This could be skewed slightly by the way Nova worked, giving an advantage to Death. However, Nagash, DoK, and ID are definitely the strongest armies right now. KO need serious help. Lack of magic or answers to magic really hurts them in the current meta. They need better shooting and better saves on the boats so that the battalions see some play instead of just clown car. Seraphon win rate is low because a lot of people are playing sub-optimal lists. SCE is in a good spot, which is surprising due to their huge range of models and builds. I was expecting them to be an issue this edition but it's looking like they're fairly well balanced at the moment.
The issue is that things were only slightly more than two months out from 2.0 release-at best for Nova, and GTs generally require painted armies. So someone putting an army together to take advantage of of the new meta is unlikely to have had it ready. Compared to someone passionate and skilled with an army that has not changed much, while the aforementioned may still be adapting to the meta shift or even learning a new army entirely.
But it is still a valid point of data and I appreciate whoever put it together.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The issue is that things were only slightly more than two months out from 2.0 release-at best for Nova, and GTs generally require painted armies. So someone putting an army together to take advantage of of the new meta is unlikely to have had it ready. Compared to someone passionate and skilled with an army that has not changed much, while the aforementioned may still be adapting to the meta shift or even learning a new army entirely.
But it is still a valid point of data and I appreciate whoever put it together.
Dunno how it works in AOS but in 40k side at least there are serious tournament goers who use painting service for this(that or super simple paint scheme) to get around that issue.
I am sure there are plenty who did manage to get a new army together/updated, but I feel that factor is significant enough to call any conclusions off this data into question. Some if these GTs were merely weeks after 2.0 launch, too.
I appreciate the data points. Its a great start. However, there is not enough data present to draw conclusions. You need more than a handful of events.
The only conclusive evidence i got was that recently a lot of people went out and bought undead armies and that stormcast are still popular to play.
The only conclusive evidence i got was that recently a lot of people went out and bought undead armies and that stormcast are still popular to play.
sigmarines will allways be popular no matter how many editions they make of them.
what annoys me is that every1 and their mother are collecting ghosts now they are a feature army. where were they 2 years ago? NH as a subfaction army existed from day 1.....
this has forced me to shelf my own NH indefenitely in order to look for something new. currently my toughts are playing around mono squig force or a dispossessed/ironweld force.
best
Thats always been a common thing unfortunately. If a new force comes out AND they are powerful, they will be latched on to and spammed by the community for a while until the next powerful new faction.
If they come out and have the power of a wet fart, they will largely be ignored (a good chunk of new AOS releases fall into this category)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue with this data. I feel that its being put together in an effort to show that AOS is balanced because there are a lot of top placing armies in tournaments, which proves that AOS is balanced because the same army isn't winning events all the time. I feel this way because I read it on twitter and facebook daily, that the game is in a great place and is a ton balanced because the tournament scene isn't being dominated by the same army.
I find that fallacious for a few reasons.
#1 - already posted, not enough data to make that conclusion.
#2 - tournaments in wargaming are not proper "tournaments" in that the winner isn't the one that bested everyone else. It is common for the winners of tournaments to have the same win/loss record as multiple people in that event. It is possible for there to be multiple undefeated players in a tournament that never fought each other.
Tournament scoring is also often not entirely about performance of the army. It is possible to go undefeated in a tournament and not win the event because your painting or sports score was edged out by someone else.
An OP unbalanced army is still an OP unbalanced army. You can't go down to your FLGS and be like "look dude, I know I smashed your face in 2 turns and tabled you but my army isn't really that bad because Scott won the last tournament because his sports scores were higher than mine, so my army isn't that bad because it ddidn't win the tournament!" Your opponent that you constantly table because you are running a power alpha list isn't going to care that you only placed 5th at the last tournament because your sports and painting score got tanked, when you are pushing an extreme negative play experience by exploiting the bad balance in the game and he is not.
#3 - Tournaments are a slivered sub section of the game as a whole. What is considered soft at a tournament can still club baby seals with impunity down at the FLGS casual night. It still offers a negative play experience to someone not wanting to be involved in tournaments and trying to say that the game is balanced because in the slivered subsection there are multiple winners is still disingenuous because if you aren't playing tournament AOS but your opponent is, the imbalance in the game is going to offer you a sharp kick to the jimmy no matter how much your opponent tries to convince you that his force isn't that bad because he didn't win LVO with it, while your army is a balanced collection of stuff that looks cool but can't stand up to tournament level lists.
Tournament gaming still usually revolves around powerlisting. Powerlistting shatters game balance, thats the point of powerlisting. The game as a whole is more than just powerlisting tournament play. But you can't have a tournament list facing a casual list and expect a good game, so a game balanced at the "tournament level" is not an indicator that the game is in a great balanced place.
#4 - You can take an OP busted list, give it to 10 players, and its success will deepend on the quality of players. If 8 of those 10 players are bad players, that OP busted list will look like its not that bad if you are using that as your objective data, becuase those 8 players are going to play badly and make it look like the list isn't that bad. Conversely if I take an average tournament list and give it to 10 players, and 8 are really really good players, that average list is going to come off as a super great list. This is why you need a much larger set of data to work with.
There is still a massive gulf of difference between a casual list and a tournament list in AOS. That to me is where I feel that the game's balance is still very very bad. It can definitely be vastly improved on.
I like the NOVA tried to incorporate the realm of battle rules into the GT.. but they are very strong and I think tip the scales of power EVEN more in favor of magic heavy armies. It wouldnt stop me from attending an event.. but its a "rich are getting richer" sort of thing. Nagash lists with another set of lores to choose from makes him even more powerful then he already is.
There is some controversy on TGA about the scoring at NOVA. The results from the event were:
1. dave fields -- Khorne (4 bloodthirsters and 20 hounds with karanak, council of blood)
2. kaleb walters -- Tzeentch (LOC/Kairos/9 enlightened, 30 acolytes)
3. matthew barker (me) -- Nurgle (Glottkin, 20 blightkings and blight cyst)
4. rob kron -- Deepkin (21 eels, eidolon of sea and volturnos)
5. william soehaili -- (Nagash with dogs, reapers and bladegheists)
But painting was a MAJOR part of the overall winner. And there was no best general. The nagash list went undefeated and I think only missed out on 4 battle points out of 102 possible. For reference I got 81 battle points and had a major loss and a minor win. I got a perfect paint score though. Only 10 armies in the event (almost 100) did. Most got in the 14-16 range. Painting was weighted heavily and effected the placings quite a bit. If this event was battle points only.. I would have come in 9th-11th as opposed to 3rd. William soehaili would have won, instead of taking 5th.
So Does this data use the "winners" of the events? Because The Nagash list SMASHED FACE and is more representative of the meta.. even though the khorne tz, and Nurgle armies took 1,2,3. Or is this based soley on battle points for the events. Best Coast Pairings recently added a feature to toggle between overall winners and battle points only. No recent event has had a best generalship award. Not adepticon, bobo, NOVA, blood and glory....
There is definitely a wide gulf between a tournament list and a casual list, but isn't that the point? I don't necessarily take that as a mark against the balance of a game. That's a mark against taking a tournament list to a casual setting. I wasn't aware that painting weighed so heavily in tournament rankings, but that does go a long way towards explaining why some of the top armies are so different from what I was expecting. That's kind of a dumb way to score a tournament IMO. I would imagine they do that to encourage sportsmanship, but I think it would be just as easy to dock someone points for being a jerk.
Painting scores were a part of grand tournaments for many many many many years until the end of the 2000s when indy tournaments scrapped them. THey have recently made a return.
For me, and my opinion, if the gulf between a power list and a casual list is don't bother playing, that is a thing where I feel the balance is very very bad because powerlisting is only 3-5% of the entire game.
The goal of game design, in my opinion, is to widen that bell curve a lot more than 3-5% viable.
People discuss the balance of the game with data like this, but many times they aren't ddiscussing casual vs tournament. They are discussing the game as a whole and saying the game as a whole is fine because tournaments have many different armies winning, but for the pointers I listed above I feel that that is wholly incorrect.
As a casual event organizer, this has always been a hot rage inducing point of contention between myself and the competitive guys that refuse to tone down and not club the baby seals (casual lists), but I only have this issue in 40k and sigmar.
For whatever reasons when we play other games like Middle Earth or Battletech or Saga, this issue never really arises.
EnTyme wrote: There is definitely a wide gulf between a tournament list and a casual list, but isn't that the point? I don't necessarily take that as a mark against the balance of a game. That's a mark against taking a tournament list to a casual setting. I wasn't aware that painting weighed so heavily in tournament rankings, but that does go a long way towards explaining why some of the top armies are so different from what I was expecting. That's kind of a dumb way to score a tournament IMO. I would imagine they do that to encourage sportsmanship, but I think it would be just as easy to dock someone points for being a jerk.
To be frank, I know me and several of my tourney buds would really enjoy not needing entirely different lists and even armies to take to events and do well. Not needing to figure out how competitive my opponent's list is before figuring out mine to match would be great. Plenty of times I have made a list ahead of time that I was excited about playing only to show up and realize it was too strong, the worst being when that realization comes two rounds in and the game is effectively over. It is not fun.
The only conclusive evidence i got was that recently a lot of people went out and bought undead armies and that stormcast are still popular to play.
sigmarines will allways be popular no matter how many editions they make of them.
what annoys me is that every1 and their mother are collecting ghosts now they are a feature army. where were they 2 years ago? NH as a subfaction army existed from day 1.....
this has forced me to shelf my own NH indefenitely in order to look for something new. currently my toughts are playing around mono squig force or a dispossessed/ironweld force.
best
TBF, the Nighthaunts are in the starter. There were a good number of Khorne players back before the Blades battletome even though Khorne was bad. The ease of access for the models is a big factor. Also, Nighthaunt from before were effectively two 4-wound heroes and two unit options. The black coach was direct only and dated as all hell, the mourngul was FW and so direct only plus expensive plus required a bit of research to even realize it was an option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, the other day I did a tourney practice game against a buddy building a Nagash list. He was playing this list for the very first time (and we were not using realm rules to simplify things, so limited spell casts) while I was playing Nurgle with which I have hundreds of games of experience. To my credit he did not table me until turn 5, and I was not far behind him in VPs. At the end of the game this is what I had killed (that was not brought back):
So because you can’t beat your friend the game isn’t balanced? By all accounts I took a suboptimal nurgle list, came in third, (11th in battle points), which included a major win over Nagash, where I killed Nagash himself, all his skeletons, half the chainrasps and a couple characters.
No. Not because I can't beat my friend the game isn't balanced. I also don't consider your list all that suboptimal barring the exact technical term of the meaning to be that it wasn't the strongest nurgle list you could make. Its still quite strong.
Your tournament performance does neither to prove nor disprove the balanced state of the game overall, it proves you took a strong but not the strongest list of your faction and did well with it, which speaks to several different variables but none of which are indicators of the overall balanced state of the game.
I used to place in the top 10 of every GT I attended in the WHFB and 3.5 40k days. I was also always using strong lists that would club down any casual lists. That doesn't mean the overall game was unbalanced or fairly balanced. it means that I placed well in tournaments using strong lists.
It is a well known state of the game that if you aren't fielding a tournament level list, which constitutes a very tiny portion of the game overall, that you will get tore apart and that there needs to be casual level and tournament level of the game, which other games for whatever reason manage to escape having as big an issue with but 40k and whfb/AOS have never seemed to be able to overcome (barring the 6th ed ravening hordes days of whfb)
I re-read my post, and I realize I came across as a huge fuckface. I'm sorry, Aut. Having a rough day irl. I consider glottkin suboptimal outside of a horde army. I bring him to most games because I have put so much work into converting him EXTENSIVELY.
