Tutorial Seraphon Overview (updated to AoS 3.0)

[Carnikang]

Throw it on the pile lads.

On the topic of the Sunclaw.... I think either way could work. Same Command Ability, with the choice of a Sunblood instead. You pay the cost and the effects of said battalion do not affect the stats of a Carnosaur either way, correct? It may add a rend to the Jaws though, no book in hand at the moment to verify.

 

[Killer Angel]

Throw it on the pile lads.

On the topic of the Sunclaw.... I think either way could work. Same Command Ability, with the choice of a Sunblood instead. You pay the cost and the effects of said battalion do not affect the stats of a Carnosaur either way, correct? It may add a rend to the Jaws though, no book in hand at the moment to verify.

yes, the (coalesced) Sunclaw adds -1 to rend to all jaws weapons of the battalion's units.

 

[Carnikang]

yes, the (coalesced) Sunclaw adds -1 to rend to all jaws weapons of the battalion's units.

Well, that's reason enough to ponder it. Decent rend on the bites is a big reason to include it and try to consider it part of said battalion.

 

[Killer Angel]

Small (?) update: In the seraphon "generic abilities" I've inserted the Realmshaper Engine. At the bottom of the unit analysis you'll find the Dread Saurian.

 

[Iblitz]

I'd like to understand something about mounted characters.
Reading the reviews (and this one also) i see that some bonuses from artefact applies and some not.
But nothing in the rules tells me which one will or not.

It seems like players apply what they want unless the rules specifies something.

For exemple, the stedagon Helm give an armor modifier and a damage boost.
the rules tells that only the Damage of the bearer weapon change. But what about the armor ? the bearer is the only one having that bonus and the mount seems not small enough to wear it... (mostly because both mount and rider cannot be separated). Should i apply the armor modifier too or because they can't be separated, that bonus will not be used ?
Could i have a "flying stedagon" with the Feather cape stegadon chief ?
I'm confused.

 

[Killer Angel]

I'd like to understand something about mounted characters.
Reading the reviews (and this one also) i see that some bonuses from artefact applies and some not.
But nothing in the rules tells me which one will or not.

It seems like players apply what they want unless the rules specifies something.

For exemple, the stedagon Helm give an armor modifier and a damage boost.
the rules tells that only the Damage of the bearer weapon change. But what about the armor ? the bearer is the only one having that bonus and the mount seems not small enough to wear it... (mostly because both mount and rider cannot be separated). Should i apply the armor modifier too or because they can't be separated, that bonus will not be used ?
Could i have a "flying stedagon" with the Feather cape stegadon chief ?
I'm confused.

The fact is that command traits and magical artefacts can only be used to affect attacks made by the hero and have no effect on attacks made by their Mount, BUT all the rest affects also the Mount.

EDIT: it's in the Core rules, pag. 17 "Allegiances abilities"

 

[Canas]

essentially every stat is shared apart from attacks. But saves, movement, wounds are shared between rider and mount.

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

I really hope they clean up the stegadon mount rules with the errata....

 

[Canas]

Also, on the topic of an oldblood on carnosaur leading a sunclaw. By that same logic couldn't you make a thunderquake battalion with 3 stegadons with chiefs? It just says it needs "2 bastiladons or 2 stegadons in any combination" for the 2nd line. So wouldn't you be able to stick in 2 additional chiefs there?

 

[Lizerd]

Also, on the topic of an oldblood on carnosaur leading a sunclaw. By that same logic couldn't you make a thunderquake battalion with 3 stegadons with chiefs? It just says it needs "2 bastiladons or 2 stegadons in any combination" for the 2nd line. So wouldn't you be able to stick in 2 additional chiefs there?

Presumably yes, and that would be pretty awesome.

speaking of skink chiefs, how well can they operate? I’ve not gotten the chance to see them in action

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

Presumably yes, and that would be pretty awesome.

speaking of skink chiefs, how well can they operate? I’ve not gotten the chance to see them in action

I think with the right buffs and artefact, they are our most potent melee Monster. Carnasaurs come close. Both can be scary, but not a match for other heavy hitters (especially ones that can force fighting last, or can attack twice... )

 

[Iblitz]

Thansk for the answer... (which means we can deploy a 3+svg stegadon increased to 2+ with magic...)

I just checked the official army builder https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/ . It seems that all constellations warlords traits are limited to "General X only". As discussed before on many thread, the sloppy wording let us understand that trait could be a mandatory trait for a specific leader. Now, it's confirmed as a restriction.
I'd like in the future that GW learn to right not interpretatives rules, at last, in their native lagage.

 

[LizardWizard]

Thansk for the answer... (which means we can deploy a 3+svg stegadon increased to 2+ with magic...)

I just checked the official army builder https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/ . It seems that all constellations warlords traits are limited to "General X only". As discussed before on many thread, the sloppy wording let us understand that trait could be a mandatory trait for a specific leader. Now, it's confirmed as a restriction.
I'd like in the future that GW learn to right not interpretatives rules, at last, in their native lagage.

