Some of the rules definitely are. The Order of Effects stuff in particular is hard to parse - but you don't really need to use those rules to play the game. I've focussed on the stuff that doesn't make sense, but most of it is pretty solid.
Iron jaws and khorne can move within 3 without needing to get within half an inch (only with one unit though in a given turn). It'll be interesting to see if they can pull anything off with it.
Good analysis but one thing worth mentioning (I could be wrong) is that unbinding is a reaction. Unless specifically stated, each wizard only gets one. So crossing the first hurdle (cast value) does still matter because the unbind isn't a given. We also don't have to choose a spell during list build you take a whole lore. A power 2 wizard wizard that cast his first spell and was unbound has a dramatically higher success rate of second spell at cast 4 if there was only one other wizard in range. On top of that, there's significantly more bonuses to cast than there are to unbind. At +1 cast you have a 35/36 success rate for a cast 4 spell (I there's no one to unbind). In that sense, if make sense to use your high cast spells first, for greater success of getting past unbind BUT you also then leave the opponent with the option to unbind. If you cast a Lowe cast spell first, doesn't your opponent choose to waste their unbind resources on it and leave your big spell free to cast unhindered? Within the nuances of the game I'd still argue cast values matter. It won't matter in every situation but it still quite relevant. If you have two casts (maybe two wizards or a lv2 wizard) and they have 1 unbind (maybe only 1 in range or it's a lower drop army), before we consider their unbinds, if you attempt two 7+ rolls, you have a bit better then a 25% chance of both going off. So, most of the time, it's a 1:1 cast versus unbind. If you remember you have a 4+ option in the pocket you can play the odds much better. Stormcast could (too early to tell) make a new version of MW spam for example by spamming their low cast value d3mw spell from 5 cheap wizards. Nagash with +3 can basically autocast a ton of spells (will have to see what his lore options are).
Sorry for the terrible writing I'm typing off a phone. Enjoying your content. Also i responded before seeing the whole thing and you did answer some of the things i mentioned.
It specifically states wizards can use the unbind reaction up to the number of their power level, which I think has the net effect of more unbinds available.
Thanks for the comment! The unbinding section in 4.0 does include an exception that allows multiple unbinds. I agree that there are situations where casting value makes a difference - it's just that those situations tend not to matter, don't happen often, or aren't in your control. Even in those situations casting value tends to make a fairly small difference. The situation that does matter (wanting to cast the spell when the spell is important and when your opponent has an unbind), happens all the time.
but a low value is still better because a spell that casts on a 4 still succeeds on an 8 but not vice versa, thus it has better odds. There are two hurdles to pass, making the first lower makes it more likely to pass the second because the odds are zero if you fail the initial cast. With the way battalions work now, there's an inherent trade off that is relevant to spell casting. You take multiple wizards, you will have higher drops, but you'll also have more spells than they have unbinds, you can also afford to deploy a/all wizard within 30 knowing they will likely take first. Some armies will have access to low cast value unlimited spells that are impactful. On the other side units like Negash are basically guaranteed to get some spells that cannot be unbound and can help win the drop war.
I reckon I'll do up a couple charts to show what I'm talking about. Casting value does matter - but it's rare for it to matter. I like the point about battalions restricting the number of casts you might get and I definitely think the number of casts will be a little more important in 4th. The counterpoint here is that I'm not sure how much the turn order matters now. If you've got good wizards then it's probably fine to just play them and give up the turn order advantage.
I suspect you might be a bit character heavy? I’d lose a couple and lean into the summonable side. Add in some black knights. Maybe a unit of blood knights? More hammers and more bodies needed so you can out attrition the opposition in the late game?
Riders of Ruin is still decent, but definitely not as good as it used to be. At least you can still ride over enemy screens and hit the unit behind it, provided that there is room to land. If nothing else, as long as your charge roll was big enough, you could ride over the screen, touch the back unit, then move back in front of the screen, doing D3 to both units. In some cases, you could also do a At the Double and ride over several units, or run through a screen to steal an objective. I will miss the original version though.