Isnt the "to club a baby seal or not club a baby seal" part of the social contract we all sign up for when we waddle up to the table? If I am at a tournament and bring a casual list because I like the models, or the models in it I painted particularly well or just for funsies.. I need to know I will be facing WAAC armies. WAACs are not bad at a tournament where the point is to win the event.
If I bring a WAAC army to the local game store and ask around for a game and smash someones teeth in in 2-3 rounds.. thats a dick move. There is no need for that and if it prevents my opponent from having an enjoyable experience, then I have failed as an opponent. We all need to ensure our opponents are having a fun time. If we are at a tournament this still stands, but with the underlying expectation that the competition is going to be tough.
I wish events would start seperating the awards though. I REALLY think painting and sportsmanship should be rewarded. It also increases the look and feel of the vent with nicely painted armies. Rather then red team v blue team. I wish events Had the best general, best painted, favorite opponent and best overall awards as a standard. Overall would be a weighted score of paint, battle and sports points. Best sportsmanship would be a popular vote of their FAVORITE opponent at listed on the score sheet of the last round. If you include best death/destruction/order/chaos (or imperial/chaos/xenos - whatever 40k does) it might start to be to many awards. But I think the standard for need to be best general, painted, opponent, and overall to incentivize the four pillars of the hobby (which is my own opinion) of army list design, painting and modelling, being a good/fun opponent and the best combination of those three.
No worries dude. Thanks for the clarification it is appreciated.
What I really really want is for an experience with AOS to be similar to my battletech or saga or middle earth experiences. That being, when I run a narrative casual campaign, and guys and gals show up there aren't super murder lists that I have to either weed out or try to match up with each other.
I'd like the bell curve representing the gulf between casual lists and tournament lists to be a little broader to lessen that chasm.
Part of the issue is as we illustrated right here, what I consider a casual and a tournament list will differ from what my opponent considers a casual or a tournament list.
We have a lot of guys here that consider a casual list to be still tournament viable, just not super optimal. But if I pair them up with a non tournament casual guy, thats a big negative play experience I've just created and we lose campaign players that way.
I'd like to see more painting and sports awards as well. I emphasize both awards in my campaign events.
To clarify, it was not that I lost one game. It was that the best I could do was not be tabled until round 5. There was no point in that game where I had path available to win. And this was not casual v competitive, this was two competitive lists going against each other. It was not good player vs bad player, but two experienced players with a skew in my favor since he had literally never played LoN or Nagash before. It was not just a loss, it was that I lost before we even set up the board.
I did kill other stuff, probably a solid 50 chainrasps and 20 reapers, plus putting about 16 wounds on Nagash. All of that was gone by the end, barring Nagash still had 7 on him.
To clarify a bit more; I am not mad about this, I knew full well what I was getting into. I helped him build the list after all! I am just raising the point that even at solely the competitive level the imbalance is massive, taking casual v competitive out of the picture entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, what was your Nagash player's list anyways? Do you know if he had a reason to bother with skeletons in a Nagash list, or is it just what he had painted?
Well I was at Nova with my suboptimal but pretty commissioned Stormcast (slightly modified vanguard wing). I opted for them over my own painted Night Haunt due to the event scoring. Had a good go of it and lost at least 1 game I shouldn't have but finished 3-3 with 21st in battle and 20th in overall.
That said the field was funny and genuinely affect by several factors. Realm rules mean Nagash had more usefulness than normal. Scoring meant a lot of people probably brought something less than optimal like me because it was finished and pretty. Edition change had a lot to do with that last part I'm pretty sure.
Judging by the lists themselves there the spread is solid. There were quite a few Nagash around and not all did well. There were quite a few Seraphon but they looked mostly like the max out summoning style and so didn't do that well. Daughters of Khaine were murdering a lot of people. But Gutbusters were stomping people and there were some fun other interesting lists.
It's one data point but I liked what I saw for the most part. Liked even more that above tabletop standard painting was the norm in AOS. In 40k I'd have been army showcase with my army. In AoS I was slightly above average.
Oh, and one more thing. I loved Nova's scoring because I feel like people did bring other stuff because of the painting and sports. And the sports score wasn't wasted as quite a few people got hit with it after discussing with other players there.
Not surprised, but disappointed, to see Stormcast so popular. Practically giving away starter stormcast armies and constant updates and powerful rules will probably force a factions popularity. Wonder if some of the factions that got squatted for low sales would fair if they got the same love SC has got.
Another post claimed KO weakness, which I disputed, but this limited sample size suggests that might be the case. I thought they'd be great in a Nagash heavy meta. Can blast him off the table first turn.
The only conclusive evidence i got was that recently a lot of people went out and bought undead armies and that stormcast are still popular to play.
sigmarines will allways be popular no matter how many editions they make of them.
what annoys me is that every1 and their mother are collecting ghosts now they are a feature army. where were they 2 years ago? NH as a subfaction army existed from day 1.....
this has forced me to shelf my own NH indefenitely in order to look for something new. currently my toughts are playing around mono squig force or a dispossessed/ironweld force.
best
Nighthaunt as a subfaction army might have existed from day 1, but now they're a fleshed out army.
With regards to Overlords, the biggest thing they need is the ability for them to fire while embarked upon their ships.
lord_blackfang wrote: A lot of the top lists seem to be spamming behemoths with minimum battleline and no or little in the way of support, any thoughts on that?
Honestly - business as usual. Minimal "core tax" has always been a thing. Since Grey Knights came out in 5th edition 40k, I've found a good number of players I know focus on low model count, and thats one of AOS' design ethos... being able to field an "army" of a handful of models by maxing out on big monsters.
By spamming out big monsters and keeping your model count low, you are able to better sell off the army and buy the new over powered army and get it painted in minimal time.
lord_blackfang wrote: A lot of the top lists seem to be spamming behemoths with minimum battleline and no or little in the way of support, any thoughts on that?
I think that was due to the pack and scenarios. 2 of the 6 missions were scored by heroes, wizards or behemoths and only one had more than 3 objectives.
lord_blackfang wrote: A lot of the top lists seem to be spamming behemoths with minimum battleline and no or little in the way of support, any thoughts on that?
Since GHB1 there has been a skew towards elite being better. Units with strong size-scaling abilities always being exceptions. Nowadays this meta is not at all as strong as it was, but it is still there to a certain extent. Horde unit discount and point changes have alleviated things in a lot of areas. However, as Auticus touched on even in an even playing field people will tend towards elite because it is easier to put the army together and play with it in a practical sense.
I once came up with an awesome Clan Pestilens list and thought "wow I could make this for tournaments and do really well! Wait... no way I am building, painting, and playing with 130 plague monks." Then there is the issue of literally running out of time during games at tournments.
lord_blackfang wrote: A lot of the top lists seem to be spamming behemoths with minimum battleline and no or little in the way of support, any thoughts on that?
I think that was due to the pack and scenarios. 2 of the 6 missions were scored by heroes, wizards or behemoths and only one had more than 3 objectives.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am sure there are plenty who did manage to get a new army together/updated, but I feel that factor is significant enough to call any conclusions off this data into question. Some if these GTs were merely weeks after 2.0 launch, too.
Just to play the devil's advocate on this point, I've seen someone I follow on YT buy, build, and paint 2000 point armies in a month or less to take to an tournament using ITC rules where he placed 2nd. May have been some easy paint jobs, but I've seen it. Not only that, but they had time to make their regular YouTube content as well as buying, building, and painting a brand new 2000 point army.
So, it's not overly difficult for those players out there who are highly competitive (like this guy is) to buy a new army, assemble it, and have it painted in time for a GT or other competitive event within just a couple of weeks to a month... especially depending on the number of models that were brought to the table.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am sure there are plenty who did manage to get a new army together/updated, but I feel that factor is significant enough to call any conclusions off this data into question. Some if these GTs were merely weeks after 2.0 launch, too.
Just to play the devil's advocate on this point, I've seen someone I follow on YT buy, build, and paint 2000 point armies in a month or less to take to an tournament using ITC rules where he placed 2nd. May have been some easy paint jobs, but I've seen it. Not only that, but they had time to make their regular YouTube content as well as buying, building, and painting a brand new 2000 point army.
So, it's not overly difficult for those players out there who are highly competitive (like this guy is) to buy a new army, assemble it, and have it painted in time for a GT or other competitive event within just a couple of weeks to a month... especially depending on the number of models that were brought to the table.
SG
I am sure there are plenty who did manage to get a new army together/updated, but that does not discount it being a significant factor.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I once came up with an awesome Clan Pestilens list and thought "wow I could make this for tournaments and do really well! Wait... no way I am building, painting, and playing with 130 plague monks." Then there is the issue of literally running out of time during games at tournments.
Unless AOS is seriously slower than the "reroll by the bucketloads and FNP forcing rolling 2-3 dice at a time for dozens of guys" 40k movement trays should make time less of issue. I can play at least 234 model ork horde in 3h.
Painting I hear you having just recently painted 79 grots to add to 20 I already had. And I'm perfectionist enough to do all with edge highlighting. Albeit still just 4 stages at most but still. Plus eyes and nails...
Small elite armies are rather practical but looks silly for me. Fantasy should be about ranked battles. Not few individuals running around. Wish warmaster was still around(and high elves would be suitably nerfed).
Abilities depending but a rough average of 3 attacks each 4+/4+ re-roll all hits and wounds but really the pile-ins are what eats time, at least for me. 40k is a lot more forgiving with melee range, AoS each weapon has a (usually 1") range so proper positioning can make a big difference in the number of models getting to attack, doubly so on a unit with 25mm bases. This is fun tactically in a general sense but when scaled up can get very time consuming.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I once came up with an awesome Clan Pestilens list and thought "wow I could make this for tournaments and do really well! Wait... no way I am building, painting, and playing with 130 plague monks." Then there is the issue of literally running out of time during games at tournments.
This is where you look up tips on Speed/Fast Painting. I am somewhat in the same boat. I'm trying to paint Death Guard with a wife and a two year old son. I can choose to paint to what I consider to be above tabletop and enjoy the hobby or choose to paint to just at tabletop and enjoy playing the game. I'm choosing the former as my closest LGS is 45 minutes away.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I once came up with an awesome Clan Pestilens list and thought "wow I could make this for tournaments and do really well! Wait... no way I am building, painting, and playing with 130 plague monks." Then there is the issue of literally running out of time during games at tournments.
This is where you look up tips on Speed/Fast Painting. I am somewhat in the same boat. I'm trying to paint Death Guard with a wife and a two year old son. I can choose to paint to what I consider to be above tabletop and enjoy the hobby or choose to paint to just at tabletop and enjoy playing the game. I'm choosing the former as my closest LGS is 45 minutes away.
Guys is it worth to start something like SCE right now, assuming they are the cheapest army to build, or should one rather wait for the next big yearly FAQ and start then?
Also is there something like a safe army in AoS, something like eldar, but cheap, that is always good no matter what edition or points being played?
SCE are exactly what you are looking for. They have been strong on average (and with several downright overpowered options) since the first GHB and there are no indications that is going to change.
Stormcast are one of the best overall armies in the game. With several downright OP combos and undercost units to choose from.
Automatically Appended Next Post: General topic: I have been meaning to write a battle report with my nurgle forces for the past few months but ... the last fifteen or so of my games have ended by turn 2 or 3 with a double turn ending the game. Last night was pretty awful for my opponent. A turn 2 double turn pretty much ended the game there.
