Yeah this sounds really stupid. So player A can effectively just mirror both sides and make them incredible good depending on what their army wants to do. Player B then essentially has no choice since either side is just as effective for player A. Im pretty sure that is NOT how we are gonna be playing.
well those new artifacts are uninspired. Couldn't they give something interesting at least. Or 2-3 choices/realm so all realms might actually provide something of value? Yeah, this seems like a very obvious drawback to this system. Just make both sides good for you or super annoying for your opponent and player B is screwed. I guess the intent is that you can't make 1 side super good and 1 side super bad, cuz then obviously player B will pick the good side. But that only holds if both armies benefit (and suffer) equally from every type of terrain. Which simply isn't the case. This just seems like a really bad idea.
I get that it is like the good old way of sharing candy with your siblings - One breaks the candy in two and the other picks. It ensures both pieces are equally big/balanced. It just feels like player A has too much of an impact on how terrain will play out. Some armies dont care that much about arcane or commanding, but if yours does it is pretty big if you can have one (or both) on either side. Also, what stops you from simply making a huge line in the middle of the board with terrain, effectively funneling the opponent if he plays a melee focused army and you are a shooting army? This just seems like a terrible design that is bound to be abused hard.
It depends. If you play Seraphon against Khorne, you can simply make all terrain arcane and only you would benifit from it. Take Mystic against Undead - they are getting deathless minions anyway. Commanding against armies, that doesn't rely on command points, etc. If you play coalesced, place bad terrain on the sides and good in the middle in a way that it touches both territories. You will ignore all the bad rules and your opponent will ignore all the good. You have ways to play around it.
But player A does not choose what feature a terrain piece has, it says he generates so he rolls for it. Or am i mistaken
this is what i am assuming is the case. i could be wrong, also i dont think we will have the choice to place terrain willy nilly like literally building an impassable wall across the middle of the board.
Yeah the first thing I thought of was making a line through the middle while leaving gaps that are too small to prevent an opponent with large hordes, or large models, from effectivly going through. Even ignoring the special bonus effects that'd be hilariously annoying to deal with.
Sorry but goonhammer is wrong the ghb says player a generates terrain rules. The terrain rules table does not mention picking it only has numbers for a d6 roll.
GW really masters the art of writing rules without even thinking about the possible consequences. To faq them hard later because "this was not intended". to a very limited point i agree with them: some abuses are clearly not in the spirit of the rule (conga line of terrains)… but they aren't that hard to foresee, if you know the game. And some other things are clearly obvious, if you think a minute on what you're writing.
I don't have the GHB, so i wasn't able to check. Then it's not so bad. Still abusable, but in a lesser way.
huh it looks like the generic ignore battle shock command ability is gone. it's not in the GHB with the rest of them (edit) nope i got it wrong the book is just hard to read
I saw a nice quote floating around on the internet; GW is like a parent who trusts his kids to police themselves, giving them too much freedom and then being surprised when the kids inevitably take this freedom and do all sorts of nonsense that was not in the spirirt of what GW intended. You'd think they'd learn to just put in clear, strict rules at some point, instead of repeating the same mistake over and over.
o, does that mean bravery-modifiers are finally going to become relevant again? Or well, somewhat relevant.
scratch that the e book is just badly formatted and it was 3 pages away from the rest of them. dang this thing is hard to read
they tightened up triumphs D3 Triumph 1 Inspired: Once per battle, when a friendly unit is picked to shoot or fight, you can say it is inspired. If you do so, you can re-roll hit rolls for attacks made by that unit until the end of that phase. 2 Bloodthirsty: Once per battle, when a friendly unit is picked to shoot or fight, you can say it is bloodthirsty. If you do so, you can re-roll wound rolls for attacks made by that unit until the end of that phase. 3 Indomitable: Once per battle, before you make a save roll for a friendly unit, you can say it is indomitable. If you do so, you can re-roll save rolls for attacks that target that unit until the end of that phase. SCENERY TABLE
So.... does player A place BOTH players' faction terrain? Does that remove the choice from the other player in whether they want to include it or not? we were discussing previously that you could put the RSE on your list and simply not place it... now if its on your list potentially you wouldn't get that choice... conversely does this mean player A can elect to NOT place the opponents terrain?
so that still gives player A power over player B's terrain, as they can make it impossible for player B to place it. these rules are going to sincerely hurt armies that utilize their terrain more than others, and i think potentially devastating for Sylvaneth.