle Pilgrims and 1 Reliquae or 5 Battle Pilgrims and 1 Reliquae?
- It is basically their version of a standard bearer now.
- The Exemplar Order: Does "non BRETON units" refer to allies or also to units that are part of a BRETON Battailon like The Sage Order or The Order of the Burning Lance which contain ELDRITCH COUNCIL and FYRESLAYER units?
- While models in these battalions don't count against your allies limit and count as having the Breton allegiance they are still non-Breton units and so The Exemplar Order would still preclude them.
- I don't like the idea of units on Demi-Gryph. In my opinion Demi-Gryph is Free Peoples. A unit of Hippogryph mounted knights would be nice.
- These have been removed, not sure about the Hippogryphs for the same reason as Handmaiden on Pegasus.
- I would like to see a Bretonnian Crossbowmen unit. Bretonnia had Crossbowmen back in 3rd/4th edition of WHFB and I still have models for them. I would really like to use them in my Bretonnian Army.
- We entertained this idea but ultimately went for a Woodsmen style unit as it felt more iconic.
That's my thoughts so far.
There's going to be many other big & small changes/tweaks. It'll just take us a bit of time to work through all of the revisions.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Satyrical Sophist said:
Hi, new to the forums and AoS, so take this with a pinch of salt. Anyone looked at a Fate Master with a Chaos Warrior contingent? You can make the Fate Master pretty damn resilient.
This may be overkill, but you can combine the new artifact from Ghur (forces enemies to deduct one from their hit rolls against you) , have a 2+ in combat vs non flying enemies, a screamer within 9" (forces opponents targeting Tzeentch Daemon heroes to count 6s as 1s), and you get an additional -1 for being close to a unit. The command ability is not the best, but we seem fairly weak for command abilities in general. We can take the most advantage possible from it though, since it seems to work for any rolls we do, meaning that Gaunt Summoner (Who also gets screamers benefit) , Magister, and Ogroid all get to benefit.
So, targeting Fatemaster by range.
- -2 to hit (Look Out and Feather)
- Count sixes as ones (Screamers)
- 4+ armour saved after that
- Potential command ability re roll
Targeting by magic
- Ignore wounds and mortal wounds on a 4+ (Shield)
- Wizards nearby able to dispel
- I believe the command ability re roll still works?
Targeting in combat.
- 2+ armour save unless they fly
- Count sixes as ones (Screamers)
- -1 to hit (Feather)
- Potential command ability re roll.
This list looks really really stupid, but pretty funny.
- Fate Master
- Ogroid Thaumaturge
- Gaunt Summoner
- Magister
- 5 Chaos Warriors
- 5 Chaos Warriors
- 10 Acolytes
- 3 Screamers
- Endless Shackles spell.
Bang on 1000 points.
You could get it to a 0+ save vs non flyers with the Paradoxical Shield.
-
Well there are a few battalions that let you include units from outside your allegiance. I suppose it's just a poorly worded way of preventing them from being a "two way street".
-
2 hours ago, Gilby said:
Are we sure about the FSWB thing?
p6 of the designer commentary:
"Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle)."
The, "units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have", surely refers to units that are not part of your armies allegiance? Otherwise you're spending ally points on your own battleline (can Tzeentch even ally Tzeentch?). I think this is the way you're meant to read it given the context of the previous section talking about how allies don't cost ally points if the battalion is the same allegiance as your army.
As everything is Tzeentch then you're just spending 160 ally points on the battalion as an ally?
I really hope that this is the case as I was really looking forward to playing and painting up my FSWB.
-
1 hour ago, Waiyuren said:
Also in the errata, and super relevant to the Fatesworn;
It can't be used in Disciples of Tzeentch or Slaves to Darkness anymore. ?
They've clarified that it is Everchosen, and therefore it, and every unit in it, counts as allies for the purpose of list building... so, yeah. 10,000pt games anyone? ?
Yeah GW seem to be falling back into the bad habit of flip-flopping and invalidating armies wholesale. Guess my Tzeentch WoC army gets shelved until StD/Everchosen gets rules worth a damn.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:
I mean that's just the case for a decent Tzzeentch build these days.