I am currently thinking a what if senarios which won't be played in any game, but super extreme. Imagine playing on a battle field that has only 1 Inch narrow way between two side of an army. Then the rest is huge mountain blocking of 5 inch High and 2 inch flat ground on the top and all the way to the table edge width, so it would be a total of 12 inch to climb move then drop down, then a carnasour is at the base of that narrow path, and the enemy is 6 inch away from the narrow path. If following the logic of the rules as written that u interpreted, a carnosaurs are able to make that charge? I am not disagreeing on this, but it could really change how the game is play for large monster without fly. It's best GW could clear this up in the faq. With or without, I think it doesn't change the base mechanic of the game but just open up more option n more things to look out for.
Actually interesting about pack alpha. They should have explicitly mentioned if you could (or could not) put them within 3" of another unit. I feel like the intention is no, I bet they just skimmed 14.2.1 and sorta assumed that adding models worked the same as returning slain models.
I think it's weird that there's just no rule that explains it at all. Returning slain models apparently needs it's own section but adding additional models is treated as self explanatory? Odd.
Models cant be over other models. Not sure how thats hard to understand. Yes that zombie dragon cant be touched in melee. But he also can't fight you. Yes range is measured from bases. Yes you can hang. Models can never lean. They are always parallel to the ground. Stormvault terrain should make you upset. Charging up terrain is easier than going down Welcome to AoS Glad to have you.
I don't think the rule is confusing so much as ambiguous. Curious to see what your thinking here is. Would you say that even in multi-level buildings you can't stand a model on the floor above another model?
@@warhammerrulesasintended I have never seen multi floored buildings used in any aos. Those tall 40k buildings either get removed or turned into 1 floor buildings. But to answer your question yes. Models can't be over other models. You can call the rule stupid. And that's ok. You and your opponent have final say on how you play terrain. It doesn't matter what the rules say. That is until you both can't agree in which case you get the default "stupid" rules.
It says models can't stand on models or something in that line. Of course a model can be above another model if you for instance have a multi level building, which they use in many of their own illustrations in the core rules.
for once someone dissects the rules, it's a shame that the returns are so aggressive. on the contrary, even if we can disagree with the interpretation, it opens the debate, makes us think, takes us back into the commas of the text. Thank you for having highlighted the other possibilities of interpretation, knowing that in the end, it is enough to agree with your opponents in the respect of each other. for me it will be the straight line, if and only if the rotation of the base does not meet neither the edges of the battlefield, nor another base, AND that no part of the base arrives further than the measure of the original movement. (Like 13:20 )
Currently doing something similar, I'm teleporting Mannfred and casting his Winds of Death + an Endless Spell, U have to position Ur Vlord within 30" of Ur opponent (12" from Morbheg's + 18" for Winds) without Master of Magic is less reliable to cast 1 particular spell but U have 2 offensive casts instead.
That makes sense. I really wish we had a double caster that wasn't a named character. Maybe the reason we don't was because the book was written before the Arcane Tome nerf?
I think this is something they need to FAQ. Why did they specifically mention other models and the battlefield edge but not terrain terrain when saying that the models base could not go over it?
This is a very interesting point. Nevertheless, it feels VERY wrong to play it like that and I would asume not very funny/intuitive... Even if that would be allowed (which I'm not sure) I would still not do it
Shared the last video and the response was that the centre of the base must travel along the line, not any part of the base. Similar to the 'two points' but it would allow free pivots while moving. The that scenario, the magmadroth would need to move 2ish inches over to get the centre of the base past the edge of the terrain first before moving forward.
This is pretty neat tbh. Way better than the two points thing haha. You can still cut corners but just not in a super egregious way. I like this a lot!
That's a fair point, but what I'm doing there IS moving the model along the path. I'm doing it in the same way that the praetor in the picture is as well. If you assume along the path means that the middle of the base has to go along the path then some of the weirdness goes away but you still cut across terrain with part of your base without needing to move the extra distance.
I honestly thought that first example from the comments was what you were getting at. Wouldn the rotation bit be the key that prevent the window/portculis pass-through too, since no amount of rotation gets it through?