I started just going second and never taking the double. I flat-out tell my opponent that if they want to roll we can but I am just going to alternate even if it means I lose. That said with my core group of buds we have always just alternated so it thankfully does not come up that often.
NinthMusketeer wrote: SCE are exactly what you are looking for. They have been strong on average (and with several downright overpowered options) since the first GHB and there are no indications that is going to change.
I am a little worried because of three things. I go burned by w40 real bad, and I know I will never have the money to buy stuff like stardrakes etc but what really scares me are the nerfs , compering to w40k few people play AOS, and those that do told me horror stories about their whole armies being made illegal or bad by GW. With the money I can save up, I just can't afford to buy 1000-1250pts of stuff only for it to be made bad within a few months. I don't know much about AOS other the it having same Chaos Gods.
Also can someone explain to me the difference between AOS and nine age?
There are a huge number of Stormcast models that are not OP and are almost certainly not getting a nerf. Sacrosanct (the newest stuff) could see some significant point changes, as could Dracoth cavalry (mostly just fulminators), but the rest of the army are unlikely to see enough point changes to invalidate a list's viability unless you are seriously spamming one unit. So if you want to avoid potentially significant changes I would stay away from:
-Sequitors
-Evocators
-Fulminators
-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows
-More than 1-2 of any specific hero
-More than 10 Paladins (Retributors, Protectors, Devestators)
-Building around a certain battalion. SCE have seen more squatted and retooled battalions than most battletomes have in the first place.
Do that and any changes you encounter are not going to make an army build non-viable.
9th age is a fan written fantasy game system based on the old whfb system but has become really its own system with little resemblance of the old.
9th age is block style combat. AOS is skirmish style combat where maneuver and battlefield management are minor things to list building and combo chaining.
9th Age as a fan system means there is no official support and no real official models for it. Thats both a plus and a negative.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There are a huge number of Stormcast models that are not OP and are almost certainly not getting a nerf. Sacrosanct (the newest stuff) could see some significant point changes, as could Dracoth cavalry (mostly just fulminators), but the rest of the army are unlikely to see enough point changes to invalidate a list's viability unless you are seriously spamming one unit. So if you want to avoid potentially significant changes I would stay away from:
-Sequitors
-Evocators
-Fulminators
-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows
-More than 1-2 of any specific hero
-More than 10 Paladins (Retributors, Protectors, Devestators)
-Building around a certain battalion. SCE have seen more squatted and retooled battalions than most battletomes have in the first place.
Do that and any changes you encounter are not going to make an army build non-viable.
I was told that the heros, sequitors and evocators and the fulminators/stardrake are the only good things about storm eternals right now. If that stuff is ment to be nerfed, then it is a problem for me. I guess AoS is not for me then. Because I guess there is no good army that costs around 200-250$ for AOS right now, right ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: 9th age is a fan written fantasy game system based on the old whfb system but has become really its own system with little resemblance of the old.
9th age is block style combat. AOS is skirmish style combat where maneuver and battlefield management are minor things to list building and combo chaining.
9th Age as a fan system means there is no official support and no real official models for it. Thats both a plus and a negative.
ok, thanks. If it is not official, am not really interested.
Yes, if you are just chasing the latest broken army for some easy wins, you will be in for a disappointment because, thankfully, GW is using generals handbook to reign in OP models. As other posters pointed out however, SCE are strong, and have been strong for the entirety of the game.
Well I wasn't thinking about getting a broken army, plus doesn't seem like SCE are winning all the events. I just wondered if there are safe armies in AOS, because w40k is very unfun for me right now. I can get around 200-250$ of stuff, but the next batch of money I can realisticly get is going to be next summer, and from what I was told summer is when the reset happens. And I really want to avoid buying in to bad stuff, I already lost a lot of money on w40k. Guys here told me that their armies, tzeench demons, sce, fire dwarfs etc got nerfed in to oblivion and that either their whole collections are not worth running or they are left with 1-2 hero, of the high price kind, and have to buy in to new models. I was asking here because the SCE players seem very salty around here, all of them say they spent a lot of money on their armies , and that with the new update all the new stuff is way better then stuff they bought. I don't know what the difference is, that is why I was asking for another opinion.
I asked about the nine age, because some guys playing it talked to me after I talked to the people that play AOS. But from what I researched it is not only unofficial, but also the starting army costs like 900$ with multiple big kits required and they don't have stormcast in the game.
There is a difference between playing Grand Tournament-level AOS, normal tournament AOS, and casual play.
Stormcast are not winning all of the GTs no. They are placing consistently and winning a lot of normal tournaments, and in casual play can be absolute wrecking balls though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There are a huge number of Stormcast models that are not OP and are almost certainly not getting a nerf. Sacrosanct (the newest stuff) could see some significant point changes, as could Dracoth cavalry (mostly just fulminators), but the rest of the army are unlikely to see enough point changes to invalidate a list's viability unless you are seriously spamming one unit. So if you want to avoid potentially significant changes I would stay away from:
-Sequitors
-Evocators
-Fulminators
-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows
-More than 1-2 of any specific hero
-More than 10 Paladins (Retributors, Protectors, Devestators)
-Building around a certain battalion. SCE have seen more squatted and retooled battalions than most battletomes have in the first place.
Do that and any changes you encounter are not going to make an army build non-viable.
I was told that the heros, sequitors and evocators and the fulminators/stardrake are the only good things about storm eternals right now. If that stuff is ment to be nerfed, then it is a problem for me.
For a tournament, sure. But tournaments in AoS are cheese or lose; fundamentally if something in AoS is doing well at tournaments it needs a nerf, and these days has decent odds of getting one. However the vast majority of games are not tournament-tier and in that environment SCE are good almost across the board.
Someone I follow on social media had a great little 'Tournament Checklist' for AoS.
How to write an #AoS army list;
- Pick a fighty hero on a monster.
- Add 3 of it to your list.
- Pick a battleline unit.
- Add 3+ of it to your list.
- Ally in a wizard.
It might seem snarky...but it definitely seems to be the way tournament lists go from what I've seen.
Karol wrote: Well I wasn't thinking about getting a broken army, plus doesn't seem like SCE are winning all the events. I just wondered if there are safe armies in AOS, because w40k is very unfun for me right now. I can get around 200-250$ of stuff, but the next batch of money I can realisticly get is going to be next summer, and from what I was told summer is when the reset happens. And I really want to avoid buying in to bad stuff, I already lost a lot of money on w40k. Guys here told me that their armies, tzeench demons, sce, fire dwarfs etc got nerfed in to oblivion and that either their whole collections are not worth running or they are left with 1-2 hero, of the high price kind, and have to buy in to new models. I was asking here because the SCE players seem very salty around here, all of them say they spent a lot of money on their armies , and that with the new update all the new stuff is way better then stuff they bought. I don't know what the difference is, that is why I was asking for another opinion.
The new Stormcast stuff is better than the old stuff; to elaborate some of it is on par while certain units (Sequitors, Evocators) are massively stronger in every way. That is why they are heading for a nerf. The older SCE stuff was not nerfed and has not gotten worse, so the salt may simply be anger over the new stuff being such a slap in the face.
Tzeentch did get nerfed pretty hard. They deserved it, was probably the most overpowered army in the game. Still performs just fine in a regular setting and I have seen at least one tournament player still get decent results out of them (he is very skilled with the army).
Fyreslayers just got one OP option nerfed afaik and are otherwise fine. They are not tournament viable but they are a relatively balanced army. I cannot state enough that an AoS army which does well at tournaments is not balanced and needs a nerf.
Ok that explain it a bit. If I bought an army and 6 months later GW would make most of the options in it much weaker then the new stuff, I would be salty too.
Thanks guys, I looked in to the stuff and it looks like almost every army includes either 10+boxs of high cost infantry or a few more units, but a high cost monster or two. Thought that maybe AOS was cheaper then w40k. Althought it does seem cheaper then nine age.
Its frustratingly easy to start as SCE since the dawn of AoS.
1) Find a friend who wants to play as Night Haunt (or Khorne a year+ ago)
2) Buy Soul wars ($160)
3) Buy Tempest of Souls ($80)
4) Friend does same.
5) Trade for NH stuff for SCE stuff.
I fail at the find a friend part The number of people playing AOS is much smaller here then those playing w40k. Don't know why, I know there were a lot of Fantasy players at least from the number of armies being sold on the polish second hand market and the adds posted at my store by people selling their armies.
Is there something like AOS version of kill team? I know there is Shadespir, but it seems like a mix of a card game and something else, plus there is a ton of set of cards to get for a single deck.
AOS in my town is strange, small group of people that play against each other and then go to tournaments in bigger cities, two or three times as many people playing nine age. And both groups hate each other more then any group playing at the store. To a point of not talking at all. Makes it hard to get any credible info, because each time you ask anyone about anything, people from the other group come and tell you why the advice is wrong or bad.
There is AOS skirmish and AOS Path to Glory. Path to glory is the closest to kill team but they are neither of them very detailed.
Path to Glory had its own book, and the current battletomes have path to glory progression charts. The newest GHB also has the current path to glory progression charts for armies without books.
I'd say Shadespire is the AoS version Kill team, and imho, GWs best product. The teams are set so there's no list building per say, but you do have to build a deck with them. All cards needed are in the box with the minis. Try hards will get all sets just for the one card they might want in their deck for optimization (inherit weakness of the system)
I played a skirmish campaign, and it was a fun way to take something like a Get Started box and get some fun games while painting them up and accruing more models for bigger games. but the rules and scenarios were a bit lacking.
Trying a Path for Glory campaign starting soon. Seems like a good place to go after Skirmish campaign, slightly larger model count, progressively bigger as the games goes on.
Skirmish in my eyes is just very sloppy. Even in an open/narrative sense there are too many models that break game balance. A grundstock thunderer champion with drillbill has the ability that whenever he gets charged on a 2+ that unit takes a mortal wound. When every model is its own unit that means he can solo entire warbands on his own if they do not have shooting. A plague monk champion with book does a once per game roll a dice for each unit within 13" on a 4+ they take a mortal (only hits Nurgle on 6+) which again causes issues when every model is its own unit. Models with multiple shooting attacks are often really strong since they can put each one towards a different model and eliminate any overkill risk. Models that rely on size-scaling abilities lose their flavor entirely.
Path to Glory on the other hand is awesome. Tons and tons of fun. It has its rough spots like a power skew towards the stronger champions and being unable to combine units to raise them beyond the original size, but a few house rules go a long way. Bigger issues would be that the Legions of Nagash charts need to be reworked entirely for being on a wholly higher power level than the others, and certain champions needing to be banned outright for simply being too strong (Ironclad, Stardrake, Slann) but again this is something that can be worked around. The core concept and structure is well done and simply very fun.
The Path to Glory also eliminates battle line requirements. I want to try it, simply because I think a small campaign on the side, played with models that are in essence "your guys" would also encourage players to paint them. Doesn't help that we have a BCR player who puts his stonehorn on the field...
Does anyone have a homemade scenarios for the format?
Is there khorn mortal army in a better state then SCE, and by that I mean more builds or cheaper, but still effective, I saw some really nice looking blood warriors online, but here no one plays khorn, and I have no one to ask about the army.
Would an army based around blood warriors and blood warriors on juggernoughts be valid. Or are demons needed to play the faction?
Karol wrote: Is there khorn mortal army in a better state then SCE, and by that I mean more builds or cheaper, but still effective, I saw some really nice looking blood warriors online, but here no one plays khorn, and I have no one to ask about the army.
Would an army based around blood warriors and blood warriors on juggernoughts be valid. Or are demons needed to play the faction?
I do think some of them could use a re-work but they seem reasonable overall. The one where you need to control more objectives than the opponent in particular seems redundant since that is the point of so many scenarios anyways.