Yeah I suppose. I'm not one to talk as I love the Tzeentchian StoD look so I'm not all that well versed with daemonic/arcanite side of things. I don't know whether there's a happy medium?
-
1 minute ago, AaronWIlson said:
Gaunt Summoner of Tzeentch - 180
Magister (x3) - 140
Ogroid - 180
Curseling - 160
Acolytes 10 (x4) - 80
Pink Horrors - 10 x 2 - 200FSWB - 160
Spell portal - 60
Balewind - 40
Geminids - 40
Shackles - 20Is what I plan to try with FSWB.
That is a terrifying amount of spell power to be sure. Aren't you a bit concerned that your units are pretty flimsy and will only offer up token resistance?
-
Yeah. Assuming FSWB allows the additional casts of Arcane Bolt, you'll be able to rack up the Fate points reasonably quickly. Also the Curseling will be an absolute beast in AoS 2. Why bother paying for your own Endless spells when you can just steal your opponents? This is what I'm currently toying with, both being powerful but only using models I like aesthetically.
Allegiance: Tzeentch
Chaos Lord On Daemonic Mount (140)
- General
- Trait: Illusionist
- Artefact: Paradoxical Shield
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
Chaos Sorcerer Lord (160)
- Runestaff
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
- Lore of Fate: Glimpse the Future
Curseling, Eye of Tzeentch (160)
- Artefact: Souldraught
- Lore of Fate: Shield of Fate
Fatemaster (120)
Sayl The Faithless (120)
- Allies
27 x Chaos Warriors (480)
- Halberd & Shield
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
10 x Kairic Acolytes (80)
10 x Kairic Acolytes (80)
5 x Chaos Knights (160)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
5 x Chaos Knights (160)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
1 x Chaos Warshrine (160)
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch
Fatesworn Warband (160)
Total: 1980 / 2000 -
9 hours ago, FORCEFIELDS said:
I'm discovering this project just now so my apologies in advance if this has already been covered -- Are there any plans to include rules for a Peasant Levy / Peasant Militia? I've recently painted up a batch of wargames foundry armed peasant models that I would love to use as part of a Breton army!
In terms of a Peasant Levy probably not. We're already a bit on the high side for number of units and also they don't really fit in with the new fluff that we're developing. They could still be used as particularly hard done by Men-at-Arms or ascetic Battle Pilgrims.
-
4 hours ago, Verengard said:
Im just not sure if the way it's going to happen is a good idea.
Fluff - OK ++
Artifacts - OK ++
Alegiance Traits / Buffs - OK ++
Point/existing scrolls balancing - OK++
Changing names of some units - NOK -- whats the point of renaming a Lord to a Marshal, Damsel to Handmaiden, all the knigts...
New strange units that don't even have models - NOK -- whats the point? original Bret already have more units than most NEW FANCY AOS armies, realy no need to add more without any models avaiable
Demigryphs - ROFL? this is the worst change IMO, freeguild have demigryphs, we have pegasus which are simmilar. If you realy want new monsters why not Hipogryphs, after all the king rides a royal one...
Don't treat me as hater, this is just my opinion.
The names are changing due to fluff, if you look back in the thread for @henin posts it should give a decent idea of where we're going with that.
All new units have equivalents that have existed in the Bretonnian army at some point. We're just consolidating them into one document. And yes the number of units is higher than some AOS armies. But it's not my place to question GW's sometimes weirdly limited design space. As for models no Bretonnian units actually have any officially sold models any more. So it's either paying way over the odds for second hand GW stuff or going third party. Of which there's a smorgasbord of analogous models for all the units.
Demi-gryph are something that's still not concrete yet and we are looking at the possibility of a Hippogryph unit similar to how Pusgoyles were implemented.
-
1
-
-
In no way is this project intended to be for high level competitive play. If small local tournaments allow it that's great but essentially we're aiming for a consolidated house rule document with attendant fluff and artwork.
As for name changes and additional units. We need to change with the times and adapt the Brettonian army to be more a comprehensive range.
