AoS Double balewind vortex

[Canas]

Due to a mixup I now have two balewind vortices which prompted me to wonder, would it be possible to summon a vortex on top of another vortex and would it serve any purpose? Would the buffs stack? I can't find any rules stating you can't do it..

 

[Aginor]

Scenery pieces cannot be on top of other scenery I think... not 100% sure though.

As for the Vortex on vortex... I don't see it being very useful. ...or stable...
It might stack but I think the additional benefits aren't worth another 100 points.

 

[Canas]

Scenery pieces cannot be on top of other scenery I think... not 100% sure though.

As for the Vortex on vortex... I don't see it being very useful. ...or stable...
It might stack but I think the additional benefits aren't worth another 100 points.

well, if it'd double the effects put kroak on top of 2 and his celestial deliverance now has 4x3D6 range, that's an average of what, 40"? Good luck avoiding that If nothing else it'd be funny/

 

[Aginor]

well, if it'd double the effects put kroak on top of 2 and his celestial deliverance now has 4x3D6 range, that's an average of what, 40"? Good luck avoiding that If nothing else it'd be funny/

Haha yeah. Thats true.

 

[Tokek]

Due to a mixup I now have two balewind vortices which prompted me to wonder, would it be possible to summon a vortex on top of another vortex and would it serve any purpose? Would the buffs stack? I can't find any rules stating you can't do it..

I think the rule on moving models 3" away would also apply to another Balewind Vortex. It is going to be a bit hard to make the argument that a Balewind Vortex is not itself a model.

 

[Canas]

I think the rule on moving models 3" away would also apply to another Balewind Vortex. It is going to be a bit hard to make the argument that a Balewind Vortex is not itself a model.

That'd imply you could use a balewind to push away other scenery as well.. that seems weird. E.g. summon a balewind vortex to push the sylvaneth Woods of the table. I'd say that interpretation would creates all sorts of trouble that way

 

[Aginor]

It would be kiiinda cool though...

 

[Tokek]

That'd imply you could use a balewind to push away other scenery as well.. that seems weird. E.g. summon a balewind vortex to push the sylvaneth Woods of the table. I'd say that interpretation would creates all sorts of trouble that way

Just because its weird does not mean its wrong.
I really cannot see anything in the rules or the FAQ to indicate that we should not treat scenery as models. At a common-sense level we buy build and paint them as models and the rules never try to say anything to the contrary.

What the FAQ says which does not directly answer the question but clearly indicates their approach is

Q: How is terrain intended to be used? Simply to block line of sight and/or for the use of warscroll rules?
A: Citadel scenery models that have warscrolls can either be used in accordance with their warscrolls or follow the rules for scenery on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet. Scenery models that do not have a warscroll use the rules on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet.​

So scenery models throughout that answer.

Things which are part of the battlefield are different - e.g. hills. We are told that they are not terrain and are part of the battlefield which strongly implies that we are not to treat them as models.

So if it is weird I think that is because the rules are weird rather than because this is not the correct application of the rules. Unless someone can find something I have missed.

 

[Canas]

Just because its weird does not mean its wrong.
I really cannot see anything in the rules or the FAQ to indicate that we should not treat scenery as models. At a common-sense level we buy build and paint them as models and the rules never try to say anything to the contrary.

What the FAQ says which does not directly answer the question but clearly indicates their approach is

Q: How is terrain intended to be used? Simply to block line of sight and/or for the use of warscroll rules?
A: Citadel scenery models that have warscrolls can either be used in accordance with their warscrolls or follow the rules for scenery on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet. Scenery models that do not have a warscroll use the rules on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet.​

So scenery models throughout that answer.

Things which are part of the battlefield are different - e.g. hills. We are told that they are not terrain and are part of the battlefield which strongly implies that we are not to treat them as models.

So if it is weird I think that is because the rules are weird rather than because this is not the correct application of the rules. Unless someone can find something I have missed.

