Freejack02
-
Posts
679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Freejack02
-
-
1 minute ago, PJetski said:
Which armies don't have access to Stomp and Arcane Bolt?
I think "no access to a reasonable amount of mortal wounds" might be more accurate - nobody wants to try killing a 10 wound beast with just Arcane Bolts and a monster slap.
-
6 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:
6: negate the wound
Yes, that would also fall under the definition of a Ward, I don't understand why you keep asking the same question over and over and expecting a different answer. Read the rules. If you disagree with them, wait for a FAQ... like I've said repeatedly.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:
Show me where that’s written?
I literally did.
If you don't agree with it then wait for a FAQ or dev response (like everyone will have to), but don't act like people are pulling this out of nowhere... I quoted the relevant sections of the rules.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:
Yeah I know that, looked now honest wargamer and some other YouTubers all saying that it’s not a ward save + the tournament judge. So for me/us it’s not a ward save Till faq will clear it out. I hate that everytime people try to make things that look clear more complicated.
No one is trying to make it more complicated just for the fun of it - the definition of a Ward save in the new rules DOES encompass what the Praetor ability does; so it makes logical sense to interpret it that way. Like I said before, it didn't feel right to me at first, but I could see it going either way now.
The relevant text from the Core Rules are as follows: "Some abilities allow you to roll a dice to negate a wound before it is allocated to a model. Abilities of this type are referred to as wards." The Praetor ability allows you to negate wounds before being allocated to a model, so it falls under the umbrella of Wards.
Whether GW will come out and make an exception for this case is anybody's guess.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:
What do you guys think about the praetors ability? We talked today with our group about it and everyone’s opinion was that praetors ability is not a ward save, because it don’t says give your attached hero a 5+ ward save.
This was discussed in the AOS 3.0 rules thread in a different topic, and others came to the conclusion that it does in fact fall under the wording of a now-called Ward, which means it would not stack with current Wards (like Yndrasta). I don't like the way that "feels" counter-intuitive, but I don't know what the RAW is going to wind up being.
The discussion is sprinkled in around here:
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, LordPrometheus said:
You're exactly right. IDK and DoK have been VERY strong for pretty much all of 2.0, but they were never "OP". I'd love a book written in that vein. I think Mawtribes is a good template, since SCE want to be elite.
DOK was quite OP for a good while there lol.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, cadmachine said:
The real question is: Is the Praetors ability a Ward Save?
If it's not called a Ward, then it's not a Ward. That is a different mechanic; the two can be mixed.
-
Now that all battalions except the new Core group are going away in matched play (hurts), how do we feel about FEC? New coherency hurts us, but I feel like the rest is fairly positive... I think it's maybe a net win compared to other top factions?
-
5 hours ago, TheArborealWalrus said:
I realize that the top armies aren't going to struggle against it, but the lower tier armies lacking rend and mortals will flounder against us.
Wait, are there still armies in the game that lack mortal wounds?
-
6 hours ago, KibaWildFang said:
I sure hope we don’t become useless. I never got to experience how good we were, lol. I’ll make the army regardless, but I really hope we don’t get screwed.
Well even if they play around with coherency, and battalions, and combat ranges... we still have Gaping Maw 6's to fall back on!
-
13 hours ago, Honk said:
charge in as a line, kill stuff and the first casualty will bring you down to 5.
I don't see how this is possible, because you cannot willingly break coherency according to the rules. You have to set up with full coherency, and maintain it until you remove models that would bring model(s) out of the designated "within 1in of at least two other models belonging to same unit" (that being the only time I can think of you can willingly break). Move, Run, Charge, Pile-In, it doesn't appear to matter - movement of any kind means you have to follow the rules and set them up to adhere to coherency.
Other rules could interact with Coherency and modify that I suppose, but that seems like a weird way to go about it.
-
5 hours ago, KibaWildFang said:
Wait so how would fighting in two ranks work then? Well.. with what we know anyway. You’d only get the first 3 to swing into combat? Feast Day pile-ins feel like they’d be a lot more important with this in mind. Also, what’s this going to do to ghouls?
Large bases basically have to line up in two ranks, so yes only the front row would get to swing in combat (which sucks). I'm not sure what Feast Day pile-ins will do about this - you can't willingly break coherence during any sort of move (run, charge, pile-in, etc) so you couldn't get any more units in no matter what you do. There's speculation that we will get a rule similar to 40k that says something like "models within .5" of a unit within range can attack as normal" so that the back rank isn't screwed completely.