-
3 hours ago, Nielspeterdejong said:
Well to be honest, I don't see any changes into it ^^; Are you certain you've uploaded the right file?
Yes initially the old version was linked but that's been rectified.
These are the changes that were made.
The Lady Wills It! - Change to working on an unmodified 6
Armour of Brilliance - Change to CV5
Nature's Wrath - change range to 6"
Revivfy - change to CV7
Blessed Lake - Add Mystic Shimmer back in, Hymn to the Courtiers change to CV6
Morrigna - Blessing of the Lady - Change to CV6
Marshal on Demigryph - change Marshal's Shield to be like others, remove charge benefit to halberd make it 3+ to wound
Noble Champion with Peasantry buffs, remove mounted version
Host Knights - Massed Cavalry from 10 to 8
Bowmen - replace Massed accuracy with Steady Aim
Mounted Yeoman - remove Wooden Shields
Exemplar Order - remove limit on Unrefutable Challenge
-
So are there any more ideas/criticisms before we start on the next round of revisions for this?
-
6 hours ago, Diemer84 said:
Really looking forward to the next drafts with whatever edits you will make. Having a game against bretonnia next weekend, so I wait in eagerness.
Also, I think I forgot to mention the retreat and charge mechanic. I really dislike that. The ability to keep dealing mortal wounds each turn with an extreme range capacity(12"+3d6, from any model in the unit) is just too good. Also I hate it fluff wise. The one problem with the knights should be if they fail to do lethal damage on the charge and are stuck in a prolonged combat. They have no weaknesses right now.
Best regards
Agreed it is a powerful ability but there are other favour token uses that are vying for the small pool which you'll have. Fluff wise see it as them having unparalleled sweeping coordination, also having to make and complete a charge move that turn could conceivably be a detriment. I could type up the ability with much the same wording as retreat but call it something different, however we feel that using existing terminology is the better call.
-
28 minutes ago, Nielspeterdejong said:
For 280 he would be butchered. The Steamtank (which is amazing! You can reroll all dice that are involved with it) costs 280 as well, and has 4 great ranged attacks, and Mortal wounds whenever it charges.
And as I remember, the Undead already have that. Have you forgotten that they have a 6+ ward save on ALL undead units, including fodder? And if they are close to a General the value changes to 5+ which is the same. And these fodder units ALSO have the ability (not even battle trait) to ressurect units.
Peasantry, if they are allowed to have the same ability as a battle trait, still don't have the 6+ ward save. Only Nobility units have those, which is a huge limit.
That 5+ save changed with the GHB2017, it can only be a 6+ and has to be within 6" of a hero (12" with a command trait). The regeneration is also keyed off of heroes as well.
-
While I agree that perhaps the Green Knight was bumped up a little too much and needs reining (sic) in a bit. Comparing it to the horribly mismanaged rules of the Mourngul is a pretty poor baseline for comparison.
-
Thank you for your feedback, this is exactly the kind of thing we need to take this project forwards. This will definitely give us some food for thought.
-
8 minutes ago, Nielspeterdejong said:
16) Honestly I think it already does that
Regardless of this trait, so I would just pick it 
Still an item that straight up gives an extra casting attempt is just too strong.
18) Wait, I thought that was only for the Paladin? The Paladin on foot is great as he is! With the chance to do mortal wounds, and buffing peasants. The Paladin on Horse on the other hand costs 100 points and is kinda mediocre. Giving him a trait (or giving him the free item as a trait, meaning that he will get a trait but cannot pick another item) would seem fair.
The Paladin on foot allows Peasantry units within 8" to re-roll save rolls of 1.
The Paladin BSB gives +1 Bravery to all units within 12" (+2 to Peasantry units).
26) That could work too. And that way they could retain their stakes and not lose it against the first target. Though perhaps against monster units this charge penalty could be increased to -3" ? That would seem fair and would make sense, as the stakes were mostly for keeping cavalry away.
I think losing them after being charged is fine. Perhaps having extra damage vs Monsters/Behemoths/units with movement 10+"?
29) That would work too, with the effect being that they'd have to within 12" of one unit of the battalion. Though seeing as it is only one model, perhaps the range could be shortened to 6", but the effect could stack for nearby units from the battalion?
