Age of Sigmar 3.0 Big FAQ Reaction - Warhammer Weekly 09012021
Join us for another week of news, rumors and all things Warhammering. This week, we are breaking down the Big FAQ 2 that dropped for AoS 3.0. What did we see, what DIDN'T we see and what do we hope to see in the future?
0:00 News
26:00 Pick of the Week
31:45 Hobby Time
39:35 FAQ
58:55 Army Specific
1:15:15 Wrong Calls
2:00:06 Big Stuff
2:15:30 What we Didn't See
3:03:25 Potential Fixes
Reign in Hell Game: www.snarlingbadger.com/reigni...
Merch Store: teespring.com/stores/vincent-...
Twitter: @warhammerweekly
Instagram: VincentVenturella
Email: WarhammerWeeklyQuestions@gmail.com
Take a Class with Vince: ckstudios.bigcartel.com/?fbcl...
RPG Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Iron Realms GT Info: / ironrealmsgt
RantCast 102: • AOS RantCast 102: Bett...
AoS Coach DoK: • Talkin' Daughters of K...
Facehammer God Characters: • LIVE SHOW - NEW FAQ DI...
Party at the All Points: bit.ly/3gWoict
AoS Shorts Tourney Data: bit.ly/38AQf4Z
I really hope GW would make rules spotlights, videos or just articles on Warhammer Community explaining how some of the more complicated things are supposed to work, with models.
That would be a great idea!
Holy smokes, they mentioned my name/video/thoughts on DoK on Warhammer weekly. I feel Warhammer-Famous now.
It was a great interview, well deserved. :)
C’est o uh
Best part of the FAQ was taking Chaos Dwarves unchanged rules/points for 3 editions, removing their only allegiance ability and raise everything 15 to 30pts lol
You're one of the 4! ;) - I am sure thenew army is coming soon. :)
Qqqqp
I really think they shouldve updated every warscroll with an after save to "this model has a ward of x". It wouldve saved us this nonsense discussion. Great show guys, love your insights.
Yep
Thanks for the great stream as usual guys! Thanks for coming back to my questions Vince! The Severith/wind spirit thing is very tricky, I love the model, the lore and the rules but I really don't like giving people massive NPE (a little bit is fine, I am an Aelf player after all). I worry that nerfing the one rule that makes them worth their points fixes the spam NPE, but punishes us other players that want just one to balance out our cool kangaroo armies.
I understand, it's tricky, you want the army to have it's cool fun toys, just not oppresively so, it's a balancing act.
Well GW just Fixed their FAQ pretty much with all the fixes you suggested XD: Cogs limited to 1 wizard etc. :D Nice work Vince and the others! Seems like GW is finally listening to some well reasoned ideas.
Thank you, I was happy to see the update. :)
Great show guys, so many awesome points discussed. I think a great 'fix' for Cogs would be to have it conditional on a 3/4+ roll per wizard to grant an extra spell. Combined with a small points hike (~20pts), makes it less reliable and more of an investment so it becomes more of a consideration and not an auto-include in certain armies.
Alternatively, just limit the number of wizards who can benefit from it with a specific number (i.e. 1, 2, 3) rather than any within a certain range. And based on that number, yes, hike the points a tad.
The only thing I don't like about the 4+ thing is then it's more rolling for potential rolling. That always gets suspect to a point.
Mostly commenting to bump your visibility but whatever people tell you don't change this long form discussion I love this show
I never will. :)
I’m going to push back on the pile in/pinning issue. A tactic like that takes very careful and deliberate use of movement and positioning which is a learned skill. When you have unkillable and devastating units like Gotrek and Archaon in the game some factions have no other way of dealing with them other than outplaying them with movement/blocking/pinning techniques. Removing the ability to pin is just taking away one more tool for weaker factions to deal with the point and click problems units.
