Pennydude
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Pennydude
-
-
Found the tweet, it’s from 1:29am CST on July 3 when he said he’d be following what the lore spell says. If he’s saying 3” from everything in WhatsApp, then he’s giving conflicting information.
-
3 hours ago, Kiekeboe said:
Not sure where you got that? In the Sylvaneth whatsapp chat we had this discussion yesterday (it's a once per week type of discussion, unfortunately, because we never reach a conclusion). Laurie stated there that he's going to be playing it as all woods '3" from everything bar models and 1" from them'. And that he has flagged it for the next FAQ.
It was on his Twitter page that he was gonna be playing it was 1” from everything. I’ll go double check.
-
It looks like one of the playtesters, Laurie Huggett-Wilde, is gonna be playing with the 1” rule as well. I can see the argument for it especially with them adding the restriction to the BR: Kragnos woods warscroll and then removing it.
If we do place the three individual woods though, they just have to be placed more than 3” from each other. Still could be placed 1” away from other woods you’ve set up that game.
-
3
-
-
The terrain is still considered an Awakened Wyldwood even if it got the Monster Smash.
The Treelord variants can still teleport using them (and it’s now just within 6” to start teleporting instead of wholly within 6”), Dryads still get the -1 to hit, Durthu gets +2 attacks, etc.
If you want to teleport a unit of Kurnoths, you can’t start the teleport from a smashed woods, but the destination can be smashed.
-
1
-
-
I don’t think a Roar on a TLA would turn off the aura. That CA was issued in the hero phase and just persists until your next hero phase.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:
The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."
That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero.Look at the last sentence on that column. Setting them up more than 3” from each other means they are three separate faction terrain features. Under the GHB Faction Terrain rules, if its impossible to set up a faction terrain feature, it is not placed. Since they are separate, one failing should not cause the others to fail, IMO.
-
22 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:
The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."
That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero.Look at the last sentence on that column. Setting them up more than 3” from each other means they are three separate faction terrain features. Under the GHB Faction Terrain rules, if its impossible to set up a faction terrain feature, it is not placed. Since they are separate, one failing should not cause the others to fail, IMO.
-
2
-
-
@Mirage8112 @HavelockeHa, helps if I read the new woods carefully. If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll). That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others. I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.
-
@Mirage8112 Yes, the previous section is about terrain features and that normal battlefield terrain is 3" from battlefield edge, 6" from other terrain, and 3" from objectives.
And I'm starting to think I'm wrong, again(sorry, really stressful day at work and my car stopped working). If they wanted to add those restrictions in, they would have done it like the previous BR warscroll since that was pretty deliberate.-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Havelocke said:
I haven't seen the GHB 2021 wording yet, but the GHB 2020 rules said that they were in addition to battletome restrictions, which I think would preclude the battletome rules from overruling them. GHB 2020 also specifically includes terrain set up due to allegiance abilities or warscrolls after the battle begins.
If 2021 mirrors the language from 2020, I think we'll be stuck following both sets of restrictions, as we were previously.
I have the GHB in front of me right now. Here's what it says verbatim on Faction Terrain.
FACTION TERRAIN
Faction terrain features must be set up more than 3" from all other terrain features and more than 3" from all objectives. These restrictions are in addition to the set-up rules in the battletome in which they appear. If it is impossible for a faction terrain feature to be set up, it is not used.
Our "terrain feature" is 3 scenery pieces. So it follows that if we cannot set up one of those three pieces, that means the terrain feature as a whole cannot be set up which means all 3 or nothing. Ugh.-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:
"Faction Terrain" I think specifically refers to terrain pieces that are setup before the battle starts, which is reflected on the WW warscroll anyway. Anything that comes in after has its placement determined by the method it was summoned. Besides, battletome rules always supersede core rules anyway.
I don't agree due to GHB saying the 3" restriction on placement is in addition to the set-up rules. Our other abilities tell us to set up 1" away from everything but then we have to apply the GHB restriction on top.
-
2
-
-
@Mirage8112 That's how I read it as well and have sent an email to the FAQ team asking for clarification. It'd be so much better if you could place up to 3 pieces and if you do set up 3, you can have them form a ring.