Yeah, the window thing is a bit weird - but I think the solution there is to make your terrain not have those sorts of gaps (or to agree to play them as though they aren't gaps). Gaps also cause weird line-of-sight issues too so it's good practice anyway.
I think a lot of the other commenters are being a tad too harsh, this seems like a rather reasonable interpretation of the rule, I would even say based on the diagram provided in the rules that this is the correct interpretation. Solid video, I felt like I learned something
Rules as written, I see the argument. The praetor diagram is even pretty interesting, as far as intent...but I'm quite certain that magmadroth move is far outside intent. Importantly, while the path is represented in the diagram by an arrow, it is never actually defined as an infinitely thin line, or if it has the width of the base, or what; the diagrams make implications, but they are not rules text; rules as written, this is at best ambiguous. You can also make a reasonably compelling argument that the model (unless it can fly) cannot move up and down over the terrain feature without the path also moving up and down as described in 9.3.1. Certainly food for thought, and I'd recommend sending it to the GW FAQ team given your observations about the praetor diagram. If this is their intent, they should have made it a LOT clearer; playing this way would radically alter how terrain is used in ways I personally find negative (it's hard enough to make terrain matter as it is). In the meantime, as a TO for convention tournaments, anyone who tried this on the table (which to be clear is very different from raising a discussion like you're doing here) would get a "no" and probably a withering glare, or a yellow card if they persisted.
I agree. My interpretation of "path" comes from that praetor example. If "path" is supposed to mean the whole area of the base then movement for big models is super clunky and very sad - but without the praetor example I would assume this is what they meant. I also agree about terrain. In my previous video I talked about the need for impassible terrain and clarity on how vertical movement is intended to work. To me, movement around terrain is the weakest part of the rules of Age of Sigmar. As for using this, most of the time these movement rules work really well. They make movement fluid and straight forward. The example I've set up is a real corner case but normally the main effect of applying these movement rules as written is just to make going around corners a bit simpler. I play Soulblight and S2D so my big units fly and they never need to do anything like this. Mostly, it's Beastclaw Raiders and Kragnos that benefit from these movement rules. Thanks for your input and I really appreciate the distinction you've drawn between discussion in the abstract and trying to whip out an edge case mid-game haha.
Actually just fundamentally wrong. This is gamey, rules lawyery nonsense. How do i unsubscribe others to keep them from picking up bad habits and turning into the kind of gamers that ruin the play experience for everyone. I award you no points, and look forward to any good TO laughing in your face.
It's not as bad as this video makes it look haha. In most situations these rules make movement a bit more sensible and a bit easier. What I'm showing here is a hugely exaggerated edge case. Never had an issue with a TO but I do note that every TO rules movement differently - which points to a need for better/clearer movement rules.
I think this whole argument can be summed up with "Here's a trick I'll use in friendly games which will mean that nobody will want to play me any more. I won't ever use it in competitive play because the judges would rule against me"
@@andresmoonero5634 Hey friend. In the above scenario, I'm the zombie player (See my SBGL review). The big units in the armies I play all fly. This interpretation actually gives the Kragnos/BCR/FS player that's smashing me to bits the advantage. If I were to pretend the rules were written differently so it's harder for them to move around terrain, I'd feel like I'm being a bad sport. I'm interpreting the rule AS WRITTEN in a way that gives me a DISADVANTAGE. I appreciate that the outcome looks weird though. Send your concerns to the FAQ team over at GW because I think it looks weird too.
@@warhammerrulesasintended Cool. Not the way I would play. Having spinning twisting models pivoting across a magical path of movement ruins a lot of immersion for me. Regardless of the "disadvantage for me" take. But you do you my guy, and power to your gaming group. Its all a game after all.
You point: Terrain only blocks the path, your model base only cares about not passing over the battlefield edge/other model bases. Which is entirely valid imo. Which got me thinking: 1. By written rules you can't pick up the model and drop it at the end of the path, you have to move it along the path. 2. What makes the praetor move and by extension your magmadroth move 100% legal imo is that you can pivot the model freely as you move it along the path, so what actually happens in game mechanics is that you pivot to avoided the terrain. So my question is that, say if there is another model like 2 inch away from the wall, leaving no space for the magmadroth base to physically go through, is this still a legal move? Imo it should be a No. Thoughts?