I get what you're saying, I really do. All rules have this sort of double edge. But this is winning through what feels like a rules exploit. Players hate this. A unit is literally standing still unable to fight. It doesn't make sense and players, especially casual players, revolt. Skill already matters A LOT in this game, but this crosses the line over into just feeling like an exploit.
Pinks had a clause that said that they could only ever attempt to cast Channeled Pink Fire. No other spells. Same clause for Kairic Acolytes.
GOtcha, cool, I had forgotten the old scroll already. :)
@@VinceVenturella I think you also omitted big Warscroll changes for the Forgeworld Lord of Change. His beacon of sorcery is a passive aura now, he falls from the first bracket after 10(!) wounds and his infernal gateway wounds on 2+ on the first bracket. With 20 wounds and an amulet of destiny he's pretty damn durable for what he can do in the hero phase. A downside is the lack of weapon choices
Really enjoyed the episode! There is so much slang and acronyms in the show now that I sometimes don’t understand what is being referenced. Cabbage was something that was said many times in the past that I thought I was misunderstanding the word being said
Cabbages are what they call IronJawz Mega-Boss on MawKrusha, it's a big green sphere that resembles a cabbage of death
Yes, we really have gotten deep into the rabbit hole of our own "language"
The Ward and bodyguard thing is really frustrating to me because GW has shown they can leverage order of operations to handle this sort of thing. Bodyguard rolls should happen after a wound is caused but before it is allocated, armour saves should occur when a wound is allocated, and ward saves/DPRs should happen after a wound is allocated and be limited to one. They use these concepts in tons of other places, so why they couldn't apply it here is baffling.
Exactly
Following this logic then only Unohana and Zaraki have ever been the kenpachi making Zaraki the 2nd. Or in theory the first as Unohana never killed another kenpachi.
For the save stacking conversation: how would you guys feel about +1 save cap but also a rare effect from utility pieces that allowed reducing the rend of enemy attacks targeting a specific model/unit? This way you could limit the amount of +2 but still allow it in certain combos
I'm not sure, I honestly don't have an answer to this one, I don't think there is a single systematic silver bullet.
Thanks for the show as always, really enjoyed the concreteness that numbers brought to the table in this one. I find really interesting the design space approach that is often a key aspect of many of these shows :)
It's often just how I think. :)
Excellent insights. I felt much the same when initially reading them and had to patiently wait until Wednesday for a sanity check. Keep up the great work.
Always happy to help.
Great show guys! I'm glad you went through everything with a fine toothed comb. When they released 3.0 I was thinking "sounds great but they're goiupng to need a massive FAQ to bring everything in line balance wise" so I certainly expected a lot more. You can't just plug in things like saves stacking and just do a blanket points adjustment unless you actually adjust warscrolls. Surprised to see Tyler so high on the differential system. Strength of schedule in my opinion (and mathematically) is far superior to differential from the standpoint of matching skill AND determining a clear winner. For those reasons alone it's a shoe-in but it's also incredibly easy for the TO and is tried and tested. In game two you're already starting the algorithm on a trajectory that will just get better and better each match. Whereas with the differential system you can have wildly disparate skill gaps in game two not to mention the fact that some players will be able to rack up points in their game one and two and others will cannibalize each other. I know SOS isn't perfect (sometimes when the planets align people can miss out on podiums through no fault of their own) but I think "it gives you something to play for" is honestly poor consolation.
My issue with SoS as a tiebreaker or being included in scores is that I have no input in it. I don't control my match-ups, and I especially can't control how a previous or past opponent plays in a game I'm not playing in. There's nothing I, as a player, can do in regards to my SoS SoS is a super interesting metric for post-event analysis, but I personally don't want it anywhere near tie-breakers or rankings.
The concept of secondaries/tie Breakers scoring is likely something that deserves it's whole own show. :)
@@VinceVenturella Yeah we should definitely do a show on scoring systems and hit all of these different subtopics.