I also just saw that we are still restricted to the 3" rule for scenery and objectives per GHB faction terrain placement (GHB pg 11). That may cause an issue.-
1
-
-
@Mirage8112 I think the one thing I need to know is that if it's impossible to put one of the three individual trees down, does it stop us from putting the legal ones on? Otherwise, I'm content with everything and will make this work. Gladewyrm went up in my eyes since the healing for your units within 6" now and not wholly within 6". Also something on the Spirit Paths abilities for the Treelord variants; those now say 'within 6"' so it's easier for them to teleport. That's actually quite nice with Durthu since he can now teleport at the full extent of his Guardian Sword attack bonuses.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Hoseman said:
Is this ok??? I thought with 3.0 the save can only be modiffied by +1 and there you are using +3. The way I read the rules I think it was only +1 and -1 to hit and wound rols and +1 to save no matter how much buffs and debuffs you got. I mean if you are in cover and you have the aura of the TLA dont make you +2 to save, you will always have only +1 no matter the rend of the enemy. Am I right or wrong?
Part of the core rules FAQ says that you add all bonuses and rend together to get a final number. If that number is +2 or higher, you only get to apply +1 instead.
So if I have Thickets, TLA aura, and AoD for +3 and I get hit with a rend -1, that results in +2 total. Core rules says I can only apply to +1 giving it a 3+ save.
If you get hit with rend -3 instead, now the bonuses and rend equal to 0 and you are at your base 4+ save.-
2
-
-
Okay, so our individual trees still need to be 3" from terrain features and objectives along with 1" from models. If we set up a ring of 3, we can't see through them anymore unless the model is 10+ wounds. What we need to know is if it's impossible to set up one of the three individual trees, does that negate us from setting up all three? Our AWW is a terrain feature consisting of 3 models.
-
1 minute ago, Tizianolol said:
Ok thx, but last update is still viable? If I want a single tree and enemy charge to me , with 4+ i got d3 mw +2 if I got wizards or emdless spell near? Thx again!:)
New warscroll separates the damage back to hero phase (5+) and charge phase (6+).
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Emissary said:
That's not the way aura command abilities work.
From the Core FAQ:
"Q: Some commands are received by all units within a certain range of the model issuing the command. Can such an order be received by a unit that has already received a command in the same phase? A: No."
That contradicts the examples used right below. See the Mannfred example. Mannfred issues and receives the command in the hero phase and all others affected don't count as receiving, even in the same phase.
-
2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Yea this is how we have been playing it in our early 3rd games. I don't see any situation where Ghyran's wrath would be used. I pretty much always keep All out attack up on Alarielle because each attach is critical. And I would pretty much always rather give a block of Kurnoth +1 to hit than reroll 1's to wound. Especially with all the -1 to hit out there.
I can see Ghyran's Wrath being used when Alarielle is not in combat since it can beacon out from Kurnoths. Since Alarielle is the only one receiving the CA, the Kurnoths can benefit from a targeted CA still.
-
So, with the new woods changes, our Treelord variants can still teleport thru the woods since that's on their warscroll and independent of whether our Awakened Wyldwood is smashed or not. Bonus: they only have to be within 6" to teleport and not wholly within 6".
Remember, now that we can place 3 individual trees with one Verdant Blessing, Silent Communion, etc, that means the opponent won't be able to keep up destroying everything since Smash To Rubble is only once per turn.EDIT: GHB page 11 still restricts faction terrain placement to be 3" from objectives and other terrain. That means putting individual trees down may suck. Ignore my below text.
From what I can tell now, the only restrictions on woods placement after the one before the game starts is only from the ability that placed it with the exception of being more than 3" from other woods. This means we can place single trees within 1" of objectives, models, and non-woods terrain features unless I'm completely missing something from the Core Rules or GHB.-
1
-
-
Not to burst the bubble here, but the only units from Cities of Sigmar that can be taken as allies are Dispossessed only and only if you take Ironbark.
EDIT: Okay this is for Coalition Units. We shall see. Chance we get that with the upcoming book and maybe with Enga’La Weald
-
I agree with Arzalyn's changes and that would put the list to 2000pts on the nose.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:
That’s an annoying one. Apparently the issue is that the flaming weapons spell falls under “enchantments”, and as worded in the 3.0 core book unique units cannot receive enchantments.
It’s also noted that as worded they can’t receive spells from their own faction spell list. It’s pretty obviously an oversight which they’ve already said they are intending to correct.
WarCom article from yesterday acknowledged the issue and is fixing with FAQ.
-
What’s the issue with Drycha and Flaming Weapon? That seems very cut and dry.
-
Teleporting is a substitute for a normal move. If you can’t make a normal move (ex: being in combat), that’s not an option for you to make.
Now, I hope this gets FAQ’d to be written as a “instead of a normal move, run, or retreat” to fit current workings. We will be getting FAQs very soon.
AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion
in Sylvaneth
Posted
That’s good. I have a tournament in 2 weeks so I’ll have to send a message to the TO asking for their ruling.