That'd imply that a balewind can't just push away enemy soldiers or entire sylvaneth Woods, but even freaking fortress walls seeing as those are also "Citadel scenery models". Even if it'd be to the letter of the rule I'd say that's definitly not it's intended effect... I think that the use of the word "model" in the FAQ is just GW refering to all stuff they make as models (after all a model of a wall is still a model) but that in the case of the balewind the word "model" only refers to models of units.

Also, this reading of the rules would imply that a balewind can push away those fortress walls, since they're "citadel scenery models" but it wouldn't work on a random bit of wall you've build yourself as that'd suddenly be "part of the battlefield". Which would also be inconsistent...

 

[Tokek]

Well really I think the mistake is in not having a rule on the Balewind to either prevent it deploying within 3" of scenery models or excluding them from its effects. I could even think that leaving them there could create unwanted stacking benefits between tall scenery models and the balewind itself on the wizard on top if we allow the two scenery models to remain within 3" of each other.

I do not think this is a *good* rules interaction as it stands but it is hardly alone in that (hello Vanguard Wing). I think with the rules as they stand that this would be the correct interpretation, there is nothing to say that scenery models are exempt. I also think that making scenery models exempt opens us up for a tower of Balewinds which quite frankly is just as daft as moving fortress walls and where our discussion started.

 

[Aginor]

Imagine it in a PC game or movie:
The wizard determinedly steps forward near the fortress wall. The archers on top are desperately trying to shoot him but his mystic shield blocks the shots. Then he raises his hands....
The ground is breaking up below him, right next to the fortress wall, shattering it, blowing away the pieces and soldiers in a 30ft radius, the vortex rises, a swirling deathly green tornado with a part of the ground magically balanced on top of it.
And up there, in the midst of all that swirling destruction stands the wizard. His staff is firmly pressed onto that last piece of ground, eyes having gone completely white and glowing green, and his hair and robes being blown in all directions but he doesn't care. From his perch he starts throwing lightning bolts and fireballs...

....man it makes me want to write a short story....

 

[Canas]

Well really I think the mistake is in not having a rule on the Balewind to either prevent it deploying within 3" of scenery models or excluding them from its effects. I could even think that leaving them there could create unwanted stacking benefits between tall scenery models and the balewind itself on the wizard on top if we allow the two scenery models to remain within 3" of each other.

I do not think this is a *good* rules interaction as it stands but it is hardly alone in that (hello Vanguard Wing). I think with the rules as they stand that this would be the correct interpretation, there is nothing to say that scenery models are exempt. I also think that making scenery models exempt opens us up for a tower of Balewinds which quite frankly is just as daft as moving fortress walls and where our discussion started.

Fair enough, though a tower of balewinds I at last find somewhat hilarious. It''l only be funny the one time or to just annoy some players, but it is good for some sillyness.

Personally I'd say the rule should probably just be that you can only summon it where it fits. If it's next to existing scenery you just put the balewind as close to the scenery as possible. And you can only summon it on top of scenery on which it fits (e.g. the walls might work, but not much else most likely...)

Imagine it in a PC game or movie:
The wizard determinedly steps forward near the fortress wall. The archers on top are desperately trying to shoot him but his mystic shield blocks the shots. Then he raises his hands....
The ground is breaking up below him, right next to the fortress wall, shattering it, blowing away the pieces and soldiers in a 30ft radius, the vortex rises, a swirling deathly green tornado with a part of the ground magically balanced on top of it.
And up there, in the midst of all that swirling destruction stands the wizard. His staff is firmly pressed onto that last piece of ground, eyes having gone completely white and glowing green, and his hair and robes being blown in all directions but he doesn't care. From his perch he starts throwing lightning bolts and fireballs...

....man it makes me want to write a short story....

O it'd work in a videogame, or story, quite easily. But using it in a tabletop game seems like it'd be broken as it'd inevitable lead to someone using multiple wizards as siege engines to break through otherwise unbreakable fortifications. It'd be acceptable if we'd have other ways of breaking scenery, though even then a single spellcast pulling of what'd require multiple cannonshots would be a tad OP

 

[Aginor]

Absolutely agree.