@@ODA204SBD9 it's very rare that it actually matters especially when compared to the differential system. In differential you could end up playing a really good player and get a narrow loss/tie/narrow win in which case you'll be at a strict disadvantage to someone who played against a player who's never played at a tournament before and absolutely steamrolls them for 20-0. He's got those points in his back pocket for the rest of the tournament while you've got an uphill battle. In SOS the worst case scenario is your G1 opponent goes 0-5 which is a lot less likely for one; but for two, the way the algorithm works MOST of the time the damage dealt from that one opponent going 0-5 will actually be negligible. As you win more and more games the chances that not only your opponents; but their opponents etc, are winning gets higher and higher meaning often times by your game 5 you'll get a crack at someone who's worth a MASSIVE amount of points. I understand upsets CAN happen but overall what this system does for pairing people of equal skill is well worth it IMO; balancing match ups for everyone and therefore leading to more fun games.
@@VinceVenturella it's something I'd recommend doing sooner than later as this 20-0 thing is gaining a lot of traction from certain content providers and I think people should be made aware of the downsides of it before it just becomes standard. If it does become the norm, obviously I won't lose sleep over it but I guess I'm hoping we can have a fair and honest discussion about it before that happens at least.
I loved all the takes! I know this isn't the case right now, but if they dropped the points on units of pure Blue or Brimstone horrors could they be worth taking for Petty Vengeance as kamikaze units? Thanks for all the content!
If they really dropped them, yes.
New Horror War Scroll I can see you taking petty vengeance if they reduce the points of blues or brimes in the new edition. Something like a max unit of 30 in which if I’m not mistaken they can heal at that point. A good way to put out mortal wounds in combat and still have decided to not shooting. But you are correct split and split again at this moment is way better.
Yeah, they'd need to really move the points.
What are your thoughts on Skaven right now. I know we have our tricks, but if even 1 of our synergies (MMMWP didn't go off my entire last game making 6 stormfiends kinda crappy) our whole army is pretty lackluster other than a few standouts.
I love them, it's a very fair army to play, no BS, no win buttons, just good old warhammer. You have to play hard and smart, but they are very versatile and can always compete. I never rely on MMWP, it's too risky.
Hey Vince, thanks for another enjoyable show! I'm wondering how you think Mannfred's ability to teleport out of combat at the start of the combat phase compares to the LRL foxes' move in the shooting phase ability. Is the main difference for you that foxes are not unique? Other than that, Mannfred's seems strictly more powerful and presumably as much of a NPE?
I think it's because he is ultimately 1 model and its just not as annoying on him because he isn't also making ranged attacks that are dangerous at the same time.
Great show! I love it how only 'Hedonites' is marked as spelling error in first table, but 'Slaanesh' isn't. Is Paul keeping his Deepkin in fish tank?
They have to be near the fish tank to remember their roots.
Ya sometime they want a break from the aethersea and take a swim
Great show as always guys. Totally agree on heroic actions for healing & rally in command strats. As a kruelboyz player now & yes the book may solve a lot of our problems but leadership is a big one for us. Only other thing give us an old school crown of command to give one of our bosses leadership 10 in a 12/18 inch aura. I doubt that but would be cool from an old fantasy player here 😂.
That would be a fun artifact. :)
Hey Vince great show as always! I also wanted to ask you if you have any tips for teaching tabletop games. I am trying to start a war game club at my school, probably with people that have never played a tabletop game before. Thanks
Keep it simple, start small, cut rules that don't matter. Hope that helps. :)
Hey Vince, I realize this question is unrelated to your episode here but I’m looking for some advice. I want to paint my dominion stormcast super shiny gold. Currently I’m planning on using Vallejo liquid gold series (I don’t mind the hassle of alcohol based paints), but I wanted to ask if that’s really a poor choice compared to the acrylic mixture you displayed on your recent vid with a mixture of gold pigment and Vallejo metallic colors. Thanks in advance, this channel has taught me SO much so fast. Do you have a Patreon? I didn’t see one in description.
Liquid Gold is still great, it's just the paint of working with it. :)
@@VinceVenturella thanks!
