EMMachine
-
Posts
1,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by EMMachine
-
-
59 minutes ago, Sception said:
A quick update note: During the presentation, the presenters said Radukar was a vampire ogre, and I've repeated that a few times. However, while he's a pretty beefy model, based on this art:
Yeah, it's a bit nebulous on the model's features, but from the artwork that very clearly is not an ogre's face. Apparently the "Kosargi Nightguard" big zombies /are/ ogres, but Radukar definitely is not.
The interesting thing is. Looking at the model (the face) you still see the Ogor features, but not on the picture on the left.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I was under the impression that GW is going back to weekly releases starting in march, but I don't have a source on that besides "everyone is saying".
The last information we had was December 23rd, 2020
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/23/an-update-on-warhammer-releases-in-2021/
QuoteWhat does all this mean for new Warhammer releases?
2021 promises to be an amazing year, packed full of rad Warhammer releases – with something new and exciting arriving every month. That said, the global situation means Warhammer releases in January and February will be lighter than in recent years.
Rather than weekly, you’ll see new releases every fortnight, with the first pre-orders of 2021 on the 16th of January.
The question is, if they are really able to come back to the weekly releases or if they have to make a status update.
-
1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Honestly, I would not be surprised if Cursed City comes out fairly soon. We know they have been sitting on the models for nearly a year from rumour engines. No doubt the game was intended to release a lot earlier.
March 13th seems like a plausible release date, given that we should probably expect BR: Teclis to come out around the end of March if the release timing of BR: Morathi is any indication. And since all the models have been revealed for Cursed City now, I don't really see why this should not be possible.
That said, I will also not be surprised if we see Cursed City in April or later. That would be just like GW, too: Get everyone massively hyped about a new release, then wait a few months until all the hype has died down to actually release it.
The Question is, is GW going back to a weekly release or will it stay at 2 weeks, because this would be a point that would speak against March 13th, because we already have a release for March 6th.
If 2 week releases will stay the earliest release would be March 20th.
-
After I haven't seen a thread about this.
Warhammer Community released a small campaign yesterday, that doesn't take place in the eightpoint.
It is a campaign about the Fall of Anvilguard.
-
38 minutes ago, HorticulusTGA said:
Did someone else also heard March the 13th as a possible date for Warhammer Quest Cursed City release ?
That'd be great.
I wish we'll get expansions (MOAR Explorers, please !).
And that the Silver Tower gang could be used as Heroes too.
BTW why aren't the Beastgrave Season 3 warbands yet repackaged in Easy-to-build sets without the cards ??
If it would be March 13th, their should be a "Coming Soon - Preorder next week" with this on Sunday.
My guess would have been April or May, but the preview showed way more than I have thought.
-
21 hours ago, Tizianolol said:
About silvaneth wildwood, they block Los. If i got a unit of kurnos hunters with bow imto a wildwood, enemy cant shoot to them, but they cam shoot out of the wildwood right?:)
No, the Hunters inside the wood follow the same rules at the unit outside the wood. You have to position yourself that you don't measure 1" through the wood but you will be seen from outside as well if you do.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, stratigo said:
Shooting into combat is a necessity because the game's too damn fast, you don't even get a turn before you're being charged. Shooting already generally does less damage, you can't then go "and you won't be using it anyways, lol" because your army is in combat from turn 2 onwards (presuming you brought a screen) and locked in your own deployment zone. AoS would have to change movement tricks before this is a viable change for shooting armies (legit the most of the top shooting armies all don't even GAF about it, they teleport out of combat. All the other armies with shooting cry)
The interesting point is I have seen rules where close combat was too string.
4. Edition 40k (and to a little point WHFB)
In both games you were able to Overrun a unit or reposition yourself into the next close combat. In both cases a close combat unit was able to get into the next combat.
You either shoot something in round 1 (or overwatch in WHFB) or your unit is stuck in combat and can't shoot anymore.
In WHFB your only chance was surviving the first combatround or having no unit behind the charged unit.
In 40k is was leaving enough room so the unit couldn't reposition into another combat.
In 5. Edition 40k they removed the option to reposition into the next combat and from their on, shooting became stronger.
-
2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Weird that they say the city was originally called Mournhold. That's the name of a major city in the Elder Scrolls universe as well.
It will be interesting if their will be a translation for the old name (after their are translations for lokations since the beginning). Looking at the name it would be something like "Trauerfeste" in German.