I would argue this is a coding error. Unless their is an FAQ, Designer Commentary, or Errata then currently we have a lot of Flexibility with Command Traits and Subfactions.

 

[Canas]

I would argue this is a coding error. Unless their is an FAQ, Designer Commentary, or Errata then currently we have a lot of Flexibility with Command Traits and Subfactions.

imho, having the subfaction be restrictive in terms of artifact/traits is stupid anyway. At least with the current RAW we can still pick an alternative trait if we pick a different subrace to be our general. Right now a lot of tomes end up with the following format:
- List of cool traits, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
- One (or two..) obviously best subfaction with a mandatory trait
- Original traits are never used cuz 99% of the fielded armies are in obviously-best-subfaction since the subfaction bonus far outweighs a suboptimal trait.
- Also, if you're unlucky your subfaction now also dictates which unit is your general if the trait is particularly restrictive...

I don't understand why they insist on making them restrictive as it limits cool listbuilding options so much...

 

[Canas]

Presumably yes, and that would be pretty awesome.

speaking of skink chiefs, how well can they operate? I’ve not gotten the chance to see them in action

It is slightly ridiculous though, can't imagine that's RAI.

Also, probably not that good anyway, stegadons with chief aren't that much more powerfull without an artifact to abuse compared to a regular stegadon

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

Thansk for the answer... (which means we can deploy a 3+svg stegadon increased to 2+ with magic...)

I just checked the official army builder https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/ . It seems that all constellations warlords traits are limited to "General X only". As discussed before on many thread, the sloppy wording let us understand that trait could be a mandatory trait for a specific leader. Now, it's confirmed as a restriction.
I'd like in the future that GW learn to right not interpretatives rules, at last, in their native lagage.

Can you elaborate??

I started a Fangs of Sotek build on there, picked a Slann as my general, and gave him the “Saurus Leader Fangs of Sotek” trait. It did not stop me, but clearly it should not work that way.

I did not stumble across a debate over this issue on here. My understanding is that if you run Fangs of Sotek without a Saurus General, you can still pick a generic trait for your Slann General, for example.

Are you saying that, in the case above, if the FoS General is not a Saurus, they are not allowed to get a command trait?

 

[Iblitz]

I started a Fangs of Sotek build on there, picked a Slann as my general, and gave him the “Saurus Leader Fangs of Sotek” trait. It did not stop me, but clearly it should not work that way.

The debate is simple. Based on the trait wording (that is the exact same wording for all four constelation traits) we have two side :
- one saying that the trait is limited to Saurus general only (other general must take a regular one) -> which is confirmed by the warscroll builder.
- the other saying saying that this trait is the only one that can take a Saurus General from this constellation (based on the absence of "Only" or "limited to" and the "must" in the rule wording). Other general can take it or take a regular one.

that's the debate. As most people are going for the first group and this is confirmed by the official builder, i will not argue anymore on this.
I keep my position saying this is a bad gamedesign decision to avoid Skinks leader to have their own constellation and to give a Saurus only trait to a Skink focused constellation.
GW should allow people to play what they like and more if it's uncompetitive. (Grot leader should exist in 40k, for exemple...)

 

[Grotpunter]

The debate is simple. Based on the trait wording (that is the exact same wording for all four constelation traits) we have two side :
- one saying that the trait is limited to Saurus general only (other general must take a regular one) -> which is confirmed by the warscroll builder.
- the other saying saying that this trait is the only one that can take a Saurus General from this constellation (based on the absence of "Only" or "limited to" and the "must" in the rule wording). Other general can take it or take a regular one.

that's the debate. As most people are going for the first group and this is confirmed by the official builder, i will not argue anymore on this.
I keep my position saying this is a bad gamedesign decision to avoid Skinks leader to have their own constellation and to give a Saurus only trait to a Skink focused constellation.
GW should allow people to play what they like and more if it's uncompetitive. (Grot leader should exist in 40k, for exemple...)

The first part is correct. There is really no debate to be had.

In Fangs of Sotek you get to pick a generic command trait unless you have a Saurus hero as the general, because there is nothing stopping you from picking a different general than a Saurus hero.

This is confirmed in the Orruk Warclans FAQ. They have subfactions where it says the exact same, and it confirmed you can pick something else.



Keep in mind that the artefacts (I believe all) for the subfactions dont specify what kind of general, so you cant skip out on this one.

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

The first part is correct. There is really no debate to be had.

In Fangs of Sotek you get to pick a generic command trait unless you have a Saurus hero as the general, because there is nothing stopping you from picking a different general than a Saurus hero.

This is confirmed in the Orruk Warclans FAQ. They have subfactions where it says the exact same, and it confirmed you can pick something else.

View attachment 68345

Keep in mind that the artefacts (I believe all) for the subfactions dont specify what kind of general, so you cant skip out on this one.

Ok, that’s what I thought - I wish that these Battletome FAQ questions that have further implications across other factions could be collated by GW into a single entity

 

[Iblitz]

The problem is not if i "Can" take a generic trait. The problem is i "must" take a generic trait or to be precise, this trait is limited to saurus lord only.

"Can" leave the possibility open. It's not mandatory.