The munificent wanderers is actually a nerf - a lot of factions rerolls 1 to hit - this means there is a lot less mortals coming back - to you. I have played this list and after the change this rule is much worse.
The municifient wanderers army change wasn't due to a nonbo - it was more than likely to solve the issues of multiple triggers causing it to never trigger vs. an army with triggers abilities on 6's to hit. It's definitely a buff.
Interesting, there isn't as much RR1 to hit anymore after the changes, but I get it, it's still around.
Hey, Vince! As a Skaven fan, I thought I should let you know that a few hours after this stream ended, Janfon1 released a couple of videos here on KZhead (and a backstory document) about a fan-made Skaven protagonist for Vermintide 2 named Pusfume, the Under-Empire Reject. The first video is an animated cinematic trailer, while the other is a gameplay video with Pusfume edited in. While not quite an AoS redeemed/Sigmarite Skaven, I suppose it's as close as it can get given the context of early End-Times era Old World the video game takes place in.
Super cool!
How will these WD updates work with there AOS army builder there working on? Pages with a password?
No idea
Simple question, how do you or others mark up you battle tomb with FAQ's ? I get there are stick notes and you can just write in your book i just thought I would ask if there was a very efficient clean way of dong this. As always thank you for all you do for our hobby!
I mean, I can give my answer, I remember them. That's a garbage answer. I think the idea of the post-it notes or little sticky notes is probably the best solution.
@@VinceVenturella i will commit them to memory! Lol with sticky notes. Thanks Vince
It's remarkable that GW keeps forgetting the rend for a weapon that has REND in its name XD
It's hilarious. :)
Great show. Thanks for putting so much effort into our greater hobby community. I've been painting for over a year now and have found a lot of value from your hobby cheating series. I've gotten into your podcast due to a small league being organized in my city. This show provides so much insight into a game that, if I'm lucky, I only get to play once a month. I really appreciate the passion. Keep it up!
Thank you, always happy to help.
Yeah, Battle for the Pass is a battleplan I have literally never lost. With very non-meta lists. So Savage Gain potentially being more swingy doesn't really bother me? Because maybe I'll actually lose on it for once haha I actually like Heroic Recovery being based on bravery, because it gives SOME purpose to bravery on Heroes. There are few other cases where Hero bravery actually means anything. Regarding the save stacking discussion: I already understood the whole Save stacking issue. But those charts made it seem way more confusing. Maybe that's part of how small they are on screen and needing to rely on the verbal explanation, but I just felt lost throughout that part. Like, it didn't sound at all like Paul was factoring in that the actual Save roll is capped at +1.
I understand that, the trick is it's too swingy. Bravery 6 heroes (very common in many armies) have like ~40% change to actually heal in any way. Bravery 10 heroes have a ~90%+ chance, that's WAY too big of a swing. I like bravery mattering, but this matters too much.
great show vince and crew. One thing i did like from the show is you actually talked through several examples of issues and how that plays out (please do more of this) because not all of us know all the armies of the top of our head but listening to this show and the explanation you gave allows us to go - ahhhh in this senario when i face my oppenent he might do "x" therefore the FAQ said he must do this or that, eg it now only effects once per game (eye of Ed sheeren) etc. Keep up the great work
100%, I always try to make it real where possible. :)
Pretty sure, RAW and from experience using the Warscroll builder, that Coalition units can only ever be reinforced once, as they don't count as Battleline in any way that matters. *edit:* I'm wrong, Coalition Battlelines appear to reinforce like regular battlelines, but it might be a coding issue. Doesn't feel RAI.
Yeah, Warscroll Builder is always Tony P doing his best, it shouldn't be the dictum. I believe you are right, but I certainly understand where people are coming from who argue the opposite, I'd just love an FAQ to clean it up.
Give me a few outliers, but there’s still a nice straight line if you graph position on chart vs age of book.
