Easytyger
-
Posts
134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Easytyger
-
-
On 3/27/2023 at 1:35 PM, Enoby said:
Just curious, as someone who played Blades of Khorne a long time ago, how is this new book? Does it finally feel like "Khorne"?
If you mean do they feel like the Chaos version of Iron Jawz or DoK then probably not by that metric. There more a focus on our melee infantry and Skullcrushers are really good too. Mortals are fairly tanky. Daemons probably do more damage. But it still a techy army that isn’t just run forward and smash. Overall a faster army too.
-
1 hour ago, Pitloze said:
There are many battlereps in which "but we took these units because we want to have it be fun" has been said. You really want to watch 4 Ballista's deepstrike and take 40% of the board without the enemy being able to do anything about it? Or watch a FEC player dictate all of the combat unless he's facing another FEC player?
Also there is a difference between strong lists and competitive lists. Strong lists have units or strategies that are fun but also good. Competitive lists will sacrifice fun for value.
Well if the opponents are a relatively equal skill there is still a lot to learned from these scenarios. There are ways to mitigate their losses and effectively counter. Seeing this in batreps would be very interesting. for me anyway. But to each their own!
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, tman3257 said:
I don't believe you are correct on this for a couple of reasons.
First I refer you to this article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/
Our new stomp "go last" ability does NOT have the clause that turns "Strike First" into cancelling out and "striking normal". It simply says they have to go last. Period. Not if they would go first to cancel it out, just straight up back of the line "you go last". This would entirely cancel Gristlegore's strike first ability during our turn for sure because our stomp activates first and turns them into striking last. This gets a little fuzzier during their turn. Their trait says they fight at the start of the combat phase. Our ability triggers at the start of the combat phase. According to this article since it is their turn they get to resolve ALL "start of combat" abilities before we get to resolve any of ours. This would mean he gets to strike first before we even get to stomp.
In Slaanesh's case I do not think that FAQ applies at all. Slaanesh tells our model to strike last, we tell Slaanesh to strike last. You do not have 2 abilities that conflict at all. You simply are setting the combat order of both models to the end of the turn. When it hits end of turn, if it is our turn we get to hit first with ALL of the things Slaanesh affected with "strike last" then they get to attack with all of the things we stomped on. During Slaanesh's turn if he confers strike last to us, and us to him, he gets to strike first with ALL of the models we made strike last, then we get to go with all models.
This is the correct interpretation.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:
You are welcome to do what you like at your gaming club, but the designers made a woods a core mechanic of how this army functions. Selecting a 9-10 of a bunch of HUGE terrain pieces, knowing full well it zones your army out of a core mechanic is a negative play experience.
Too little terrain is as bad a problem as too much. I’m not saying you have to make your opponent play the game in the Realm bowling ball. GW has given us a guideline on what is a good amount of terrain to use. There is nothing wrong with sticking to a the guidelines given by GW.
That’s why the game has rules.That guideline is the minimum , certainly not the maximum. If I show my opponent those guideline he would say ‘yes look 6 is the bare minimum and it even says more is better’
If I was negotiating with my opponent I wouldn’t point that it because it supports having more terrain not less.
I really like this army but it starts the game out on a bad foot. I totally agree there are a lot of potential Negative play experiences in other armies like non-interactive Gristlegore, Skaven Warp Lightning vortex, unkillable Hagnar DoK, etc. but for some reason our Woods mechanic really is hated by other players despite the lack of overall power of the army.
I was just hoping they would smooth this out but a las it will be up to us.
-
1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:
Yes. That was in the book at one point, but no longer.
And I disagree, because in setting up a table, no one player gets to determine how many scenery pieces there are. The player across from you doesn't get the choice to grab 14 scenery pieces and you have no say. When a disagreement between the players happens, you look at the rules for guidance. Core rules say 1 piece per 2” square is reasonable, and if thats the only thing the rules say about it, then that’s the guidance you should fight for.
OIr you can let them put 14 peices down and wonder why you aren't playing on equal footing. Your choice.This is why people hate Sylvaneth players. If I have to insist that our table can only have 6 pieces of terrain then something is wrong. This is certainly not in the spirit of the game to insist on something like this.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Freejack02 said:
That's very true for 3 bases, but the warscroll is 3-6... and adding a 4th base adds a LOT of flexibility on what shape they can take.
Ah missed that its 3 to 6. That's interesting.
-
3 hours ago, overtninja said:
The new woods seem easier to put down - they aren't as restrictive and you can squeeze them into different spaces thanks to how modular they are - they don't have a set footprint.