I like the one which involves your best hero getting killed.
A few seem like automatic points for certain factions. I would imagine if I was a TO trying to use these in my tournament, I'd have to limit a couple just to keep things fair.
GillyFars wrote: Does anyone have any tips for packaging prosecutors so that their wings don't get bent?
I sprung for the battlefoam. It does a fairly decent job of protecting the 3 prosecutors I wound up keeping.
Honestly, the design is so fragile that it's hard to keep the wings from loosing quills and bits even with custom-made foam.
I hate prosecutors and the new jump pack primaris for their flimsy construction.
Cool concept for a display piece but craptastic design for game pieces.
Goblins are likely the next army to be given more care. Would anyone want to make a guess what to expect, either in the form of mechanics or new models?
When it comes to some of the super fragile new flying units I think GW is showing off just a bit too much for their own good - Khinari are another that loook fantastic but darn they wobble even if you just look at them funny!
I think for such fragile models the best approach if foam isn't working is to use foam AND magnets. a metal plate underneath and then a magnet in the base to secure the model and then a foam insert/walls glued down to the metal sheet to protect the extremities during transport. That way the magnet keeps the model mostly static and the foam helps absorb any bumps blows and bounces - plus it stops the models impacting each other and dangling/damaging each other that way.
I think plastic squig hoppers (dual build with a different equipment option) and herds is a given. Also basically printing money.
I've been waiting for plastic squigs herds/hoppers for nearly a decade now (my first army was a Skull Pass-based NG force). I just bought Zarbag's Gits a few weeks ago (my first purchase from GW in probably ~6 years) - and if they continue the trend of not screwing up Night Goblins with some dumb AOS design twist I'd be all over plastic squig units. Add in some sort of Night Goblin artillery and I'd be a very happy camper and could finally get back to work on my first army!
Thing is Ngobs have always been unique and over-the-top, which is what people love about them, so I do not think there is anything to worry about; they fit the AoS design aesthetic perfectly already.
Overread wrote: When it comes to some of the super fragile new flying units I think GW is showing off just a bit too much for their own good - Khinari are another that loook fantastic but darn they wobble even if you just look at them funny!
I think for such fragile models the best approach if foam isn't working is to use foam AND magnets. a metal plate underneath and then a magnet in the base to secure the model and then a foam insert/walls glued down to the metal sheet to protect the extremities during transport. That way the magnet keeps the model mostly static and the foam helps absorb any bumps blows and bounces - plus it stops the models impacting each other and dangling/damaging each other that way.
Just magnets is enough, and much better than using foam for virtually everything. The only time I would recommend foam are the giant + tall flying models that use long/thin pieces to connect to the base. While magnets will prevent any movement during transport, those models might literally snap at the base connection as a result of being unable to move. I would use foam for models like Arkhan, and magnets for everything else. While stuff like Khinari are flying + thin connectors, they generally just don't have enough mass to snap themselves off a base when using magnets.
P.S. Don't use too many magnets, overdoing it will just result in you pulling models off the base as you try to remove them.
I’m excitedly waiting to see what they do with the Moonclan too. I’m guessing that there will be a new terrain peice and endless spells at least. But I’m really hoping that the old metal squigs and characters get replaced. The Moonclan have the potential to be some of the maddest models yet, and that’s not being realised with those ancient metals. At least the plastic rank and file troops are holding up nicely. And Nightvault shows what they’re capable of. I love the new squigs, and the armoured ‘dog handler’ look of the squig herder too.
GillyFars wrote: I’m not gonna get kicked to a different thread for asking painting questions am I?
Possibly not, but then again if its "how can I paint this" then you might find you get more and better replies in your own thread than in a general thread which can run off the rails very fast into a totally separate subject.
I’m super new to aos and I was just wondering about commission painting
This might be a stupid question but how likely is it that a highly skilled artist would be able to paint an army for me to the quality of pieces seen on the web store?
There are loads of skilled art firms and people out there, somebetter than the GW webstore displays. Best thing would be to start your own thread to ask around for good names of such people. You might also want to note what state you're in in the USA (saves on shipping if you're not sending it halfway across the USA)
Something I've noticed with the 2nd edition battletome releases is a general improvement in fluff quality and quantity. They are tossing in extra details beyond what is strictly related to the battlefield (like how a blightking becomes a pusgoyle, for example) and I love it. The recent gloomspite battletome has little snippets of different fungi and their uses scattered around, which is great. Any interesting notes anyone has picked up?
Something I noted that was heavily hinted in the Stormcast battletome and all but explicitly confirmed by the Soul Wars novel is that Balthazar Gelt is a Lord-Arcanum now. Also from Soul Wars we have that souls which were undead can be made into Stormcast, and that 'Deathcast Eternals' are something Nagash can make.
I think now that AoS is a bit stronger as a setting and GW has started to put some limits, maps, times and structure to it its let the creative people be a bit more free to work with it.
One issue with a "totally anything its all infinite" setting is that writers get totally lost and thus avoid writing anything because its too easy to heavily conflict with another. With a more s tructured setting its much easier to get everyone on board and then you can get all those little tidbits of story and lore established.
Yep, the next thing I hope they start to do is slow down the advance of years and establish a proper time line. Easing off the fast growth and chagne of the start of the Era with a slower period so that we can see kingdoms and empires grow; see characters (esp mortal ones) establish themselves and such. Get a sense of gravity of the setting and how things change over time.
That leaves GW and the writers a nice few hundred years post Realmgate Wars to do all kinds of random things without any timeline; and then a solid timeline that starts to let things gain a sense of place and importance. Right now in some stories its hard to get a feel for how important a battle or a city or a setting is because we've no real place in time and space to place them in the setting. We've no idea if skaven taking a city is a big event, a small part of a greater war; an oddity; a huge defeat or what.
I view the first year or so of the game as only semi-canon. The Realmgate Wars and Godbeasts campaign are like a history book you would find in a library in Hammerhal. Some of it is accurate, some is exaggerated, and some is outright false (and I hope they leave it ambiguous as to which is which). Those are the stories the civilized cultures tell of how Sigmar retook the Mortal Realms. To me, the timeline of the game really started with the Season of War and the founding of the Free Cities.
The lore etc is something I am ok with. I liked the art in the goblin book. I thought it was pretty evocative. But I am a fan of the 80s heavy metal vibe so that speaks to me.
My hope is for a slaves to darkness book that is not a wet noodle so that I can play a force that I enjoy without getting my face rubbed in pooh because I chose the wrong army to like, as well as for the design team to really clean up the more severe balance issues and not introduce any new ones.
Particularly issues that were very easy to spot a few seconds after opening a certain new stormcast book...
folks, help me clarify something here about skirmish.
with the new rules in WD of januar, it gives you the way to calculate the renown.
does this mean that the old model limitations is gone and i can use any model aslong as it has a point cost profile?
Not super-new, there is a fan-addition to the original skirmish rules on the Grand Alliance forums called Forgotten Heroes that had every AoS model that was 30 renown (the old version of renown) or less in one big army list document, including things like Gyrocoptors, etc.
They were filling a gap and doing a great job of it, fortunately they no longer need to. On that point in particular at least. There are other areas where I'm sure their addition will be handy if not outright necessary to make things reasonable.
So on a totally different note, even going back to fantasy it has always bugged me that lances are still useable after the charge as if they are somehow feasible as a combat weapon. In some cases I can see it, like monster riders having room to stab or chaos knights just hacking with them, but stuff like brettonians were... Stabbing the third rank or something? So now we come to boingrot bounders, which obviously don't jave the strength, reach, or weapon to do meaningful damage after the charge... But then it occurred to me that the squig could jump straight up and the grot points the lance down in a sort of dive bomb maneuver, which is a funny mental image I wanted to share.
Surely the purpose of the spear isn't to attack but to guide the squig. You get that squig leaping super high at the end of the charge; leaping over the rows of pikes and spears against it; as it twists and turns falling through the skies the goblin sweeps the spear in the air like a rudder; guiding the gnashing maw of the squig down to bite atop the pointlessly helmed (and only possibly pointed) enemies below.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So on a totally different note, even going back to fantasy it has always bugged me that lances are still useable after the charge as if they are somehow feasible as a combat weapon. In some cases I can see it, like monster riders having room to stab or chaos knights just hacking with them, but stuff like brettonians were... Stabbing the third rank or something? So now we come to boingrot bounders, which obviously don't jave the strength, reach, or weapon to do meaningful damage after the charge... But then it occurred to me that the squig could jump straight up and the grot points the lance down in a sort of dive bomb maneuver, which is a funny mental image I wanted to share.
You don't necessarily have to grab a spear at the end. I guess theoretically you could do the same with a lance? I always just kind of assumed that was an abstraction for the sake of gameplay. It'd be annoying if you had to cycle-charge your cavalry every turn. I guess this is why most polearm cavalry is less effective after the charge.
Oh I know it's for game mechanic reasons, just a pet peeve I guess?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Surely the purpose of the spear isn't to attack but to guide the squig. You get that squig leaping super high at the end of the charge; leaping over the rows of pikes and spears against it; as it twists and turns falling through the skies the goblin sweeps the spear in the air like a rudder; guiding the gnashing maw of the squig down to bite atop the pointlessly helmed (and only possibly pointed) enemies below.
Oh, it seems I was mistaken. Your explanation is much better.
Knight wrote: When do you think we're going to see the release of the Carrion Empire?
What special terrain or endless spells would you like to see for FEC and Skaven?
When is very hard to say, don't forget genestealers had their duel kit released last year and Slaanesh and Khorne had one released recently and neither of them has had a major Battletome update either.
That said I'd wager we'll see Cultists eat up two to three weeks and then we might see the new Flesheater and Skaven duel boxed set. However the major Battletomes might not come until mid-year (since there's Slaanesh, possibly Khorne to come first - not to mention whatever from 40K and such).
As for ideas Skavens building could be one of many possibilities.
1) A Tunnel - which might be in two parts - an entrance and exit or just one (possibly entrance). Letting them get a lot more sneaky deployments onto the table. That said if they keep warp grinders they've already got this ability so its kind of repeating it.
2) A Breeding midden - or at least a midden or rats that might generate rat swarms/giant rats on a large scale. A den of rats that erupts and charges forth in a rabid rage of skaven furiosity
Tunnel entrances would be fitting, however, I'd like to see GW showing a bit more creativity. Mostly because I'd like to see the terrain to be more unique rather than a faction version of a hole from where units are spawned. I'm not denying that it wouldn't fit the Skaven.
Warpstone deposit would be cool. No idea what it could do mechanically but the idea feels cool.
For endless spells, I've been thinking on something like vermintide (a swarm of rats that return slain models or do mortal wounds to the enemy) and giant sentient warp storm, perhaps something like "black hunger" in the form of a giant rodent's head that has an aura that increases the damage output but also damages nearby skaven units that are not in close combat.
A Gnawhole could always be one of their versions of an Endless Spell? While cliche, it's pretty signature to the Skaven of AoS. Skaven mage raises his hands and it rumbles up out of the earth and begins disgorging Skaven.
The terrain piece could be a gnawhole; not a hole in the ground but a hole in reality. Having tunnel (or tunnel derivative) features that are spawned during the game rather than set up beforehand would be really cool. Something other than 'deploy this before the battle, it buffs stuff nearby' would be welcome for me.
Vermintide is a given for endless spells, as is some sort of warp-lightning based spell.
Knight wrote: Warpstone deposit would be cool. No idea what it could do mechanically but the idea feels cool.