I don't think that Citynames have to be unique (especially after the realms are that huge) but I would have been weird as well if the city would have been named with the meaning of "Wolf Feast" from the beginning.
-
5 hours ago, Vasshpit said:
@Neverchosen That's a fantastic piece of warhammer art. Props to the artist.
Are Bloodthirsters really that big compared to Keepers?
I think the size of Greater Daemons can be quite different from daemon to daemon. In Shattered Cruclible was a Great Unclean One with the size of a hundred feet hight. I don't think that every greater daemon is that large.
But looking at the weapons it is a lowranked Bloodthirster (Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury)
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Sharkbelly said:
It's quite interesting. For once it took some time until Radukar made the Cities his own (Age of Chaos until the Necroquake) and we at least get some reason why our heroes try to free the city.
And also why the city is called "Ulfenkarn".
-
The problem with Stormcast Eternals losing the abiltiy to be reforged would literally mean, kill order entirely (or even doom the Mortal Realms entirely)
Stormcast Eternals are literally the only faction that keeps Chaos and Death in check and gives order the chance to reclaim ground. Losing reforging would mean, we would be back at the situation between the age of Myth and age of Chaos, but without any chance of coming back because we don't have a working pantheon of Order.
Bringing the fight to Azyr would actually be less of a problem in comparison.
-
9
-
-
I think this is a good question for the FAQ-Team.
The thing is, we had such sitations with the old Battletome (where rolls of 6 were changed to rolls of one for example with the old Screamers rule).
The thing is after the dice itself was changed not the value, back than it was counted as a unmodified roll (so the roll of 1 could have been re-rolled) and only adding/substracting/multiplying and dividing from the roll was counted as a "modifier".
Later those "change the roll" abilities were mostly removed.
-
Maybe we should add the ruling itself.
Warhammer Community, Corerule FAQ, Page 10
QuoteQ: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units, for example)?
A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion. In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. 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).
-
8 hours ago, ireland012 said:
Well..... I’m just now reading up on this post. Does anyone have a picture of a converted flayer that looks like a varghulf???
Trying to think come up with a cheaper way of creating 2 varghulfs instead of purchasing them. Plenty of flayers and horror sprues to work with
I don't have a picture of a converted Flayer (because it would basicly be a Crypt Infernal Courtier). What I have is a picture of a Vargulf Courtier based on the Plastic Daemonprince.
It's mostly the Daemonprince (his wings in the place where the arms would normally be) and the head + and the skulls on his back are from the Cryptflayer/Crypthorror Box.
On 2/12/2021 at 12:42 PM, Joseph Mackay said:on another note, discussion of the Archregent, what do people think of him? Personally I thought he was fine at 200pts, and in my opinion the only reason gw put him up to 240pts was because people were spamming 6 of them and people complained about him being ‘op’ or undercosted. I’m aware he can summon a 200pts unit, but compared to the Ghoul King, I don’t think his warscoll is THAT much better to justify such a difference. I think 160pts for the Ghoul King and 200pts for the Archregent was the right amount. If he had to be nerfed then I’d rather they changed him summon ability to 10 Ghouls instead of 20.
On a somewhat related note, I really feel like gw need to start imposing some lore based restrictions on lists other than named characters (eg each Fyreslayer Lodge only has a single Runefather, so if you take multiples you should lose access to the lodge rules, or you just can’t take more than one. Same thing with the Archregent, I’m pretty sure the lore implies there’s only ever one in a particular Court at a time)
Many Armies have such a problem looking from the loreside.
An Archregent is basicly a patriarch who rules over multple courts (which are ruled by Abhorrent Ghoulkings).
The same with a lodge, that normally has 1 Runefather and 1 Runemaster, Or Beastclaw Raiders where an Army would normally have 1 Frostlord and 2 Huskards on Stonehorn instead of the 3 Frostlords on Stonehorn.
The problem is most likely if you can make a model unique without stripping the options for Command Traits and Artefacts.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Nostrammo said:
Integrate shooting in to the Combat phase ...
1)More interactive play because now shooting is also part of the I go you go...
2)Less down time
3)No more shooting while in CC
4)No problem from playing two consecutive turns because both players will get to play half the Turn anyway
I had seen this point some pages before.
The problem is, it kills of short range shooting (units that already struggle with shooting because they only have 7"-9" Range), Throwing Axes, Javelins, Pistols etc.