From my understanding they will have a definite footprint as all three pieces need to touch each other forming a circle of sorts.
-
7 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:
Aside from the above, it’s important tot remember, that the GW guidelines for terrain is 1 piece per 2’ Square of game board which is 6 pieces. Not 9, not 12. It will be fairly important as a Sylvaneth player to remind your opponent of this, so he can’t put 11 pierces of terrain on the board and prevent you from throwing any woods down. In the big tournaments I’ve played in, they are usually pretty good at sticking close-to or under this rule. In your local games you might need to insist that you stick to the rule and point out the relevant section of the rule book. Don’t be a d*k about it, but you might need to insist on it, and stress that without reasonable space to put terrain down, it won’t be a fair or fun game. Also, when you put out terrain, be mindful of the pieces you pick and keep in mind where you’ll want to put out your woods.
Where is this rule about 1 piece of terrain her 2'x2' area? Is there such a rule? I am missing it.
-
My question is how if this army going to function with 1 Awakened Wood on the table? Because that's going to happen frequently if Sylvaneth cannot out drop its opponent. Zoning out places for Woods will shut much of the army down. Even though it is very flavorful and unique I wish they had completely minimized the interaction with Woods.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Silchas_Ruin said:
Q: Some abilities can be used when a model or unit has ‘fought for the first time’ to allow that unit to fight again. Does this only apply if the unit fought for the first time during the phase, or does it also apply if the unit fought for the first time at the start or end of the phase?
A: It always applies, even if the first time it fought was at the start or end of the phase. Note that if several abilities allow a unit to fight again after it has fought for the first time, each of those abilities must be carried out one after the other. This means that only the first of those abilities would qualify as happening after the unit has fought for the first time, because after the first of those abilities is used the unit will already have fought more than once. Therefore the remaining abilities could not be used.
So no Tyrants of Blood in Reapers of Vengeance? Can't both attack twice and with next Bloodthirster as I read it
No this is not the conclusion to draw.
The Question references a single unit. Let’s make that clear. Then it asks if that unit has an ability that allows it to fight after it has fought the first time, does it matter if it fought for the first time at the start, during, or at the end of the combat phase. The answer to this is no it does not matter.
Then in the Answer they elaborate. Again this references only a single unit. If this unit has multiple abilities that let it fight again after it has fought the first time do you get to fight another time for each ability. So if a. Bloodthirster has two abilities had allowed it to fight again after the first time does it get to fight a second and a third time. And the answer is no, the BT only gets to fight twice.
This Question and Answer does not have any application to the interaction between Tyrants of Blood and the CA Leave None Alive.
The Tyrants ability lets BTs in the battalion fight for the first time after the first BT in the battalion has fought.
The Command Ability from Reapers of Vengeance gives the ability to fight for a second time after the first time a Daemon unit has fought.
The Q and A references a situation that does come up with this interaction.
Also these example clearly reference fighting in that specific turn’s combat phase not all prior combat phases.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Killax said:
No not really, the model is very cool to use for all kinds of conversions though. In both cases I think there can be said something for either Exalted Deathbringer.
I don't think the 2+ Magic save is all that important because a good opponent will focus on more essential support heroes anyway. Which also brings me to their use, I think Exalted Deathrbingers are fine choices, but now there are (in my opinion) slighty more reasons to consider a Aspiring Deathbringer instead. For sure the Aspiring Deathbringer lacks in combat what the Exalteds can do, but if you are going to dedicate a hero to a unit, I'd consider one who adds more attacks, much like the Bloodsecrator does. It does depend on the unit he's with offcourse, but when I'm thinking dedicated support I'm thinking Skullreapers or Skullcrushers.
If I had to pick a favourite Exalted Deathbringer it would be the one with the Impaling Spear. It's only a few extra casualties but a couple of lucky wound rolls can make the difference and we do not have that many heroes who dish out MW on the attack anyway.
Other than that I'm also looking forward to the FAQ/Errata, there are some things unclear to me about certain abilities resolving. Such as Reapers of Vengeance's Command Ability and Tyrants of Blood. I think they should work on top of each other, but I do not know if this is GW's intend.
I do believe that the Wrathmongers actually are intended to make Skullcannons work well. Prime reason why I believe this is that GW has been very consistent with their wording throughout this book. So the exception likely means they have considered it. On top of that, removing the ranged support for Khorne would indeed add a handicap. For other than Bloodthirsters we have very few ways of passing 'chaff screens', even less so now because of much more restricted movement bonusses.