-Give bonuses to nearby Skaven Casters, with increased casting bonus/potency depending on how much they snack on, with risks involved.
-Give Nearby Skaven units a Frenzy type bonus, as they fight all the harder near their cultures “lifeblood”, if you will.
-A mechanic like the Herdstone that gradually spreads across the battlefield.
What is Warpstone in the new setting? In the old setting it was chunks of the moon of magic, right? Congealed solid magic raining down on the Old World.
Da Boss wrote: And what is realmstone? Is it just the rock that realms are made out of?
It's a magical substance that coalesces from the raw elemental magic at the edges of the Realmspheres. It takes a different form in each Realm; for instance Shyishian Realmstone is fine grains of black sand that each represent a single mortal soul. Nagash made his undead armies gather all of it from the edge of Shyish and pile it in the centre which is what caused the Necroquake as the magical polarity of the Realm was inverted.
So back in WHFB magic in it's raw form was corrupting and mutative, the eight winds of magic even came from the realm of chaos (the eight-pointed star was the eight winds flowing out from the northern pole where the realm of chaos intersected with the world). Warpstone was congealed magic, the moon was a huge blob of warpstone but the material existed elsewhere as well.
In AoS the nature of magic has changed, with the eight winds taking on existences of their own. Realmstone is essentially the same as warpstone, just the magic it is made of is different.
Skipping the boxed set, I’ll wait for the characters to be solo released, but I’m getting all the tokens, terrain, spells. Its fun to paint up such different stuff. And the battletomes, I’m a completionist.
I am super excited for an updated Flesh-Eater Courts tome. That is my primary army and I adore their fluff but they are pretty awful in the game.
I doubt they will get new models, although a repurposed Corpse Cart might be interesting and thematic (the necromancerish looking guy on it looks suitably ghoulish), and there is artwork that shows a corpse cart looking thing pulled by some giant monster as well as ghouls with banners. However, it seems like Deadwalkers are the only remaining Death faction that isn't part of something else, so it could make sense to roll them into FEC and be done with all of Death as well as give FEC more variety.
It seems like the Archregent gets to choose what he summons; the Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon summons courtiers, the Ghoul King on Terrorgheist summons Horrors/Flayers (possibly renamed to REVENANT?) and the Ghoul King on foot summons Ghouls (possibly SERFS), so the Archregent being the "Ghoul Emperor" can choose any of the three. Which, if Majestic Horror remains as it is, opens up the possibility to summon two different ones.
I fully expect a Battletome wave. AoS needs it more than 40K does honestly; the Index alone and the long stable history of 40K cemented most forces as existing. AoS at its launch killed off two whole factions and left many fragmented and bitty. Since then its been a lot of confusion over what would stay and what would go and even, form what stays, what nature it would stay as.
Pestilens Battletome suggested Skaven, at least early on, were going to get separate Tombs for each Clan. Now the new Battletome comfirms that not to be the case and that they will all be reunited as a single army. It's a fantastic turn of events for Skaven and honestly puts them right back where they are best; with a full model line; a diverse army with multiple options and, for the first time, a chance to run either pure clans or multiclans without penalties.
Under the previous system you had to ally in anything that wasn't from your Clan - meaning most Skaven clans didn't have mainstays like clan rats. Creating a really odd series of situations and a big need for a lot of models to flesh out each one into a proper working army. This new tome resolves that matter.
Plus it means if GW releases 1 new model for Clan Skyre its not just limited to them; any Clan can make use of it pretty much. It cuts down a lot of release pressure when all your skaven players are pretty much happy for a new model; rather than only 1/5th of them who can use it because they collect the right clan that the model comes from.
I agree with Overread. Since 40k books are done - along with the revenues they brought - it would be a good time to work on the AoS books to keep that money ticking in. Especially since they can now work in 2.0 versions of those books after Soul Wars was released.
I’d rather they ‘tidy up’ as many existing factions as they can before making new new stuff. Could create a lot more confidence in the game. Wanderers, Dispossessed, Gutbusters, Fyreslayers, Bonesplittaz, Ironjawz, all those types of forces.
auticus wrote: It is my hope that they do in fact bring all of the other factions up to speed this year.
Fingers crossed! Though I would say the greater importance is updating factions without a Battletome. At least factions that have a tome have a solid future with AoS and players can expect new content and updates. Those factions/subfactions without one are still in the grey areas where their players don't know if they are going to get a new tome or if they are going to be combined up or squatted or whatever. Those are the factions to "fix" first so that new players can leap on in with them. Though yes alongside updated tomes are important too - esp since as time goes on new players will discourage new gamers from getting the "soon to be updated" tomes (esp since they are just collections of Warscrolls that GW makes free access of right now)
I feel that regardless of battletome or not, that factions that are left down in the lower tier of play harms the community as a whole because it drives off people that don't want to play jobber to someone else based on the army that they happen to love having subpar rules while the army that the other guy has happens to be an adepticon / lvo dream.
I'm betting Ironjawz will get wrapped together with Greenskinz for a generic Orruk battletome. Bonesplittaz not so sure because they already have a pretty well fleshed allegiance that works fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I feel that regardless of battletome or not, that factions that are left down in the lower tier of play harms the community as a whole because it drives off people that don't want to play jobber to someone else based on the army that they happen to love having subpar rules while the army that the other guy has happens to be an adepticon / lvo dream.
This. People like to have their army at least be viable. I completely feel that some of the allegiances with really limited selection should be given very strong allegiance abilities to compensate. Like the Soulblight allegiance; what if they let invocation heal blood knights and vargheists? It's strong, but it's letting them use an ability that is otherwise neutered by the selection of targets within allegiance (fell bats and bat swarms). Maybe give d3 healing from the hunger too. It makes their soulblight characters really strong but that's all they have and it hurts them.
auticus wrote: I feel that regardless of battletome or not, that factions that are left down in the lower tier of play harms the community as a whole because it drives off people that don't want to play jobber to someone else based on the army that they happen to love having subpar rules while the army that the other guy has happens to be an adepticon / lvo dream.
As a KO player, I feel like a jobber a lot of the time. Ironjawz probably feel the same way. So again, they should really sort out what already exists first before making anything new.
Getting Battletomes out for the GHB books should be relatively easy. Take the Dispossessed for example. Using what they’ve done before as a standard, give them a book, a terrain feature, a new character model (in lieu of endless spells), return all their artillery and war machines to them, and rebox the warriors/thunderers to have 20 models and hey presto, the benchmark duardin are safely secured in the game for good. The GHB rules are perfectly fine, just add a few extra artefacts, and this army would be 100% plastic and have 18 different unit options when you factor in the wargear options.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You KNOW they would get 'endless runes' don't even try to wriggle out of that one.
I wouldn’t be mad if they dropped the whole ‘Dawrves don’t do magic’ trope that was a staple of WHFB Dwarves, barring the Chaos types and gave Fyreslayers a wizard. Its a brave new world, change things up, GW!
Make the Runemaster a wizard, he’s probably the biggest gak character on the roster. The Battlesmith and Runesmiter can be the priests.
Do you guys think Free Peoples would get a tome and a terrain piece? Or do you reckon they’ll be rounded up in this year’s GHB again, just with the steam tank and mages and such?
Mini cogfort model that can be assembled as a walking tower unit or just a tower terrain and a walking platform unit. Right after Battletome: Firebellies.
Tiberius501 wrote: Do you guys think Free Peoples would get a tome and a terrain piece? Or do you reckon they’ll be rounded up in this year’s GHB again, just with the steam tank and mages and such?
It's impossible to say really.
We know that Slaanesh has a release later this year at some point and its very likely that Dark Oath/Slaves to Darkness will get one as well as GW has teased that faction for quite a long while now. Free Peoples might well be on the cards this year, I just feel that GW is at present cleaning up Grand Alliances which are not just Order.
I would just love it if they would finish releasing battletomes for all the stuff they are going to keep supporting and consolidate what they can. I think Age of Sigmar is in a nice place that just requires fixing some of the existing battletomes and then cleaning up the model line in regards to rules.
Agreed and once that is done AoS will likely gain quite a lot in popularity. The Christmas clean up of the webstore has been a big help on its own in cleaning things up and making most forces look far more sensible. The only outlier is the Aelves block in Order.
Making certain what is going and what is staying will only improve things; drawing back more old players and getting newer ones into the game much more easily because they'll be able to easily see how to field an army. Right now even those armies that have rules in the Generals handbook don't have it displayed in their store segment.
I really think this year is going to be a big one for new and updated Battletomes for AoS.
I am writing a Kingmaker expansion for AOS for our fall event this year. We have right now 28 players stating their intention to play. It is my hope that the power level is more evenly balanced by then and that I don't have to use as many house rules to keep some of the listbuilding I-Win buttons out.
However with 28 people expressing interest in playing, that means that those rules like the sudden death victory condition we gave for excessive mortal wounds or excessive summoning were positively received.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You KNOW they would get 'endless runes' don't even try to wriggle out of that one.
Sidenote: Would 100% jump on a Duardin fortification terrain piece. Don't even care if it's becoming an overused gimmick at this point.
During the last round of them asking for suggestions, I submitted that Kharadron Overlords should be able to use the Ironclad and Frigate with the "garrison" rules for embarked models.
Fingers crossed they go with that...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I agree with Overread. Since 40k books are done - along with the revenues they brought - it would be a good time to work on the AoS books to keep that money ticking in. Especially since they can now work in 2.0 versions of those books after Soul Wars was released.
As much as I want to say that "AoS needs ALL THE BOOKS!!11!" I think it's important to note that 40k suffers from a similar issue as AoS has:
Older books are at a fairly large disadvantage in terms of smallish things relating to the design philosophies shifting.
I just came back from a two day AoS event, and it was great fun, but it definitely proved to me that the game is not balanced. At all. If you don’t have massive mortal wound output, a mortal wound cancelling save, summoning and automatic healing, don’t bother playing. Which is a shame really.
Thats what I have been saying for the past 3 years.
Which is why if I want to have events I have to plug in components that limit mortal wound spam, summoning spam, and alpha strike.
Otherwise don't bother showing up if you aren't going to be doing those things. It can certainly be fun but really no one enjoys jobbing out to their peers by virtue of loving models that have bad rules.
The first preview for Carrion Empire is up on Warhammer community. FEC looking to be pretty strong, the Ghoul Emperor has a spell that can give d3 attacks to a unit and his summon is your choice of a courtier, knights (horrors/flayers) or serfs (ghouls). Which means if Majestic Horror remains the same you could double summon that.
I still wish for some more variety, FEC has like 3 main units and that's it, the rest are heroes or monsters, but this does seem to be making them pretty strong in a horde meta. Depending on what changes that means ghouls could get up to 6 attacks (2 base, +1 for having 20+ models, +1-3 for Ferocious Hunger) and maybe even more (if the Ghoul King on foot's spell still exists that's another +1, and if the Crypt Ghast courtier kills something that's another +1)
NinthMusketeer wrote: You KNOW they would get 'endless runes' don't even try to wriggle out of that one.
I wouldn’t be mad if they dropped the whole ‘Dawrves don’t do magic’ trope that was a staple of WHFB Dwarves, barring the Chaos types and gave Fyreslayers a wizard. Its a brave new world, change things up, GW!
Make the Runemaster a wizard, he’s probably the biggest gak character on the roster. The Battlesmith and Runesmiter can be the priests.
Naw, WHFB Dwarves have been distinctly anti-magic since forever, and I would be surprised it GW steered away from that.
Now, alchemy, science, and an archimedes type character who throws out contraptions that function in the same way? Yea boi!
At that profile and with the ability to boost to 2d6 damage, on the bell curve of all units he is worth between 130 and 160 points to keep him in line.