I'd have to look at that, but I am just not sure I by that argument, also, you have to count things like supplemental material release date, many of those had big overhauls in other books.
Would it be too much to campaign that TO's only use the GHB battle tactics and disallow army-specific tactics/grand strats? Or do we just accept it as something we just have to deal with.
I think it would be reasonable, but it's comp and some people get weird about it.
Yeah, if we’re headed toward each faction with a 3.0 battletome update having their own battle tactics and grand strategies, I have a hard time seeing how that world isn’t worse than just sticking with the smaller, universal set that we have now.
Awakened Wyldwood scroll states "Abilities that allow you to add AW terrain features to the battlefield will tell you how to set them up." So for example, the Treelord Ancient states "wholly within 18" of that model...". To me this means AW can still be set up anywhere during the battle, your territory or not, as long as you heed the rules set out on the model/item/spell that is creating the terrain feature.
I understand, but that conflicts with the other answer that says they have to heed the initial area. I get the favorable reading, but they gave conflicting answers.
Great show. :) A lot to think about.
Thanks!
Was the not being able to Unleash Hell if Redeployed topic discussed? I think it was a bad call -it’s certain warscrolls which are the problem. Plus, they had to use 2 CP to do it ..
I thought it was always disallowed and this was a clarification.
@@VinceVenturella you’re right - says units cannot shoot later in the turn. Must have forgotten that
Hey I know that guest. Great job Paul!
This was a really fun one. :)
While I like Tyler's answer to save stacking I think the best thing is a limit to only +1 to save. I started AOS and left 40k because in AOS things would die. Right now with save stacking that's not true and rend is basically meaningless. The best way to get back to the heart is only +1 to save
Yeah, it's an interesting conundrum. It's more like often one unit can't die, but everything else does, it's interesting. And only some armies truly exploit it. It's a problem, but classifying the true scope of the problem is hard. It's something I want to explore in the future.
My main problem with Sons of Behemat is.- right now it promotes an incredibly passive playstyle. They play the game by NOT playing in anything in other than the movement phase. Like Taker Tribes doesnt even want to do Combat, just run up on objectives, and with hero actions, All out Defence and Amulet of Destiny, you should have an easy time surviving two turns and making the other army suffer attrition to the point where you just auto win against most of the field, except for the really high Nagash / Archaon damage checks. Making Might Makes right count for their wounds and giving Takers a 10 wound bonus for the purpose of objectives, would actually make the Sons player figure out attrition and actually want to combat key pieces the opponent has
Yeah, I hate the playstyle, I've said that for a long time.
Surely your new Ratcast lord should be an ImperRATant, right?
You are correct. :)
Comparing the list of right/wrong calls make me wonder if the rules team have a bit of a weakness with considering emergent play. Alot of the wrong calls (but not always) are for big general topics, the right calls are for specific datasheets (but not always). You've got a series of clarification questions about rules that alot of the time aren't about the original rules but play that comes from them. GW take the questions too literally, as being about only the rule specifically, rather than a question about guidance for limiting specific types of emergent play. Sometimes these work, sometimes not. Not to move blame to the community at all (after all GW are the game makers!) but I wonder if some of this comes from how we word our sent in questions for the FAQ itself. Whether they simply are overwhelmed with responses and aren't able (don't have time, or otherwise) to analyse them all to find the real root of the issues. We therefore get a 'solution' that solves specific issues that are brought up, when the player is often actually using a specific example just as an entry point to a more generalised confusion. Would love to have a small paragraph of text that details some intentions behind rules changes, might help mitigate some of these issues. Edit: some words
100%, I have no idea why they keep their answers so short. :)
Ok for the pile in FAQ and pinning problem…No models would ever be the same distance. Its just an onerous rule to what is a measurement problem. The FAQ is saying if this is too burdensome then you must respect both options equally.
Most places would allow you to say "by intent, both of these models are at 2.9 inches" without having to actually place them exactly at the same distance, which allows you to prevent a model from piling in at all.
