AoS Dracothion's tail

Well it still have some uses in matched play.

It is a cheapest way in game to get one-drop and a safe summoning is always nice, with extra range you can get... a new 10 of Saurus Warriors in a right spot may be usefull,

 

Maybe we need official Faq! If we see other new battalion ( ironjawz bloodtoof) they Are 1 drop and they Are playable!! Is strange a battalion only for open play! But we ll see if GW clarify that

 

If you have any battletomes then it is very clear. You can set up 1+ units from a battalion as each deployment in all modes of play -- that's just a battalion rule. So FS and DT are 1 drop armies if you want and if all units are part of the battalion.

It's very clear in the rules for warscroll battalions.

 

Downside being that you must be 9.1" from the enemy and the entire unit must set up within range. That's a very long charge. The ability doesn't work on Skinks and it doesn't let you get free summons of units you haven't paid points for. In fact you have a huge disadvantage that those units are not on the table until summoned!

 

The reason it says spells is so that it can be clear that Slann will NOT be able to cast anything else if he summons 3 units from the batallion. Something to keep in mind to prevent auto drops or no fielding since it is important not to be able to cast any of his 3 spells

 

"Kuoteq can cast any number of summoning spells" seems more like an addition to the three spells he can normally cast

 

As I understand it one can deploy just the Slann (necessary) and all units that don't have the SAURUS keyword (and are not supposed to be summoned the normal way... and what's makes them not part of the battalion...) and then summon the units that have the keyword and are part of the battalion with no additional cost... quite nice but how about the victory conditions?
E.g. if you deploy just the Slann and summon in all the other stuff... does my opponent just have to destroy one unit to win the game? I guess it's been made clear already somewhere in this forum when people talked about summoning in general but this battalion brought it back to my mind...

 

I would never choose to not summon all of them tbh and not just because of the fear of losing the Slann -> thus the game since I won't be having 80% of my army but also because It would take me 3 whole rounds to bring all the army which could give a huge advantage to the opponent point wise and controlling the board

 

1) I 'll be trying a Troglodon to counter this problem ( I love skink armies anyway though )
2) This is the reason that I probably will not be fielding it tbh - not to a tournament that want to do well at least.
I wouldn't even field them with spears. The damage output is too unreliable and then statistics are seriously against us since the max unit would be 10 and I seriously doubt they would ever all attack at once. The only real possibility for a firelance is to buff the heck out of the mounts and ignore the riders' output at the math part

 

on paper firelance seems not so strong. with dracotion if you summon car vet cold one or carno and 10 knights too you are pretty sure to charge with only the knights , heroes dont benefit from +3 charge , you got only +1 from slann and maybe the curse of fait up on carno. anyway is maximum 7 inches charge. i think fang of soteck is more solid. saurus with rend and hit rereoll from astrolith seems really strong vs every unit. and you got 1 drop list anyway.
the command ability form obcarno is good for himself ad if you want you can buff a scar vet carno too when he pile. potentially big damage from jaws.
i wanna test thaqt 2 battalions anyway xD

 

I just don't agree with the reasoning of Kingcheops and others.
Nothing in the wording on the battalion says it works like deepstrike. Nothing says you have to pre-decide the units you want to summon, that's not how summoning works.

You can't set part of the FL battalion in reserve. They start on the table, as per normal rules. Simply because it doesn't say anything about that.

The way I read it is, strictly:
Choose your troops, minimum FL, 3 units of knights and 1 scar vet and 1 slann. Add anything you like, either any of the other battalions or any other Seraphon unit.
Any points saved is your reserve points. Use for any summoning as per the rules. If the summoned unit has saurus keyword, autosucced, if not, cast normal summoning spell, and then it's one of your 3 spells. Saurus summoning is free in that regard.

 

It says "that is part of any batallions included". This is why it doesn't work as you say. If I have to put the whole batallion down, what part of it will I summon ? And I need to predecide who is part of the battalion. You can't summon and say "oh this has the batallion bonus" !

 

I agree, you loose the batallion bonus.
But in that battalion you have access to all seraphon units, it's the last part of what could be included.

It doesn't say "put some units in reserve and summon them in later"

 

The ability reads, "Kuoteq can cast any number of summoning spells that summon saurus units to the battlefield, as long as each unit he summons comes from this battalion." The unit that is summoned has to be something that you've decided was a part of the battalion before the match, so although it is using language different to other such abilities, like stormcasts deep-striking ability, it is saying the same thing. It's less clear granted, but it is still very specific language.

 

Well, seems like a conflict of rules that need clarification. Does the ordinary summoning rules from reserve points apply, or is some units held back in reserve to be summoned?

I read the "this battalion"-part as a safeguard for the future, that you can only summon units that could have been part of the battalion, not that you specify the units and can summon them during the game.

I believe GW would have written the ability in the same way as say thunderstrike or stormcast deepstrike battalion if they are supposed to work in the same way. But they didn't. I guess time will tell how it's supposed to work, but at the moment it's obliously debateble.