Giviing him re-rolls and/or making him cheap would both be as bad as the current evocator issue, among others. It would provide an obvious spam-bot that you'd take as many as you could to do heinous amounts of damage, with the ability to say "well yeah but if i roll a 1 i'll lose one of my spam bots"
auticus wrote: Thats what I have been saying for the past 3 years.
Which is why if I want to have events I have to plug in components that limit mortal wound spam, summoning spam, and alpha strike.
Otherwise don't bother showing up if you aren't going to be doing those things. It can certainly be fun but really no one enjoys jobbing out to their peers by virtue of loving models that have bad rules.
Damn straight. As a KO player, I've been nothing but a jobber for over a year now.
auticus wrote: Giviing him re-rolls and/or making him cheap would both be as bad as the current evocator issue, among others. It would provide an obvious spam-bot that you'd take as many as you could to do heinous amounts of damage, with the ability to say "well yeah but if i roll a 1 i'll lose one of my spam bots"
To clarify, I didn't mean that the should have a re-roll as a default ability. I am perfectly (spoiled) fine as having another hero or spell that would allow a re-roll, similar to Knight Azyros which I love taking in my SCE army. I do hope there is something like that in the new Skaven book, GG have a seemingly scary amount of debuff abilities.
auticus wrote: Thats what I have been saying for the past 3 years.
Which is why if I want to have events I have to plug in components that limit mortal wound spam, summoning spam, and alpha strike.
Otherwise don't bother showing up if you aren't going to be doing those things. It can certainly be fun but really no one enjoys jobbing out to their peers by virtue of loving models that have bad rules.
Damn straight. As a KO player, I've been nothing but a jobber for over a year now.
Yeah KO have been taking it on the chin pretty much the entire time.
Da Boss wrote: And what is realmstone? Is it just the rock that realms are made out of?
Chaos blessed Vibranium!
No, seriously; hidden empire that everyone would think is technologically inferior, but has insanely powerful tech due to the powerful weird rock they harvest. Totally the same thing!
auticus wrote: Giviing him re-rolls and/or making him cheap would both be as bad as the current evocator issue, among others. It would provide an obvious spam-bot that you'd take as many as you could to do heinous amounts of damage, with the ability to say "well yeah but if i roll a 1 i'll lose one of my spam bots"
To clarify, I didn't mean that the should have a re-roll as a default ability. I am perfectly (spoiled) fine as having another hero or spell that would allow a re-roll, similar to Knight Azyros which I love taking in my SCE army. I do hope there is something like that in the new Skaven book, GG have a seemingly scary amount of debuff abilities.
Well if warp sparks are still in you can use those to re-roll a hit roll. With little-no drawback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: As much as I want to say that "AoS needs ALL THE BOOKS!!11!" I think it's important to note that 40k suffers from a similar issue as AoS has:
Older books are at a fairly large disadvantage in terms of smallish things relating to the design philosophies shifting.
40k I do not know well enough to say, but I disagree this is a thing in AoS. Kharadron is probably one of the worst battletome armies out there and they are barely a year old. Seraphon kick ass and have one of the oldest battletomes. Beasts of Chaos and Gloomspite are some of the best balanced (if not the best balanced) battletomes GW has released, which notably includes being weaker than several older battletomes. LoN and DoK are both stronger than anything which came after by a good margin. There is little resembling a 'newer is better' trend in AoS.
Not to say the balance is good overall; it varies between tolerable and laughable. But battletome creep is not the source.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I just came back from a two day AoS event, and it was great fun, but it definitely proved to me that the game is not balanced. At all. If you don’t have massive mortal wound output, a mortal wound cancelling save, summoning and automatic healing, don’t bother playing. Which is a shame really.
I was recently listening to an AoS player who went to his first tournament. He was describing how frustrating and ridiculous it was, feeling like he was "just sitting there and picking up my models". Worst part is it was a small tournament and the harder players even brought lists that were tournament viable but more 'fun lists' than the highly optimized stuff we normally show up with.
auticus wrote: Thats what I have been saying for the past 3 years.
Which is why if I want to have events I have to plug in components that limit mortal wound spam, summoning spam, and alpha strike.
Otherwise don't bother showing up if you aren't going to be doing those things. It can certainly be fun but really no one enjoys jobbing out to their peers by virtue of loving models that have bad rules.
Damn straight. As a KO player, I've been nothing but a jobber for over a year now.
KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
Balance is better than the last GHB, and much better than the first GHB.
Sylvaneth are kind of like Kharadron in that they need reform to the fundamentals of the army so they work more as intended. Right now they either have good wyldwood placement and are OP (or, at a tournament, competent) or don't get good wyldwood placement and are sub-par to merely OK. The army is too dependent on where it happens to be able to fit wyldwoods on the board. They need to be made such that they are stronger without wyldwood-based benefits but said benefits are smaller.
For example; a Spirit of Durthu gets d3 extra attacks if he is near a Wyldwood. With those attacks he is really strong, but without them his offense is poor compared to his point cost. He should probably get his base attacks raised by 1, but reduce the bonus to just +1 attack. That way the woods still give a notable bonus, but he is not completely dependent on that bonus to perform.
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
I think there has been a lot of proposals to make ships work like garrisons, which would instantly fix a huge chunk of Kharadron's problems. Hopefully GW will hear that.
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
I feels you.
Exact same results at my local. We've taken to calling the frigates the "ship of shame".
The garisson mechanic would be decent, but I'm not so sure the current 2ndEd garisson rules are quite so portable to the ships as-is.
But then there's a good few guys that have fiddled with them. (I believe you did a fair chime on it a while ago, FWC?)
Buddingsquaw wrote: I feels you.
Exact same results at my local. We've taken to calling the frigates the "ship of shame".
The garisson mechanic would be decent, but I'm not so sure the current 2ndEd garisson rules are quite so portable to the ships as-is.
But then there's a good few guys that have fiddled with them. (I believe you did a fair chime on it a while ago, FWC?)
That is correct! I wasn’t sure if anyone remembered or even noticed that!
I played a game using the rules against ironjawz. Now baring in mind that the ‘jawz aren’t exactly top tier themselves, they normally prove too much for my overlords to take on. I’ve only ever won one game against them out of a dozen plus. If I had a good round of shooting, I could last until turn 3-4. Bad shooting due to los and crap dice rolls (which is the norm for me), it could be over by turn 1. The most embarrassing moment ever? My whole army being destroyed single handedly by a lone mawcrusher mega boss in 2 turns. I still get ribbed over that.
So we tried a demo game with the garrison rules for ships. I took an ironclad, 2 frigates, 3 units of 10 arkanauts, 2 units of 3 endrinriggers and all 4 overlord characters, with Barak-Mhornar rules. Everyone began the game embarked on a ship; endrinriggers on the frigates, characters on the ironclad etc.
And the difference was phenomenal! Thanks in part to the now visible navigator, the previously lumbering ships now sped across the board in tight formation. With their code amendment, they could all run and shoot, and with rerolls too, thanks to the admiral actually being able to use his Mhornar command trait to full effect. And when I say they could all shoot, I mean that they could all shoot! One turn of shooting killed the crusher boss and wrecked up a big unit of ard boyz. And when the brutes and other ard boy unit charged in, I could actually fight back, and they suffered accordingly. Also, the navigator successfully dispelled an arcane bolt while embarked, making him even more usual than before.
Now here’s the kicker...I still lost the game, but just barely. If I had a line of sight to those gore gruntas holding the objective, or sent one Frigate off to get them, I would have scored an overwhelming victory. But the fact that I lost helped me decide that this was a completely fair way to do things going forward.
We had some issues; the procedure for disembarking after the ship is destroyed needed work. Plus retreating...should the passengers still be unable to shoot? But these are small issues. The main idea is sound. I’m hoping one day to try out a game using my adjusted warscrolls (4+ save ships, -1 rend guns etc) too to see how they work with the garrison rules. Test them out against the DoK or stormcast or something else way beyond the ‘official’ overlords.
There is a kid in my Dungeons and Dragons group who is interested in getting into GW wargames. KO were one of his choices for coolest miniatures that he wanted to collect.
This sort of imbalance is really bad from that POV - a kid like that just buys what he thinks looks cool, and then proceeds to lose all his games because the game designers failed in their job.
AoS seems to be improving, but it really looked slapped together as a game at the start and there seems to be a long hangover because of that. The worry is that the unprofessional and incompetent design studio changes direction before they have actually fixed all the problems, resulting in a new crop of problems for whatever new version they make. They are a remarkably unprofessional and feckless lot.
We are getting two new battletomes that replace existing ones in two weeks time ;those will show the quality and balance that we can expect going forward as GW update others. Plus if they keep to small releases (terrain, Tome and endless spells) they could potentially push out most of them this year. That would be a big update to a lot of the earlier factions and every so often we'd get a bigger release as they revamp or release a bigger army block.
2019 is going to be AoS year for Tomes I think and I'd wager that come Christmas AoS will be in a vastly stronger position.
I would agree. GW games have always been this way save for a brief period between 2000 and 2002 when 6th edition dropped with Ravening Hordes.
The difference there was that all of the armies were put in the ravening hordes book and done for 6th so everyone was on an even footing. That was broken once the staggered release schedule resumed with newer books trumping older books.
The irony of course is that as lopsided as the game has usually been, it is still the #1 fantasy tournament game in the world despite not being suited for it whereas more balanced games are largely ignored.
I do find the general crapshoot style of design to be interesting and ridiculous. Like, their design seems to be without any foresight, even from the AOS team which seems to be more competent at rules than the 40k team (largely in part due to a lot of the AOS team being competitive players so they want good rules).
I think it's a result of sales/models still dictating the pace. According to something the 40k Facebook page mentioned, Codexes are in development for only 6 weeks. If Battletomes are similar, then how on earth do you properly consider rules, give them to playtesters, get feedback and adjust them when you have to be finished in such a short amount of time?
As long as the models are designed with little or no input from the rules guys and just sort of thrown to them with "Oi you lot! We're producing this model in 2 months, make up some rules and lore for it!" there will be these sort of issues where you have a virtually new army like Kharadron Overlords become complete garbage due to poor design choices and poor interaction.
40k is already so bloated with codexes that it's almost impossible to consider how something interacts with the rest of the game (which IMHO is a clear indicator that you have too many factions if you constantly forget things you did; like for example the GSC codex has a stratagem that costs 3 CP and does the same thing as a Dark Eldar stratagem that was FAQ'd to cost 4 CP; GW seemingly forgot they FAQ'd it to 4 and only looked at the Codex which showed 3). AOS seems to be going that way as well; too many battletomes that want to have unique gimmicks and rules, but the studio doesn't seem to have enough time to make sure these rules interact properly with everything else.
6 Weeks would be a insane Turn around. If true, it would account for a lot. If that includes everything, with rules story and writing as well as layout art and other things. That is quite the pace, It also would lead to missing out on really good and thematic units as no model could be made.
I would at least hope the team writing all the story and lore gets some input into what models are considered.
Is there a link to the post, or something to see the full wording? Insight into there design would at least help with thoughts on that design
lord_blackfang wrote: Agreed with the last few posts. It's remarkable how GW can't ever stick to the same design principles for even half an edition.
I think it's good that they tend to start off with a basic idea and refine it as they go. The problem is that they then only apply it to the ones after they decide it, when they should figure out there's a design change and then make sure they spend time applying it to everyone before they continue on.
Again I think that's part of the models driving rules approach. If you're being told constantly to keep making rules for new models coming up, you can't often say hold on we changed our design principles and have 5 books that need to be updated to reflect that.