By Fyreslayer comparison our Endless Prayers/Spells w.e. are also nice but not totally game breaking. The funny part of this is that the Hexgorger Skulls are actually the only piece that really has some impact on the meta as a whole, and even then, not all armies rely on Magic to begin with. This is also why Skullcannons simply said have become an important piece to me.
I also think the Crimson Crown is intended to use on Command Abilities printed on the Warscroll. But the sad part is that we then can't combine it with Host Command Abilities and it basically only then does something for Bloodthirsters.
In the end I'm also still missing the Daemon Keyword on Khorgos Khul's Fleshhound, Cav on Juggernauts and even Valkia this time...I don't think there is much to FAQ honestly. Unless they expressly do not intend Reapers to work with Tyrants I don't think this needs any FAQ. Rules as written it works. It's not really broken either. It is so CP heavy to use you may get one turn with multiple BTs able to fight twice but after that you'll be out of CPs. Aside from Skarbrand and the Exalted BT unbuffed BTs aren't even that Killy for their points. Many close combat armies get very explosive combat phases such Gristlegore FEC/DoK/Hightide Idoneth.
Agree think they intended Wrathmongers to effect all attacks. Back to the shelf go the Skullcannons if it is errated.
Crimson crown is likely only CAs actually on Warscrolls so no Slaughterhost CAs which is still really good.
-
1 hour ago, Zamik said:
I can't wait for the danged errata to come out already.
Really this particular question of what triggers the cannons to fire in the combat phase needs no FAQ.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Craze said:
I have a very noobish question: Does "Grind their Bones, Seize their Skulls" from the Skull Cannon only apply to its Ganshing Maw attack or also to the Hellblades of the mounted Bloodletters? I just cannot find a mount rule that really clarifies this...or perhaps I just do not understand it correctly.
Thanks in Advance!
Any attack, both hellblades and gnashing maws.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Killax said:
Well they are good ranged support. Can't say they are the best thing ever, but they are good, with Wrathmongers. If you somehow manage to get them in range of Locus of Fury, then they become REALLY GOOD
But I don't know why some are still down on the new book? Wrathmongers are brilliant support units with a bite, I can't say there is anything wrong with that. On the FB some guys don't believe Skullreapers are good, but the simple fact is that they are.
Khorne is a great army when you factor in the ranged support or go mass Bloodthirsters. Anything in between is good as long as it has some ranged support. Be it from Judgements of Khorne or Slaughterpriests or Skullcannons.
Basically the only thing that is harder to use (but still very good) is Bloodletters. They are worth the 300 for 30, but there are few ways to increase their speed. Thus maing that double combat work out for them can be hard. However if you skip on a Battalion altogether you will suddenly find the room for them and then they are amazing with a dedicated Bloodsecrator.
If people want to see lists or something, I'm open to anything to show some perspectives.I agree with you on all points. Khorne is a combined arms army now which I fine. There's still units that can blenderize up close. They just co exist with units that can support them mostly from mid-range.
would love to see what kind if lists you've put together.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ravinsild said:
Well I mean I have pictures if you want me to post them cuz it's hard to describe
Oh yeah that would be cool.
-
@Ravinsild nice write up about your Khorne on Khorne violence.
Quick question. Where exactly did he place his Skull Altar? I don’t seem to have much trouble keeping my SPs within 8” of the altar at least for the first 2-3 turns?
-
42 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
I'll use your post as a jump point to reply to the last few posts as well.
First, I'm betting that they did indeed mean to say it works as others are opting to say, but (Second) it's not a matter of how I'm "reading it" or if I'm "literally correct" or that not being "how it works."
It's a matter of what I would have to concede to an opponent at the table who read the words in the rule and insisted I actually use them. Not what I wish were written, but what actually is.
I'm not interpreting anything or guessing. I'm not making assumptions about words and their meanings.
The rule specifies it is used in the combat phase (as opposed to, say, the hero phase where other armies do all sorts of shenanigans). It also shows the trigger for the rule. It is applied after a model has fought for the first time. Not the first time this phase or something else not written, just the first time.
So, are we in the combat phase? Yes? Check.
Is a (not the) model from this battalion fighting for the first time? No? Uh oh. Rule does not apply any more. It's a one-shot use.
To be clear, I'm saying I think everyone is going to end up having their opinion end up matching the rule once they change it, but I would currently have no actual evidence on my side to claim it works as I wished it would work if an opponent explained it to me as I've shown above.