Those weapons are balanced in a way, that if you can take either a weapon like this or only close combat, that the ranged weapon is basicly the second attack.
Black Arc Corsairs for example:
They either have 1 Attack with 4+/4+ + 1 Attack with 4+/5+ when armed with meleeweapons only or they have 1 Attack 4+/5+ in Melee and 2 Shots 9" Range at 5+/4+ (but only once each round).
With the rules we have at the moment you have a decition to take. Either having 4 Attack each Battleround melee only or having 2 Melee Attacks and 2 Ranged Attacks each Battleround.
For units like these it would completly take away the decition.
And long range will become better in the game because instead of only shooting you once or twice with the Sentinels that were often used, these will shoot you 3 to 4 times in the same timeframe because you still only move once per game. It would be a strate buff for long range shooting
Edit:
It would most likely make more sense to change the turnorder to:
-
Hero Phase
-
Shooting Phase
-
Movement Phase
-
Charge Phase
-
Combat Phase
-
Battleshock
That way, everything that is ranged would have to be in position in the turn before (like it is with Wizards)
-
3
-
-
23 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:
Squatting the rules for the Rogue Idol, Troggoth Hag, and Dread Saurian would be a real blow for those armies. I’d hate to see it happen.
I think it would be more interesting if we would get GW-Modells instead for the forgeworld units. It would be more accessable and the chance that we would get some lore would be higher than with forgeworld. I would have added a Troggoth Hag or some Squig Gobbas already, if they were GW instead of Forgeworld.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Icetea said:
Mighty Destroyers
If I use mighty destroyers to make a normal move in the hero phase, can I also make a run move in the same hero phase?
example: Ardboys move 4 inches and then I roll a 6, moving 10 in the hero phase. Then I can move another 4 inches in the movement phase and then charge afterwards?I didn’t think you could do this, but saw it done and thought “hrmmmmm”
Here is something abour running in the herophase.
QuoteQ: Some abilities allow a model to make a move out of sequence (in the hero phase, for example), or to make a specific type of move (a ‘6" retreat move’, for example). Can I run when I make these moves?A: You can only run if the ability refers to making a ‘normal move’ (which includes any move made ‘as if it were the movement phase’) and the ability doesn’t specify the distance of the move. Note that the restrictions that apply to normal moves (not moving within 3" of the enemy, and having to retreat if they start within 3" of the enemy) also apply to normal moves made in any other phase. Also note that the increase to the unit’s Move characteristic for running only applies to that move. So, for example, if the ability said ‘This unit can make a normal move’ the unit could run and could not move within 3" of the enemy unless it retreats, and if it said ‘This unit can move D6".’ then it could not run but could move within 3" of the enemy.
The rules for running say, " Models in a unit that runs, can't shoot or charge later in the same turn". So even if you run in the herophase, charging would be impossible, if the unit doesn't have a rule that it can run and charge, because the charge phase is later in the same turn.
1 hour ago, Icetea said:Warchanters Violet Fury
if I use this buff on goregruntas, do the pigs also get the +1 dmg from the buff, or only their melee weapons get +1.
I read in the battle tome that only melee weapons get the +1 buff but in the same video, saw the pigs getting the same +1 dmg buff.
not sure if I’ve been missing something!!
The Tusks and Hooves of the Goregruntas are Melee Weapons as well.
-
11 hours ago, Doko said:
That every army get the same deal that idoneth,in aos3 you only can shoot to the closest target,so we have any form of play around it.
I don't think that this was a good mechanic. It can be exploited far too easy.
Put a Leviadon in front and the rest of the army standing in the open is immun against shooting forever because most shooting isn't strong enough to make 8 Wounds against the 2+ Save.
This is as tactical as the Sentinels we had often enough in the thread.
In case of 40k we had a braverycheck in 4. Edition if another unit except the next can be shot and in WHFB wheir was either you can't shoot through units with the same size and later, you get hard cover when shooting through the unit.
Something like this could be a better solution because you would screen with expendable units by positioning and not tank the entire army on the assumption alone that one unit is closer.
-
Everything except for the heads (the stardard and the horn) is part of the Sisters of Silence kits from Warhammer 40k.
-
9 hours ago, Kronos said:
Neferata gave the Elixir to -“Lord Ushoran, W'soran, Naaima, Lord Ankhat, Zurhas, Abhorash and several others,”. “I think (hope) this may be one of many Vampire Chambers being opened.