Since they cannot do that, they shouldn't be doing these mid-edition design 180s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: 6 Weeks would be a insane Turn around. If true, it would account for a lot. If that includes everything, with rules story and writing as well as layout art and other things. That is quite the pace, It also would lead to missing out on really good and thematic units as no model could be made. I would at least hope the team writing all the story and lore gets some input into what models are considered.
Is there a link to the post, or something to see the full wording? Insight into there design would at least help with thoughts on that design
I'd have to hunt for it, it was a comment from their Facebook page to someone that mentioned a 6 week turnaround. I suspect it would be difficult to find again since it was a comment to a comment.
On some podcast (can't remember which, maybe the GW's own) it sounded like they are doing a document for the AoS rules writers with things like wording, so stuff like "within" or "fully within" is always the same. But that effort seems new, so great they are trying, but how are you only starting to do that now.
SilchasRuin wrote: On some podcast (can't remember which, maybe the GW's own) it sounded like they are doing a document for the AoS rules writers with things like wording, so stuff like "within" or "fully within" is always the same. But that effort seems new, so great they are trying, but how are you only starting to do that now.
It's outright bizarre that Malign Sorcery still uses the old notation.
It was on their new podcast and the guy being interviewed mentioned it as being part of the AOS 2.0. tough they mentioned using it for consistency: use the same phrase for the same thing every time . Within and fully within are 2 different things.
Overall I like the flavor and abilities. THey all seem inline with skaven.
What I don't like is their continued ability letting you pick any model you want to kill, forcing half the unit out of coherency which also kills them since they are out of coherency now.
From what I'm seeing and talking with some diehard Skaven players, they are seeming incredibly strong on paper. Getting a -1 to hit in melee as well for non-Monster heroes is going to be pretty good as IIRC there are still abilities that have not been changed to unmodified 6.
They seem pretty good. Skaven deserves this type of love.
I like most of their rules. It ultimately comes down to how much they cost of course. Great rules are awesome provided you pay the appropriate cost for them.
auticus wrote: Skaven summary is up on the community site.
Overall I like the flavor and abilities. THey all seem inline with skaven.
What I don't like is their continued ability letting you pick any model you want to kill, forcing half the unit out of coherency which also kills them since they are out of coherency now.
"tactical".
It is tactical, because the opposing player needs to make sure losing one model won't pull others out of coherency. And it isn't difficult to make sure every model in a unit is within an inch of at least two other models. What matters more is the ability to snipe standard bearers and the like. Or netters! *Shakes fist*
You are still choosing to cast it instead of another spell, pick it off the list instead of another spell, and needing to get your caster within 6" of the target model. There's also picking a target model, which can mean evaluating the impact of different command group models on the unit's performance given the context. It's much more tactical than the average spell.
I'm not really referring to the spell per say as I am with the rule that states if you can force a model out of coherency that the models out of coherency magically and biblically vanish.
Oh that. It's basically a rule saying "you can't pull a unit out of coherency using casualties" combined with "if a unit is put out of coherency by some means, remove the smaller portion".
Yeah. But every other game says "if you're out of coherency you must spend your movement getting back into coherency."
AOS says "jesus comes down and turns your guys into pillars of salt and they die when the big nasty giant puts one of your dudes in his bag"
Its just one of those nonsensical rules that will forever irk me, kind of like dragon fire and bombs and napalm dropping onto a melee but only hurting one side does.
Its just one of those nonsensical rules that will forever irk me, kind of like dragon fire and bombs and napalm dropping onto a melee but only hurting one side does.
Hey if Witch Aelves can go to war with no armour because they can basically dodge every strike at them save then surely your bombers can hit only one side of a combat. Actually in full fairness I've done that lots in Total War Warhammer. Once two blobs are engaged its a great time to throw bombs and such on the rear of the enemy formation whilst well out of range of your own warriors and the enemy unable to flee.
The sooner you accept that AoS is a very abstract system and put aside any simulationist notions, the happier you'll be. Think of it as fancier chess - you wouldn't complain that chess makes no sense.
Chess is a board game. I don't play chess or other board games for cinematic immersive experience that I do with wargaming. Thats the key difference there.
As such I continue to provide the "please throw us a bone once in a while" comments in regards to immersion that they claim is one of their key deliverables. We got forests that block line of sight last time. So hey, every little thing is a win as far as I'm concerned.
GW gave up on making wargames. They make abstract board games with fancy visuals. No point in complaining about that because it won't change. I stay for the fluff and sculpts, but I get my real wargaming jollies from KoW, X-wing and similar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Good point on terrain tho, it was a big step up.
It honestly makes me wonder occasionally why people continue to excuse GW not writing good rules; I see tons and tons of excuses and justification for why it's okay that their rules are bad.
It's like.. the GW fanbase seems to only care about pretty models to the exclusion of all else and don't care about having a good game to go along with it Which is very unlike how things used to be when it was good rules made people buy your game, not the models. At some point, things shifted to where your average Warhammer player stopped caring about the game and only cares about GW putting out ridiculously detailed often overpriced plastic models.
You would be surprised (or maybe not) at how often the mention of any other game with better rules immediately invites insulting the quality of the product compared to GW's offerings without any other concern, even games where you can use any models you want (this, of course, doesn't get into the whole "people don't play that game here" problem)
Just an observation. I overall think AOS is in a better place than 40k although not by much as it's still too abstract and too wombo-combo. But the balance problems seem to be much less off the charts like in 40k, although they certainly still exist.
I find that a lot of people love abstract gamey board game style rules, so to those people (a lot of whom post on here) the abstract simple gamey board game rules are a huge positive.
They aren't playing the game for immersion reasons they are playing the game for the same reason we play board games, which to them and their perspective is what makes it a good game to go along with the good models.
I've had my rear tore out more times than I can count by posters for suggesting things like forests blocking line of sight because to them its not needed and actually to them makes the game worse.
What I wishlist for is for them to keep the abstract board game version of the game that people love, and then do a supplement that adds more immersion into the game to cater to both types of players.
auticus wrote: I find that a lot of people love abstract gamey board game style rules, so to those people (a lot of whom post on here) the abstract simple gamey board game rules are a huge positive.
They aren't playing the game for immersion reasons they are playing the game for the same reason we play board games, which to them and their perspective is what makes it a good game to go along with the good models.
I've had my rear tore out more times than I can count by posters for suggesting things like forests blocking line of sight because to them its not needed and actually to them makes the game worse.
What I wishlist for is for them to keep the abstract board game version of the game that people love, and then do a supplement that adds more immersion into the game to cater to both types of players.
So the tournament crowd can summarily ignore it and as a result, it might as well not exist since it's not tournament standard?
You know exactly what would happen if they did that. Just like all the non-Matched Play battleplans/rules/etc. that people hate so much (e.g. realm rules)
Well the question would be what would the tournament crowd do? I'm not convinced that the tournament crowd would ignore those because a lot of the tournament crowd actually voice that they'd prefer some more immersion as well.
It would really depend on the daddies that run the LVO, Adepticon, and all the UK events and what they chose to do. That would determine "tournament standard" which would determine how pick up games are played and what would be "allowable" in public events from a community perspective.
For me I would use it for all my narrative events. Right now those rules are part of my packets anyway. Once the tournament guys moved to basically 40k only right now, there has been very little flack for doing this in a narrative environment because all my narrative guys want immersion over gamey. A lot of my tournament community guys also want more immersion over gamey, but what they want even more is for everyone to play the standard way that their tournaments play so they will accept whatever that is first and foremost.
auticus wrote: I'm not really referring to the spell per say as I am with the rule that states if you can force a model out of coherency that the models out of coherency magically and biblically vanish.
Maybe don't conga line your units? You speak of how you play the game for a cinematic experience, but I can't seem to remember the scene from Helms Deep where the Uruk-Hai lined up to do the limbo under the Deeping Wall.
I don't conga line anything. However I could post for you several dozen images from movies that are waves of troops running across a battlefield fairly spaced out where if you apply the AOS logic to them that once one of those guys gets removed half of the unit suddenly vaporizes. I suppose if we're playing in the marvel universe and assume Thanos just snapped his fingers that that would be reasonable that half of people just turn to ash and cinder that would work.
Additionally the battle of helms deep involved thousands of warriors. The game of AOS involves dozens of models. Sometimes less.
Now take AOS where you don't have hundreds of people in a unit and condense it down to say... 3-10 models like some units run in.
You can't have 3-10 guys standing line abreast (an actual battlefield formation) because if you do that then to maximize gamey efficiency you pluck out the center guy to Thanos half of the unit.
You most definitely can never run anything in one rank (an actual battlefield formation). Sorry guys in shield wall formation where you are line abreast in a rank... if you don't have guys behind you then if Bob the center guy dies, half of your unit is Thanos'd.
You have to have your guys in blob formation.
But you only means your opponent by virtue of selecting an item like a giant or the skaven spell that lets you take whatever model you want out of the game. You can run however you want, provided your opponent is not running one of those items (which are right now fairly rare).
Thats why I said if you don't have a second rank you're boned.
You always have to have a second rank. If you don't and do a line abreast formation you are basically screwing yourself.
If you're this: X X X then you are basically asking to get screwed. You have to run in a triangle.
And if you have units that are like 3-4 models like trolls or monster cav where you need them in a line so that they can maximize contact, thats too bad. Because if there isn't a second rank you will have Thanos vaporize multiple of them too if one dies.
Its a silly nonsensical rule on par with getting re-rolls for having the better beard. There are better ways to handle it is all I'm saying.
Half a unit vaporizing when the middle man dies is a strange rules artefact indeed. But let's consider the mess it was intended to prevent: a 60 man blob in a huge multi-charge getting seperated by casualties into two 20 man blobs that can be a foot apart but still count as one unit and fight simultaneously while a closer identical unit is a seperate entity. This would irk me personally more than evaporating, but YMMV.
I agree with trying to prevent the shennaigans of wound allocation to create gamey formations. So I understand the concept.
That comes down to taste. For me, as long as it makes sense I am generally ok with it.
What I would like the rule to be is more or less if you are out of coherency that you take some kind of penalty. Not lose half your unit kind of penalty. Maybe -1 to hit because you are disorganized or something, or a -1 to your Bravery because you are disorganized, and must if at all possible try to move into coherency on your movement.
I think the reason people make excuses for poor rules writing is simple; at the end of the day warhammer is fun.
As for single rank, it's more a matter of staggering in a 'zigzag' where every other model is offset back enough for the two next to him to be within 1" of each other. This is also ideal for larger bases like 32mm to get more attacks within 1" range, and is representative of the unit simply adopting a more close-knit formation. 25mm infantry can just stand in a line b2b shield wall style since removing a model won't pull the adjacent ones out of 1". Larger based models can have trouble but generally abilities that can pick out a model have trouble doing so with higher wounds count.
Finally, none of that matters if you aren't playing against one of the five or so models that actually have the ability to do so.
The flesh eater tome certainly has teeth now (lololol get it? teeth? lololol)
Definitely not the loling stock that they've been, so I like that.
I've never been a big fan of the whole dragons and terrorgheists get to be battleline thing because it takes away from the imagery of armies clashing when people show up with an army of 10 models, but thats just a personal taste of mine and thats just tough titty for me lol.
All things will depend on points costs (just like the skaven book). I like the flavor they added (just as I do with the new skaven book) and one of GW's strengths has always been making forces definitely feel different from each other, and this continues that trend.
I think the reason people make excuses for poor rules writing is simple; at the end of the day warhammer is fun.
I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.