Yeah shortening the range to 6" sounds like a reasonable compromise.
And happy to help
-
48 minutes ago, Nielspeterdejong said:
1) In that case, perhaps it could instead be for all Breton units? It feels like the Peasantry got the shorter end of the stick here.
Well that unfortunately is the Peasants Lot. Extending it to the whole army would mean making the other Allegiance abilities less powerful to compensate.
2) That makes more sense then, though I think that that might be a bit of a problem. Right now the Bretonnians rely on large numbers of charging cavalry. Without the charge they are exceptionally weak. I think I would remove that, as they are already limited by a number of points available.
Realistically you don't want to be charging with more than a few units in one turn due to the IGYG activation of units in combat so I don't feel this limitation is all that bad.
Also, perhaps we could change one of the current items? Which permanently grants one hero the ability to both run and charge. There is already a Command trait like that for the Death faction, so for a faction that relies upon charges so heavily it would seem only fair.
That is definitely a good idea for a command trait, and they're not set in stone yet.
5) I disagree on that for the same reason as the previous point: The knights are not that strong and cheap, meaning that you will field many. Plus you often just take one damsel, and only get one spell from the Lore of the Lady. As such you can use the Damsel to pull back one unit, but then you will have to use a Favor token to pull back another one. Also the spell can be counter spelled by enemy wizards. Perhaps you could increase the cost to 6 if you prefer that?
It seems fine as is. An easy to cast, useful spell with plenty of utility.
6) Fair enough, I think it will still be pretty powerful.
7) That would make more sense yeah, as you already get the +1 attack from the favor (again, I'd still add that you can use multiple Tokens per turn, just not on the same unit).
8) The obfuscation of Spirits. In that case (looking at Neferate), I would make it at least the same Spell cast requirement as neferate (6), or better yet lower it to 5. As Legendary Lords often can cast better spells, but they also do cost more. You can then forget my suggestion to give a chance to remove mortal wounds.
Bringing it down to a 6 is definitely a consideration.
11) Ah, that makes more sense.
12) Indeed, though I think the ability to heal more wounds when near a lake would also make the Lake more worth taking. And it would allow for better strategies.
Yeah we're still working out how to integrate the Lake better, so ideas like this are very welcome.
16) In that case, perhaps the item could gain an additional effect? Perhaps it could also allow the Damsel to cast one additional spell per turn as long as she is within 6" of a Blessed Lake?
I did think of this but then it's essentially like buying another Damsel (except one has +1 to cast) and just puts a big fat target on her delicate head.
18) Well in that case they really need an extra ability. The idea I had for the item was that it would grant them a "ability" of their choosing. However in exchange they could not be equipped with yet another item. Thus balancing it more
Is the Bravery buff not enough? With him nearby Peasantry go up by 3 Bravery, plus any other heroes nearby Peasantry can get very respectable Bravery.
19) Alright!
20) So to understand this, even if you kill him you can get him back on a 3+ ? That would seem more fair for the price yes.
26) Well it doesn't have to be a pushback, but just something that punishes charging enemies just like the Crossbowmen have. Keep in mind that the Crossbowmen can do that once per turn, but they can do that every turn as they don't lose any effects that grants them that ability (unlike stakes).
The Stakes would still retain the damage aspect (additional damage vs Monsters/Behemoths is a nice touch) but also impose say a -2" charge move penalty.
29) Indeed, but perhaps they could gain something like the Oldblood on Carnosaur its Blood Roar? Allowing the battallion to make a elite unit lose an additional D3 models.
Perhaps something even better? Like giving them the Furies special rule?
Thanks for all the good work
Regardless of this trait, so I would just pick it 
AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion
in Sylvaneth
Posted
The important part is that it can be used at the start of your movement phase. The Swift Vengeance move happens in the hero phase and they move as though it were the movement phase. There is no start of the movement phase window with Swift Vengeance from which you could trigger Navigate the Realmroots.
There hasn't been an official ruling as to this which does seem like an oversight on GW's part. Maybe they think that it's self explanatory and doesn't need further clarification?