Well Ushoran (aka Sumeros Summerking andBlood Rose Prince) is already part of the AoS Lore, after he is the Carrion King (the founder of the Flesh-Eater Courts).
-
1
-
-
This was a creation of me. My Melusai Queen (sadly she can't get the Melusai Keyword at the moment).
She is a little nearsighted because the best thing for a "Turn into cristal" Attack was the Breathattack.
With the model that still wants to see color.
And yeah, her entire back is filled with Greenstuff.
-
5
-
-
12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
If it is I am fully prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I don't think you get all the rules, though, just points and composition rules updates. At least as far as I can tell.
I don't use Azyr, only buy the battletomes, so I don't know what you get extra, for subscribing except for the Armybuilder.
12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:That it is so difficult to find out what the Azyr subscription does is kind of a problem in it's own right. As far as I can tell you still have to buy all your books separately, though.
I think the thing you wan't is what 40k has done, but I don't know if it is really what we want. The App we have right now, we get the most recent version of the warscrolls at least.
Since the 40k App came out it is not possible anymore to buy onlineversions of codizes, so you need the subscription or the bookcode for the book (and you really only get the rule part, as it looks like).
I have the german versions of the Battletomes as Print + the english ones in the app. So I can check the english wording of the rules as well as of the lore (and also can look at the german translation).
-
23 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I wish GW would introduce a subscription service where you get access to the digital versions of all rules material for, like, a tenner a month. It does not even have to be all books. All rules would be enough for me. That way, they could print battletomes and general's handbooks as frequently as they wanted, and players would not have to feel bad about not getting enough use out of their books. And there would finally be a way to read up on other faction's rules without breaking the bank or having to piece them together from a bunch of previews and wikis.
Isn't that what the "Azyr" Subscription in the AoS App is for. Or is it really only for armylists?
21 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:slightly on an aside, what do you do with your old battletomes and GHB's?
o you keep them, do you throw them, do you sell them on - Is there a collectors market for such things?
The oldest battletomes often have some shortstory lore you won't find in later battletomes. As for the Generals Handbooks, not every generals Handbook has the same content for open and Narrative section, so it can be interesting to have older books as well.
-
1 hour ago, NicholasT said:
Apart from it obviously being overpowered by the double turn, to tone down shooting you could have -1 to hit at long range. -1 to hit a unit if they are in close combat (I think not being able to shoot them is unrealistic and trying to allocate hits between friendly and enemy units would be too time consuming) and an individual model cannot shoot if it is within 1 inch of an enemy model.
The thing is, is it bad when Throwing Axes, Javelins, Pistols, or Repeater Handbows (weapons with 8-9") can shoot into combat or can shoot while in combat? It is basicly their only point of existence.
If bows, or Handguns should not shoot while in combat, they could have a minimum range.
Some debuffs like long range (12+") or shooting a units (though screening could actually make sense) could still be a thing.
1 hour ago, NicholasT said:I also think these mortal wounds on 5 or 6s should be subject to negative modifiers so that if you have mortal wounds on a 5 and you are -1 to hit you get MWs on a 6 and if you are -2 to hit you cannot get any MWs.
GW actually got rid of most of using modified rolls for Abilities because it can backfire. You are seeing, "hey, if I have -2 to hit the unit should make mortal wounds anymore, but on the other side, if the unit gets +2 to hit it would make Mortal Wounds on 3+. Thats a reason for the "unmodified" rolls in Abilities.
The Vanari Auralan Sentinals with indirect shooting and making mortal wounds could be fixed if only the aimed profile could make mortal wounds (They made similar stuff with Kharadron Overlords, where units can't use abilities while within a skywessel).
Warding Lantern
in Rules Questions
Posted · Edited by EMMachine
It heals wounds that the unit had suffered before the attack you are saving at the moment.
The point is, that the game works this way.
If an enemy unit for example has 3 weapontypes and attacks one unit you make the following.
Only after you handeled the last weapon, the combined pool of weapons 1-3 will be allocated to the models.
This means if you roll a save of 7 for a wound of weapon 2 or 3. The wounds of weapon 1 or 2 aren't allocated to a model yet, and this way can't be healed.
Only wounds from a combat before this one can be healed because the wounds are allocated to a model.
(this is basicly stated on page 7 of the corerules (allocating models and later)