Exactly what Jordi said. :)
@@jordivermeulen2519 Thank you for this reply. It explains some things about FAQ’s that I find interesting. The rule was written just fine in the book. This FAQ seems to be addressing a behavioral convention. Declaring a charge is one thing, declaring the distance of that charge (in terms of distances from an opponent) without respect to actual actions seems antithetical to the spirit of the game, nonetheless this later declaration is not written.
@@brentwood7660 you normally see this mostly for pile-ins, especially when you deliberately decide to pull another unit into combat (or not). It's typical to declare "I'm piling in, but keeping this guy outside of 3 inches". Nothing sucks more than your opponent's Mawcrusha destroying your unit because you piled in too close and your opponent noticed but didn't say anything.
@@jordivermeulen2519 Jordi! Jordi stay with me man! Oh god this is so “pinful”! Vince Help!! Do you see what’s happened here?! Convention has trumped any edition or public attempt to change the course of history. Jordi, I think we need a new psychographic profile…. Seriously though what you are saying is real. I just wish it was not a product of bad spirit. I don’t know, I understand declarations when certain actions are impossible to simulate with the models. Maybe actions need to speak louder than words here. Appreciate the conversation Vince and Jordi!
I will say this, alpha beast pack has opened a lot more KO builds other than zilfin.
Yeah, it's silly
Question. The Kraken eater "stuff em in me net" rule says select a model roll double it's wounds and it is considered slain. If I do this to a pink horror does it still split if it's considered slain?
Yes, and it wouldn't count as slain, that's what their rule is doing (technically, dealing damage does the same thing).
Damn our 2 day event didn't make the list
Hi Leon, what’s your 2-day event (name, dates, location)? We can get it added.
@@TylerEmerson hey Tyler... Reefcon I 2 day 5 game event Townsville, Queensland, Australia 2nd and 3rd of October Facebook group Townsville age of sigmar
@@leonsuckling7906 Thanks! We’ll get the slide updated. Best wishes with the event.
@@TylerEmerson thanks if you have an email I can put all list in or I can send top 5
Looks like he got you taken care of. :)_
Does the KO thing mean they can Fly High with Redeploy ?
I'd have to look, but I don't think so, because it's only when they make a "Normal Move" - which Alpha Beast Pack allows for some reason.
Vince your audio has been pretty low the past few episodes, other than that, great show!
I'll see what I can do.
Great show again team. Really useful insights. As an idea I’ve just watched your save stacking segment. (And it could be completely rubbish of course) Could you change the ruling so there is no limit to + to save but you don’t ever reduce the rend. It means rend you still has its use. And things like Archaon can’t actually stack as they’d get stuck on a +2 but then susceptible to rend? Or would some horde units find this too useful? The + 1 save idea, I struggle with as some many units have +1 on their warscoll (for taking shields or having a musician) and then can’t benefit from mystic shield etc.
Yeah, it's a tough problem to solve.
This has been what I have said since this dropped. You wanted to speed the game up by taking away rerolls, but then you added ways for things to not die. So…why?
It's a challenge.
Dont forget that introducing stuff like obscuring terrain would make sentinels even more broken... they need to rewrite that warscroll, sentinels have 0 counterplay.
Sentinels are always the problem, I wouldn't stop good changes to the game overall because of them, I would just fix them as well. :)
@@VinceVenturella Yes, they have to do both at the same time. Or nerf sentinels first, but I feel LRL kinda needs the the power that sentinels provide.
1:33:43 Don’t bring grandma’s baklava into this argument Vince. That being said, Savage Gains & Power Struggle were both better before this faq.
Yep, they were just better scenarios.
Vinci V the patron Saint of getting rules right. GW needs to pay you a salary.
