• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

Tutorial Realmshaper Engine Guide.

Ustyk said:
I got questions.


Can i teleport sth into RE?
Click to expand...
Sadly, no :( LoSaT happens at the end of the movement phase. So you wouldn't be able to garrison a unit which you have teleported near a garrisonable piece of terrain. The only way a unit is allowed to be placed directly into garrison is if the terrain piece meets all the criteria and it is still the deployment phase.
 
Was watching the 16th May TTS Tournament and heard them talking about an alternative way of placing the RSE. It was basically in the corner of the table, leaving a slight bit of room just behind the RSE at the very edge/corner of the table for Kroak to be sat. Due to the garrison rules, the opponent cant charge Kroak as no models may end their move ontop of the RSE, and due to the lack of space behind it near Kroak, no model can be fit. Kroak is also out of LOS behind the RSE. Even if an enemy unit charges the RSE and kills the Astrolith, they still cant reach Kroak on the other side of the RSE, and since Kroak is within 3" of the RSE, the enemy unit cant garrison it.

You can sit a Starpriest 12" away, and let Kroak cast through this model with Arcane Vassal. Effectively Kroak has a 40" range with Celestial Deliverance from the corner of the table = 10" base + 12" from Arcane Vassal + 6" from Balewind + 12" from Astrolith. With a Troglodon this could be even wilder.

Might be interesting on some battle plans.
 
hey y'all I've been out of the loop for the last few weeks, running around playing is it covid or is it allergies for all my patients (I'm a volunteer FF/EMT), so I'm now playing a little catch up on the forums. have we received an official ruling on whether or not we can start our units in the RSE if its in our territory but not in our deployment zone?
 
ILKAIN said:
hey y'all I've been out of the loop for the last few weeks, running around playing is it covid or is it allergies for all my patients (I'm a volunteer FF/EMT), so I'm now playing a little catch up on the forums. have we received an official ruling on whether or not we can start our units in the RSE if its in our territory but not in our deployment zone?
Click to expand...

No ruling. However, the only battleplans where territory is larger than the deployment zone have other controlling statements about the range from which units can be deployed. For instance most of them will say more than 9"/12" from enemy territory. So even if you could garrison them, you couldn't place them in garrison if that garrison would be too close to the enemy territory.
 
LizardWizard said:
No ruling. However, the only battleplans where territory is larger than the deployment zone have other controlling statements about the range from which units can be deployed. For instance most of them will say more than 9"/12" from enemy territory. So even if you could garrison them, you couldn't place them in garrison if that garrison would be too close to the enemy territory.
Click to expand...
and you would have to measure from the closest point of the garrison, so no shenanigans there either.
 
Question, clarification on RSE placement with the new GHB... mostly just talking through this to myself.

RSE states that "When terrain is set up for the battle, any RSE terrain feature must be set up by the player whose army they are a part of before any other terrain features are set up, more than... blah blah blah."

The GHB states that "Player A then sets up all of the terrain features on the battlefield blah blah blah, After scenery rules have been generated Player B decides which territory each player will use."

So it seems like placement would go like this

Step 1 - Roll Off
Step 2 - Winner decides if he's Player A or Player B
Step 3 - RSE Player, if A then sets up RSE, followed by all other terrain features. Player B decides the territory, potentially taking the territory with the RSE
ALT Step 3 - RSE Player, If B sets up RSE before Player A sets up all other terrain features. Player B then decides which side to take, most likely taking the side with his own terrain piece on it.

Basically, nothing has really changed outside of if you're Player B you can drop the terrain feature on the side you plan on taking, which you will at least know at the time.

Considering you still HAVE to drop it ("must be set up..." in the RSE rules) I think it's probably still too risky. How are people finding it with the new GHB rules?
 
Putzfrau said:
Question, clarification on RSE placement with the new GHB... mostly just talking through this to myself.

RSE states that "When terrain is set up for the battle, any RSE terrain feature must be set up by the player whose army they are a part of before any other terrain features are set up, more than... blah blah blah."

The GHB states that "Player A then sets up all of the terrain features on the battlefield blah blah blah, After scenery rules have been generated Player B decides which territory each player will use."