We can wish for it to be worded another way, but right now, as worded, it is very limited. Keep in mind, Jervis (head AoS dude) recently told us in WD to read the actual words in the rules and apply them if possible. In this case, it's not only possible, it's easy (just depressing) to do so and does not have other readings. The words there, as presented, only mean one thing.
Finally, when you consider that we are talking about a battalion made up of $100+ single models, I'm not sure it's wise to go make purchases hoping and wishing they will issue an errata.
I know it's hard in text, so let me just say for the record that I'm not being combative or irritated with my fellow posters here. I appreciate the discussion
Interesting. So let's extend your interpretation to other abilities that have the same wording "fought in the combat phase for the first time" as this seems to be the text you are focused on.
How do you interpret Reapers of Vengeance command ability Leave None Alive. Can you on only use that command ability on a daemon unit once in the whole game to attack twice? So if in Turn 1 I have my unit of 30 Bloodletters fight twice then I cannot use that CA on them on any other combat phases?
-
52 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.
"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."
That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'
It's not like there are not a dozen other simple ways to write it to mean it works on all of them in each combat phase.
For instance, off the top of my head
"In each combat phase, after a model has fought, select another model that has not yet fought ..."
I understand how you’re reading it but rest assured that first refers to first time it has fought that turn not first fought in the whole game.
There are many instances of abilities that are used once per game and they are explicitly stated as only being used once per game. This is not one of them.
-
1
-
-
Tyrants of Blood allows all your 3-8 Bloodthirsters to fight back to back if they are within 3’’ of an enemy and haven’t fought yet. And this can happen every combat phase.
-
2 hours ago, Forrix said:
I hadn't noticed that but Unfettered Fury is a nice counter to Gristlegore. Combined with the Tyrants of Blood/Halo of Blood combo I think Khorne, or at least that list, might do pretty well on the tournament scene.
Edit: or Using the 6 inch pile in with reapers of vengeance double pile in to get quasi Gristlegore ourselves but with multiple units (assuming we have the command points, that is going to take a lot).
Note that Unfettered CA does not meaningfully interact with Tyrants ability as for Tyrants to cascade Thirsters need to be within 3’’ of enemy and have not fought yet. Unfettered CA does not change the requirement of starting within 3’’.
-
15 minutes ago, Impa said:
rejoice in slaughter is used at the beginning of the combat phase. So any unit your thirsters are 3-6" away from (and wholly within 16 from unfetted BT) and if they have not yet fought in that combat phase they would trigger after your initial thirster making his atttacks.
For the Tyrants of Blood ability to activate the Bloodthirster needs to be within 3’’ of an enemy.
-
3 minutes ago, Luke1705 said:
That’s correct but remember that if you’re not within 3” of a unit, then it cant fight either. It does matter when you’re cascading to pile on on unit with multiple bloodthirsters but it’s moot if each bloodthirster is hitting something different.
Really that command ability is less about getting the first wombo and more about allowing you to fall back and still “charge”
Yes I mainly highlighting the lack of meaningful interaction with Tyrants ability. Yeah definitely still super useful though.
-
I may be interpreting this wrong but I believe that Rejoice in Slaughter CA and the Tyrants of Blood ability aren’t quite as good together as I thought.
For Tyrants of Blood to trigger the Bloodthirster needs to already be within 3’’ of the enemy and to not have fought yet. So even if you have used Rejoice in Slaughter if they weren’t already within 3’’ then you would not be able to trigger the Tyrants ability on BTs that are 3’’ to 6’’ away to fight immediately after he first BT fights.
-
1 hour ago, Luke1705 said:
More than just redundancy. If I’m playing against a triple or quadruple bloodthirster list, I have a few tactical options vs the always go first guy when it’s my turn.
1) Have something of mine that can always go first and charge in guns blazing
2) Go in guns blazing (hopefully with multiple units) even if I don’t have the ability to fight before the special thirster
3) Ignore him, don’t charge him, and kill the rest of the army
3 is by far the most predominant tactic if you can’t do 1. If your thirster isn’t in combat, you can’t activate him first.
So a couple ways to prevent the opponent from taking tactic #3:
+ have a second thirster who can fight first sometimes (blood hungerer)
+ take advantage of the unfettered fury or exalted thirster’s “you don’t get to fall back from me” ability to ensure that something has to be in combat with you (assuming that that is your always go first thirster)
But also redundancy is good as stuff does die
Thank you this makes a lot of sense.
-
1
-
AoS 2 - Blades of Khorne Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
Have you tried this list yet? I think it looks great.