Yeah, the pivot interpretation is the other plausible interpretation in my opinion. The Magmadroth in my example does "move along the path" in the same way the praetor is pictured to have moved along the path in the GW example - it's just that the picture doesn't clearly spell out whether they got that praetor around the terrain by pivoting or whether you just ignore the terrain. Since the praetor example doesn't show them pivoting the model I'm inclined to think that pivoting isn't necessary but it certainly could explain how the praetor can move past the terrain unhindered. Doing this in practice looks even whackier than my example but it does solve a problem of being able to squeeze big models through small gaps. So yeah. As I understand it you can move through the 2 inch gap you've described but I do think the pivot-interpretation you're talking about is the only plausible alternative.
9.3 and the example specificly saying when you fly you gain more move as you ignore climbing (another part of the rules, expanded in faq). So no, that's not a legal move, you just ignored climbing rules entirely and assumed terrain to be a passable endless spell. Besides the obvious that in competitive play this type of terrain is impassable.
The Flying rule says you can ignore terrain when the path of your movement goes over it. The path the Magmadroth in my example used doesn't go over terrain (just like the praetor in the movement example in the core rules). The flying rule doesn't change anything about what's happening in my examples. In competitive play the terrain MIGHT be impassable. Impassable is a house rule applied by TOs. I've never been to a tournament that uses that rule but your mileage may vary. I haven't ignored a rule I've just set up a corner-case that exaggerates the impact of movement rules only caring about path length and distance from starting location. In most situations it's not weird that you move this way and in general it makes movement simpler and more fluid.
@@warhammerrulesasintended You are intentionally ignoring part of 9.3: When you move a model, you can trace the path of its move over terrain features but not through them. When you move the model, it follows the path along the surfaces of the terrain features but its base is assumed to remain parallel to the surface of the battlefield as it does so. But you know that, you made whole video about it, and now you are making clickbait.
@@Puciek I actually address 9.3 in the video so if my intention was to ignore it I haven't done a great job. As for the clickbait. You got me on the title man. I admit it. It's a joke about clickbait. Caught red-handed. You must be a doctor... because doctors hate me for this one weird trick.
@@warhammerrulesasintended the path doesn't go over the terrain because you deliberately chose a point of the base peeking outside the terrain. So this will clearly not work and this is clearly not how you measure the path. Even on the pics they trace the path from the closest part of the base to the direction in which you are moving.
Thx for this video. I am a blood bowl player playing AoS and BB stats were way more understandable (and with a lot of tools made by players). even if I try to figured out myself with AoS stats, I find it very difficult to prioritize actions. (Effective or useless)
I think the Add One Model if Near a Gravesite wording is intentional. Thematically, you are near a pile of corpses so you are animating a new corpse in addition to whatever reanimation or healing you just did. It is both rules as written and rules as intended.
It should get an FAQ and probably even an errata. If it does work so you can do both then the healing makes more sense. Your range of total healing goes from 1,2, or 6 to 4,5, or 6 (for fell bats) and from 1 or 4 to 3 or 4 (for dire wolves and black knights). This is the main reason I think it might be rules as intended. Problem is it's not really written that way. Imagine you have a rule that's like "when this unit fights, you may retreat instead". If you give that unit +1 attack it doesn't get to make one attack and then retreat. It still either fights (with +1 attack) or retreats (and makes no attacks). That's basically how this is written. You EITHER heal OR return models and you can't add returned models to a heal any more than you can add attacks to a retreat. The difference is that the rules spell out the attacks example more precisely but it's the same English so it's hard to argue that the heal AND return interpretation is RAW. Thanks for the input :D
Keep on keepin on, man. I'm heavily considering getting back into Sigmar ( at least casually ) and you're totally on theme and on point with what I'm interested in right now, too cool. Thanks!