Funny enough Ghouls are ok with this, because they're on 25mm bases - so as long as they're b2b with each other they're within 1" of 2 models anyway.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
Maybe a new command ability for units that will allow them to reform after combat?
But how bad is it going to feel to burn CAs just so your melee troops can do what they were brought to do?
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:
I agree that it useless, which was my point.
Yeah, not much point taking it further, we just don't agree about the state of Alarielle's rules and that's fine. People will continue to point out what isn't looking too strong, and you'll keep saying that you personally have incredible success and everyone else must be looking at things incorrectly or making too many mistakes while playing.
8 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:Nobody seems to be talking about Roar. The ability to shut down command abilities on a 3+? Goodbye battleshock immunity.
Because it doesn't work for battleshock test, it only takes effect for the combat phase.
-
I'm wary of Smash to Rubble for obvious reasons, but I think Heroic Recovery could be a negative for us as well. We have plenty of healing when we need it through Regrowth and Emerald Lifeswarm, or Alarielle's ability if we run her, but now everyone can heal - which makes it that much harder to get our damage to stick. It's not going to be a drastic change, but I think it probably benefits a lot of other factions more than Sylvaneth.
-
13 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:
That is true about literally every single unit in our battletome. It is also true for nearly every single unit in the game except Morathi. Enough weight of fire will remove anything from the board in one turn. Even with a wound/mortal wound shrug.
Really useless statement there - obviously everything can be focus fired down with enough weight on it... my point is that a 740 point goddess is a little TOO susceptible to being taken out without the chance to heal back up (which is her real, albeit it poor, defensive tool).
-
2 hours ago, Landohammer said:
Force your opponent to have to scramble to deal with her in their deployment zone. They will have to overcommit resources to make sure she dies
Not convinced this is true honestly. She has no mortal shrug, no FNP, and a 3+ save... that is not too hard to nova down in a single phase for a good hammer unit and if she's in the enemy deployment zone they really don't have to overcommit movement-wise to get her out of the game.
-
1 hour ago, Landohammer said:
Alarielle: Guys. She is bad. Like really bad. Compare her to Morathi or Teclis and she just absolutely falls apart. She gained more reliable damage output, retreat and charge, and 2d6, but her Talon was nerfed into the ground. All of this for a 23% increase in cost.
I agree that I don't love the points increase, but I'd like to see what else 3.0 has in store as far as changes go before I call her awful. I've always hated the fact she gets no bonus to casting, but honestly I think her main issue as she sits right now is too many points "invested" on just being beefy and strong in melee, when that's not really where you want her. I wish they would have given more emphasis on her ranged spear and taken some damage away from the beetle; then at least I'd know where/how to play her. Currently I feel like she's being wasted if she's not making use of them big antlers. Similar to why I think Bow Hunters are ineffective; just too many points wrapped up in being 5w with a 4+ rerollable save... it doesn't leave much room for offense.
-
The fact that the Goddess Alarielle still doesn't have even a conditional modifier to casting rolls is... maddening. I like the buffs, but with the points hike I doubt she'll really see competitive play.
Sad.
-
It would be amazing if she had the FEC keyword, though it's yet to be seen how well her abilities would fit into the current lists.
-
So do we think Wyldwood placement or Summoner for the new Warsong Revenant? I see those two as most likely, but could be some zone denial/punishment like a SCE Heraldor?
-
On 3/31/2021 at 10:42 PM, Drazhoath said:
So the Warscroll Builder is wrong.
What app are you referring to? Warscroll Builder does not show the Varghulf doing any of these things for me.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Nezzhil said:
Why do you need to add all this verbose when the slain rule remove the models from the game too? They could said "then slain X numbers of models from the unit" or something like that.
Sure, they could have written that - but again this is a poor argument; just because you think something could have been worded differently doesn't change what it says.
-
1
-
-
To me it's crystal clear that models lost to battleshock count as slain, therefore Horrors split.
Also, using the argument "If GW meant the rule to work like that they would have said specifically this" hasn't ever worked, because for the last 20+ years GW rules have been worded poorly. Same discussions happen in DnD language; you can't assume you know the intent of the designers just because you think there's a better way they could have phrased something.
-
2
-
Unit Coherency?
in Rules Questions
Posted
What do you mean by this part? They're still a single unit, so they must all adhere to coherency (but it seems like you know that)... so not sure what you meant.