They couldn't afford me. ;)
I'm with Tyler on the save stacking. I'm about 20 games into 3.0 and it hasn't been a problem in any of the games, we don't play deathmatch style games where we throw one buffed up a unit at each other. There's typically more than one fight going on, mystic shield doesn't always happen, best day ever is one turn, and you don't have unlimited command points. Some warscrolls need work because they've been buffed out the wazoo in 3.0 due to core rules changes, but maybe just hit those nails specifically. I mean they've showed they're willing to rewrite scrolls for 3.0, they just need to do that more.
Agreed. If playing against a "good" player who has somehow limited your ability to fight on multiple fronts in the manner described above (somehow your forced into only being able to deal with a suped-up-Archaon or Nagash and can't pressure their army anywhere else), then what happened is you were outplayed and have already lost due to movement and deployment (and that's before considering whether your army is synergized well). I think there is a bit of tunnel vision going on with what happens at the extreme ends of the spectrum when multiple systems stack on each other (good armor save + good ward save for instance). Yes, you can get some wacky results but the most extreme ends require heavy investment...an investment that leaves the rest of the army vulnerable. The answer is certainly not "git gud", and perhaps a few targeted modifications are needed (with a scalpel), but to do away with the new system for armor saves altogether is to forget why it is here in the first place. It's main purpose was to make every unit in the game more durable so that games aren't over by turn 3 because your army is tabled. The fact that some warscrolls can cheese this more than others just means a bit of targeted modifications are needed.
Totally fair and I get that for sure.
Honestly this is the inevitable result of people who railed against deathstars for so long. The game is mainly just missle tag, and almost every anvil is made of of wet tissue. I legitimately miss unbreakable units nowadays
I mean really? Unbreakable units are part and parcel of 3.0, you can have something basically be unkillable now outside of very specific hammers.
Don’t know if it’s just me but I feel the new horrors warscroll is better than their old 1 in both Tzeentch & LoFP 🤷♂️
I think it's quite good for sure.
so basically GW doesn't bother to do the math for its math-based game
I mean...
Good discussion. Entirely right on the internal preference pressing for rules buffs, massive sign of bad design. Same reason Mega-gargants got bonus material first - day it was announced Ben Johnson posted the new endless spell he was painting for his mega-gargant, same issue.
Yeah, it's just crazy that they sneak those in.
hey don't be talkin' down on grandma's baklava!!
I'm not, I'm saying it's amazing, but it's not ambrosia, the literal food of the gods. ;)
Morathi needs a rule change. How is she pointed for two models one is a good caster and buff piece other is a fast, flying monster that does loads of damage add in an game breaking CA and make it unkillable i mean add up other units that do that, not to mention the only unkillable model. Hurr durr Archaon bro, he still dies to insta kill abilities and a swarm of mortal wounds etc
She's a challenge for sure.
Her command ability is also available (well, for now, we'll see with the new battletome) to the Stormcast Eternals, specifically the Anvils of the Heldenhammer. Raptors with Longstrikes have high ranged mortal wound output, not unlike bow snakes. The new warscrolls even have them with 2 attacks now instead of 1 if leaks on the new boxes remain accurate (and that they still deal mortals on 6's). Each command ability is limited to 1 per phase and 1 per unit. While it's a brutal combination, it also requires a heavy investment in points to pull off. Further, it's not like other armies don't have similarly dangerous combinations if you look for them. Btw, none of that is to say that she doesn't need a points hike. Just contesting that the command ability is "broken".