So it seems like placement would go like this

Step 1 - Roll Off
Step 2 - Winner decides if he's Player A or Player B
Step 3 - RSE Player, if A then sets up RSE, followed by all other terrain features. Player B decides the territory, potentially taking the territory with the RSE
ALT Step 3 - RSE Player, If B sets up RSE before Player A sets up all other terrain features. Player B then decides which side to take, most likely taking the side with his own terrain piece on it.

Basically, nothing has really changed outside of if you're Player B you can drop the terrain feature on the side you plan on taking, which you will at least know at the time.

Considering you still HAVE to drop it ("must be set up..." in the RSE rules) I think it's probably still too risky. How are people finding it with the new GHB rules?
Click to expand...
I agree with the order of events you presented and I think it is an overall buff. More knowledge is always better for risk assessment. In terms of organized play I don't see this having a huge effect. Most events pre-build their tables and have specific rules for terrain like the Bone-tithe Nexus and Realmshaper Engine.

I disagree that if you have one you must use it. The "...must be setup..." can equally be read as describing how it must be placed and not that it must be placed.
 
Putzfrau said:
Step 2 - Winner decides if he's Player A or Player B
Step 3 - RSE Player, if A then sets up RSE, followed by all other terrain features. Player B decides the territory, potentially taking the territory with the RSE
ALT Step 3 - RSE Player, If B sets up RSE before Player A sets up all other terrain features. Player B then decides which side to take, most likely taking the side with his own terrain piece on it. /QUOTE]

.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the exact sequence.

in the GHB2020 the new rules for placement say:

(Faction terrains) "are set up in addition to the features that have been setup as previously described"

so terrains but be placed first, then faction terrains are placed. It overrides the rule for the RSE written in our battletome
 
Killer Angel said:
I don't think this is the exact sequence.

in the GHB2020 the new rules for placement say:

(Faction terrains) "are set up in addition to the features that have been setup as previously described"

so terrains but be placed first, then faction terrains are placed. It overrides the rule for the RSE written in our battletome
Click to expand...
Battletome rules that contradict core rules overrule them. Thus I read it the same as @Putzfrau. "...In addition" does not necessarily mean preceding/proceeding. It can be in adjoinment.
 
LizardWizard said:
Battletome rules that contradict core rules overrule them. Thus I read it the same as @Putzfrau. "...In addition" does not necessarily mean preceding/proceeding. It can be in adjoinment.
Click to expand...


Usually i would agree, but the new ghb clarifies the sequence of terrain placements, also to avoid probles about faction terrains with different placing timing.
For example, it states that in tournaments with terrains already placed, faction terrains can be set-ip by TO..
That's why, in this specific case, the general rule overrides the battletome... because it was made for that reason.

At least, imo.
 
Killer Angel said:
Usually i would agree, but the new ghb clarifies the sequence of terrain placements, also to avoid probles about faction terrains with different placing timing.
For example, it states that in tournaments with terrains already placed, faction terrains can be set-ip by TO..
That's why, in this specific case, the general rule overrides the battletome... because it was made for that reason.

At least, imo.
Click to expand...

Whether it's placed before or after other terrain doesnt really chance the fact that it's still a huge risk, which was my bigger question. The new placement rules don't help this be any more helpful than it was.

RAW i'm still with @LizardWizard on order of placement.

LizardWizard said:
I disagree that if you have one you must use it. The "...must be setup..." can equally be read as describing how it must be placed and not that it must be placed.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not super sure I agree (and only because even if its describing how it must be placed, it still must be placed... if that makes sense?) but that would massively change my opinion of it. Basically drop it if you're Player B, don't if your A.

Ultimately, I think i'm going to stick to not bringing one until a lot of this stuff gets cleared up or a Tournament Pack just exactly specifies how to use it. It's just too much of a pain to deal with otherwise.
 
Last edited:
New seraphon faq, July 2 /21.

Has the realm shaper being placed after territories and with only a 3" separation from other entities. With explicit rules about removing a terrain feature to make room for it if necessary.

Cap went to models vs wounds.

Dmg Can be done by priests now.

Hype it might actually see play now!
 
Maybe I'm doing some 3D print or foam proxy. Can someone give me the size (wide and height) please? I'd prefer the measures in cm but I can work in inches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top