My question is just why make this weird specification where only the fyreslayers bodyguard save doesn't work? What's the point?
As it was explained to me elsewhere because the fires ayer rule actually says it negates a wound, where our bodyguard hjust moves it. That's also why I see people saying selfless protector can be stacked as a ward. Since it doesn't have a chance to negate a wound it isn't classified as a ward.
Maybe its an oversight. They might not have realized there were bodyguard rules that did not actually negate the wound or mortal wound before reallocating. Or maybe as xoid mentioned, they dont want bodyguards that actually negate wounds to get a double ward save. I expect with AOS 3.0 battletomes they will standardize all these rules so that everyone has the same timing and such. Until then all we can do is go with how they worded the rules pending further faqs or designer commentaries. Im in the camp that its not up to the players to determine the intent of the rules. Ive played too many games over too many years and its never worked well for the game when that happens. Too many people come up with different views on things and try to manipulate things and its a mess. Its the developers job to clearly state the rules in written form. So as players all we should do is play the game exactly how its written by the developers.
I totally get that but functionally it's all the same. The fyreslayers bodyguard rule in practice is no different than any other bodyguard rule. It's just a different choice of language. That's it. So why go out of your way to specify that that style of language is punished but leave 99% of other bodyguard rules the same? What problem or clarification is this solving/providing?
I see it as a sort of self-defense try. GW is horrible in writing rules, and every once in a while they manage to purposelly write a rule for a certain unit that totally overcomes the direction taken with (or forced to) all the other armies. Given that GW screws its own coherency, why shouldn't someone try to use the poor writing of certain rules? yeah, it's not "as intended", but if you play dirty so do I. I get it and i can relate with it. The problem is that you're not playing a game against GW, but against another player which is in your same boat.
Oh I'm gonna play it RAW for sure, it's just a curious question to me. I like to think about the reasoning behind some rulings and I just can't for the life of me figure this one out.
I was mainly wondering about Krondys and Karazai, but they're both 600 points, so we won't be able to take them. The Prime only went up slightly to 325 and is exactly the same but gained a ward. Maybe a good pick if you want the extra MWs from his comets. I think Dracothian Guard are pretty good across the board as they offer boatloads of rend. But are they worth picking a unit of them over something like 2 Sallies? Probably not. Overall, I don't see anything uber-powerful (others may disagree) but that's actually refreshing for a new tome. I might be singing a different tune after a few games against them.
Just from the Goonhammer article it sounds like the Stormcast book is pretty balanced overall. Basically everything got rend and went up in power a little bit, but they needed it. The chariots seem like they might be a bit OP, but not game-breaking. On a side note, if a chariot is 12 wounds I sincerely hope that when our book comes out our dinosaurs will go up in wound count, lol! Also, pretty much everything has at least rend 1, and a ton of stuff has rend 2. Probably due to them realizing how tough to kill a lot of the big models are. Maybe this will be the edition where we stop being an army focused on buffing weak warscrolls and actually get some good base stats!
I think it's more of an sce thing than an everyone thing, but maybe. I'd rather seraphon doesn't become just an efficient warscroll army tho.
Sorry to double-post, but the Orruk Warclans book review is out as well. Sounds like Bonesplitterz got nerfed pretty hard for some reason. But Kruleboyz and Ironjawz are both pretty good. Here's the links to Goonhammer's Stormcast and Orruks book reviews: https://www.goonhammer.com/battletome-stormcast-eternals-3-0-the-goonhammer-review/ https://www.goonhammer.com/battletome-orruk-warclans-3-0-the-goonhammer-review/
I mean, I do appreciate the buff playstyle, I really do. But our base units will still need some serious warscroll improvements to keep up with stuff like this. Especially everything Saurus, as even buffed to high heaven our Saurus Warriors are still little more than a speedbump for most enemies. I also personally think that Coalesced and Starborne need different point costs for the same units, because the summoning bumps everything up in points but only one subfaction gets to use it. Also, certain units like Salamanders only perform really well when teleported, which again, only one subfaction gets to do. Also, I refer back to one of my big posts about how the Seraphon don't really match up to how Lizardmen are portrayed in lore. I'd personally like to have at least the option to be an army that's tough and does decent damage rather than an army made out of paper that throws cheap bodies at the enemy to slow them down. That's a Skaven thing But if they just made Coalesced and Starborne significantly more different, I think they could easily preserve the buff cheap units playstyle while adding an option to be a tougher, harder-hitting army as well. They already tried to go that way in the last book, it just needs a little more improvement.
To each their own man. Can't say I really agree with a lot of what you're saying but that's okay. Warriors are obviously in a rough spot, but I think for the most part the book is solid and I've argued why ad nauseum on these forums. The stats seem to back up that point of view as we have some of the highest instances of 4-1 and 5-0 finishes (with varying subfactions as well!) As mentioned warriors could definitely use some love, but no book is completely devoid of subpar scrolls. Seraphon have always been a tech army and them not being a tech army would be out of the norm. It would be like if all the sudden ogres became a horde army. Regardless, I think these changes were something stormcast needed. They don't have a lot of tech, their playstyles are generally about leveraging their efficient scrolls around one trick (deepstrike or hero phase shooting traditionally) and they were often left in the dust because their warscrolls couldn't keep up with the power creep. Hopefully we don't see a massive uptick of rend across all armies, I think that would be a huge mistake personally but we will see. Overall I've been super happy with 3.0 and have pretty high hopes it continues that way
im fine with us being a tech army. im NOT fine with them making us a tech army and then taking all the tech away.... now we are just an army.
Not sure I understand your meaning. The way you guys are talking about us make it seen we are languishing but we have like the third highest instances of 4-1 and 5-0 wins and its pretty evenly split across starborne and thunder lizard. Not really trying to get into the "I swear seraphon are good" argument again, but yeah. Definitely can't say I've experienced what you're talking about in my 3.0 games
im not say we are bad. im saying we aren't a synergy army any more. the things we use are just our good warscrolls with a prayer and a CA on them(salamanders stegadons knights) some times a spell. that's just what every one else does nothing tech about it. the parts of our army that did stack buffs synergies have all fallen out of favor because we can't do any of that any more.