Great show. I did want to comment on the pinning as this was a problem that was rather elegantly solved in the PP gaming sphere. The issue at the time was "if you take 3 models in a line all with the same base size, does the middle model block LOS to either of the models on the end?" The answer ultimately was no. The reasoning is the exact reasoning I would apply to pinning to validate that you could only practically apply the rule to base to base and any attempt to try and get a model to be some distance away would fail. As an explanation to the ruling the theory that it could block line of sight was that they were all the same sized volume and thus there is some kind of perfect world where you can ensure all lines are blocked. But we don't live in magical fantasy land of perfect measurements so technically any measurement has some amount of error in it just due to human factors. Whether it's model placement, measuring the distance, bumping models during measurement. Ultimately you realistically can't ever have those 3 models in that perfect line because there will be some small sliver that would allow LOS. In the case of pinning it's realistically the same issue. There is no practical way you can have both units exactly 2.900000' away from a model. You can play be intent but that's now allowing someone to try and abuse this ruling. The only realistic intent you could imply and it would make practical sense is declaring base to base contact as at that point you are not trying to measure a distance. The gap in this ruling though which I do find annoying is what you should do is if the units in question are not base to base and are presumed to be the same distance, then you pick one or roll off on it or whatever other method you desire. Or worded differently, if 2 units are the same distance away from the model and not in base to base contact with the model, then you pick one to pile in towards. The main reason I suggest that type of clarification is exactly as your guest pointed out. The ruling was likely intended to prevent someone in base to base contact with 2 units from just walking away from a fight. So if that is the intent then there should be some effort to preserve it.
I think in the end, all rules are trade offs and you have to ask - what makes the game better, and sometimes you make the game a little worse to make it a lot better. ;)
@@VinceVenturella Agreed. There will never be a perfect solution. Plus there are factors outside the execution of the rules themselves such as rules complexity. But the latest FAQ drop should make you happy with regards to eliminating any potential for pinning :)
Cap the save stacking to once. Stop the multiple ward saves. Nagash 1000, Arch 1000, Gotrek 550, Teclis 750, Morathi 750, Alarielle 700. Fix pile in again. Speed up the game and basically let the models slay each other.
Strong fixes for sure.
.
:)
I made a post on the AoS facebook group about the pinning issue the day the FAQ dropped. Even used Gotrek as an example of how to lock down elite heroes easily. Most people shrugged it off as "it'll never happen" glad to see you guys talk about the same points I was trying to make.
100%
How do they even allow archaon for competitive play 700 wounds is an absolute joke. Really takes out any desire to play this game competitively
Don't let one stupid piece ruin the whole game for you. I have honestly had more fun in this edition than ever before with warhammer, and I often play against him. The game is good, we just need to fix the big boy. :)
@@VinceVenturella yeah once I listened to the rest of the podcast I felt a lot better. Hearing the 700 wound thing made me have a knee jerk reaction. Also them fixing the faq this week helped a lot
"Just use mortals" against save stacking has the same smooth-brained tone as "just shoot the heroes" from the first half of 2nd edition.
100%
GW could also increase the rend of a lot of units or increase the range on meele weapons for 32mm+ bases. That way you wouldnt mind units being really tanky if more units become more killy. Or make all 2+ save warscrolls 3+ base save. Or make it so that 4+ is the highest base in the entire game. And units that were really tanky get a ward instead.
Yeah, there are probably multiple changes you would want to make rather than one systematic change. :)
I’d like to see all out defense go to ignore 1 level of Rend, mystic shield 5+ ward, and finest hour stay the same.
Why?
@@Lodorn my opinion is it will help with the save stacking issue.
Interesting solution.
Balancing aside it feels like 3rd edition was GW trying to swerve into something more 40kish and the response -particularly after selling all those broken realm books with battallions as a selling point- has been less positive than 2nd editions runaway success and they are trying to pick and choose what to backpedal on. Its anecdotal of course but god knows i've seen more people shelf the game in a few months of 3rd than the entire lifespan of 2nd. It definitely has some major misses to go with the hits that need rethinking.
It's interesting, I've seen more pick-up than ever, that's why I'm sensitive to these issues, especially for new players. :)
Foxes would not be a problem in an army that they are a part of would not have access to other absurd rules and units. That is why I feel Mannfred is not an issue. Save stacking is wrong, and should not work like this. Gods/demigods should go up in points (not he Alarielle, there is someone at GW who really hates trees). This whole faq seems like written on a napkin during a coffe break.
Yeah, I am really up in the air on Mannfred, like it's a silly rule, but I'm not sure it's a problem.