Well obviously they are fun, otherwise no one would play them! I can only speak for KoW from personal experience. For me it boils down to three things:
The biggest is flavor. The forces don't feel all that different, generally some numbers switched around and having one of several universal rules on all their units. Maybe one unique rule. I like the idea of having a list of USR's that everyone draws from, but I feel like each army should also have a strong set of its own rules and units with unique special abilities. Allegiance rules in particular are a massive plus for me.
The second is actual play. In warhammer I still get to do things during my opponent's turn; unbind spells, make save rolls, and fight in melee. In KoW I could get up and go do something else.
Finally, and this may seem small, but units don't get locked in melee. They charge, they fight, then they all stop swinging and step back an inch to patiently wait for the enemy to do the same. Maybe it's a personal peeve but that is so jarring to me.
Now there is a lot I like about KoW too (line of sight, shooting functionality, balance) but the above is why I prefer AoS.
I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.
What about those games is not fun?
A few thoughts:
1) It's not that they lack fun its that they lack players and experienced players who can teach others. Ergo no one plays so no one plays. Wargamers put a lot of money and time into their armies and there's nothing worse than doing all that and being the only person at the club who plays a game or only one of two. Warhammer, for all its strengths and faults, has the bonus that if you've got a game club you can likely get a game and not always agaisnt the same person.
2) Visuals. Whilst its a personal thing, the models and paint work on KoW models has always looked to me to be about 20 years old. Whilst I love the themes and ideas of their armies, the actual models just look "clunky". I think the best example is the elven dragons, but they are not alone. Some might call them classic as they do remind me of the classic early era designs from Warhammer. It just feels that paint and model wise they are far in the past and not, in my view, in a good way
3) Marketing. Stores on the highstreet; magazine, and right now almost 365 days of news, podcasts, marketing material, facebook etc.... There's a fair few miniature companies out there who hardly seem to invest enough in social media and in building hype and attention on themselves. Which means less people encounter them; less hype for releases and less awareness so when something big happens there's a muted reaction. This can make a game appear "near dead" and wargamers dislike that notion; they don't want to spend three months building and painting to find the company closed and gone. Heck even in Warhammer and 49K the threat of being "Squatted" is real.
4) The fun isn't different enough. Considering many who play warhammer have few tactical skills/awareness/confidence*. So sometimes the subtle rules differences and improved rules don't actually translate to more fun because the player is still mostly getting their army and charging forwards. So as a result the fun isn't different. GW has realised this and they tried to deal with it with things like Endless Spells. This also ties into marketing and how a company presents their game - if they don't or they rely on the consumers they run the risk that the notable features of their game get overlooked.
4) Lack of local neutral store or club. If your player area only has a GW store serving the community and the main club is there chances are other games jsut won't get a chance. Meanwhile if the area has an active club if that club has a focus then it might be other games can't get in so easily.
Furthermore if there is a non-gw store if that store doesn't stock the range, but is the play area for most gamers then if the store owner wont' invest in the game many gamers might not pick it up out of store loyalty. Ergo the store deserves some return on the investment in providing a place to game so the customers are more likely to buy models and armies locally.
6) A combination effect - as often is the case its rarely that one area has a problem, but that several do and they add up and that they are not universal all the time. Eg some of the new KoW models are starting to "improve" in my view.
*seriously start a thread on how to assemble, convert or paint and you can generate pages of chatter. Start one on balance and army building and you can generate even more; ask about tactics, placements target prioritizing, terrain placement and you'll have to fight to get more than a handful of replies.
auticus wrote: The flesh eater tome certainly has teeth now
They were a bit bare-bones before. Now they have some meat to them.
Definitely not the loling stock that they've been, so I like that.
TBF the trait that let them double-summon made them viable. FEC won a major tournament near me (SoCal open) recently. But TBF there he did ally in Arkhan.
My ranting about other games in response to Auticus' thoughts is in the spoiler tag to avoid clutter:
Spoiler:
From what I see, the counter to any of those games is always the models, except Middle Earth which I think is just because it wasn't stocked in game stores.
But like KoW and hat new game from Warlords the immediate response whenever you mention it is always "those models look awful". With KOW I also hear the common argument that because it's block-based you could play it with square bases only and no models (as though that's somehow bad for a game? Squad Leader and similar old-school games used cardboard cutouts).
Mostly though I think it goes back to the mindset in the USA that any game played must be supported by a game store where you can go and buy everything you need as well as go to play. If these games get no traction at a game store, I find that almost directly correlates to the community refusing to even acknowledge that game let alone be willing to give it a try even if someone was like hey I bought the starter set and will be doing demos; chances are nobody will bother to show up or immediately deride the idea of trying something new.
I've seen this a lot; a Warhammer-centric community seems extremely unwilling to even consider other games exist let alone want to give them a try. A game store won't stock an untested miniature range, especially if they got burned on it before (e.g. My FLGS has gotten burned on stocking Infinity and then everyone stopped playing there or stopped the game entirely, same with Kings of War although there's a small group now KoW is mostly in Orlando to the east and they only come this way for tournaments) which means that other games won't get any traction if people don't see it. That and in my area people don't seem to want to explore other options. They play Warhammer, spend money on Warhammer, talk about Warhammer and have little or no desire to do anything other than Warhammer.
It means it's very hard to have a wargames club as opposed to a warhammer club, and as I've lamented before more frequently you don't even have a club but a group of people with maybe a Facebook group who just all happen to be patrons of the same game store. The game store and not the people are the center of the universe; if the game store closes then people tend to be scattered, if a new game store opens it has to fight tooth and nail to get people to go there if they already have a favored place to play, and that alone can cause rivalries and accusations of "stealing our customers" which results in straight up boycotts of game stores because someone tried to get folks going to more than one store. I saw this happen several times, once it almost broke out into open hostilities. Like, i half expected to see raids on each other's turf and gang fights.
Back on FEC, yeah I'm not fond of zombie dragons as battleline. I'm hoping for a Grand Court that lets you take Horrors/Flayers as battleline since I despise that unfluffy ridiculous "Courtier must be the general" rule and I'd rather take two large blocks of ghouls than three min units as a battleline tax. Also as a joke, if I fielded 9 Horrors I willl deploy them in the Bretonnian Lance formation because VIVE LE ROI.
I would ideally like a new unit or two (I think they could easily throw in most of Deadwalkers into FEC and finish off the death grand alliance unless they end up bringing back Tomb Kings in some form) but I'm not holding my breath.
I've never been a big fan of the whole dragons and terrorgheists get to be battleline thing because it takes away from the imagery of armies clashing when people show up with an army of 10 models, but thats just a personal taste of mine and thats just tough titty for me lol.
FEC tourney lists were already 4 behemoths and 3 units of 10 ghouls, which at that size are nonfunctional and merely a battleline tax. If points are the same, we can run the exact models (it's not like we can add a 5th behemoth) but in a blob of 30 so they actually do something. It's a nice buff and doesn't really reduce the number of mooks in the army because our behemoths were already maxed out.
I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.
What about those games is not fun?
Dunno. We have a big T9A lobby here that claims KoW is too sterile with not enough customization and magic.
Personally I feel that artefacts that give a whole unit extra speed, range or punch are more meaningful upgrades than deciding the particularities of a single unit leader's equipment, affecting one attack out ouf 20, but I am in a minority.
Yeah I was in Orlando in December and the gaming community there seemed pretty small. There is a possibility I will be locating to that general region here in the future.
We have a Middle Earth group but it is tiny and has always been tiny.
For years I had done the support of all game stores and did city-wide events, but yes the gang war thing was very real here as well (which we discussed before).
Our warlords group right now is pretty healthy but that game literally just dropped so if it has traction or not will be determined.
My girlfriend has been painting the new goblins (she loves goblins) and excitement is still pretty high for our AOS campaign this fall.
I don't mind fighting an army of behemoths; it's like a bunch of troops set out to deal with a band of roving monsters, a common fantasy plot.
Once in a while that can be fun.
However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models. The warlords group has that happening already where the warbands are already pretty tiny because of the ability to take whatever you want and just spam monsters.
I know the main game store in Tampa stocks some KoW but it's not restocked since I think the group is mostly in Orlando except for a handful of guys and from what I heard they got burned a couple years ago stocking a ton of KoW stuff and the group quickly collapsed. Other than that it's 90% 40k and only a tiny bit AOS (although that's on the rise now) but the 40k area is huge and the AOS area is tiny alongside blood bowl and the other stuff that barely sells, and has like early AOS kits still (like the old 5-man stormcast boxes). Some new stuff gets stocked but it's majority 40k.
Every other game sort of died off and left or just vanished as people went back to Warhammer.
auticus wrote: However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models.
I agree that is usually the reason, but have my doubts regarding the Terrorgheist in particular. You can probably transport 3000 pts of anything else in the same space
I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.
What about those games is not fun?
I firmly believe that Mantic squandered a golden opportunity with not pushing KoW harder during the window that was open wide during AoS's less than stellar launch and the release of GHB1. I'm sure they had some releases during that time, but it felt like they wrote up the self congratulatory "top fantasy wargame"-esque preface in the second edition of KoW and just rested on their laurels, thinking that GW wouldn't right their ship. I'm sure the game is healthy, but they'd probably sacrifice their first born to pull up the numbers that AoS is bringing to events like Adepticon and such.
Erewhon has been out for like 5 minutes, so I can't speak to how fun/balanced etc etc.. Like Mantic above, it feels like they are late to the party. Had this come out 2 years ago, people would probably be more keen on it.
Middle Earth was fun for me, but it went into limbo for a bit after the Hobbit movies and the pricing is/was ridiculous on alot of their stuff. Even now its in a weird spot, with some product on GWs site and some on FW's site. Confusion isn't good.
Lastly, none of those games have a retail presence on the shelves at the stores in my area. The one store that went heavy with Mantic product, ironically situated where the GW headquarters once was in Glen Burnie, Maryland, folded within a year. Not to say that going heavy with Mantic product will kill a business, or did in this instance,as this place had a whole bunch of other stuff going on, but the optics weren't good.
Growing a scene is tough, growing a scene without product to point to compounds that difficulty. Hell, Runewars got retail support in my area and it folded faster than Superman on laundry day.
Growing a scene is tough, growing a scene without product to point to compounds that difficulty.
Pretty much why Warmachine died out where I live. Used to be large before 8th edition 40k and GHB. Then those things came out and PP decided to go to their weird retail model and stuff died out.
auticus wrote: However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models.
I agree that is usually the reason, but have my doubts regarding the Terrorgheist in particular. You can probably transport 3000 pts of anything else in the same space
Well the super elite armies in AoS tend to lose on objectives, so that is a counter-pressure. GHB1 was when it was really bad where elite units were better for the cost pretty much across the board.
That is true. With the objective game that will definitely influence things.
Which is why GHB 19 scares me, because if they write new scenarios that give elite armies an even footing in those regards, we will be opening the gates wide to that direction I feel.
I only say that scares me because I enjoy the spectacle of armies clashing, not D&D parties clashing.
auticus wrote: That is true. With the objective game that will definitely influence things.
Which is why GHB 19 scares me, because if they write new scenarios that give elite armies an even footing in those regards, we will be opening the gates wide to that direction I feel.
I only say that scares me because I enjoy the spectacle of armies clashing, not D&D parties clashing.
You and me both. When I see an ‘army’ that’s just a bunch of big hero wizard monsters backed up by 3 minimum sized cheap battleline units, a tiny little part of me just wants to say ‘ah piss off’.
It wasn't even quite that bad in the Herohammer days of 5th. Sure you had a hero on emperor dragon with Hydra Sword and Black amulet (or was it Heart of Woe?) and Helm of Many Eyes that was like 1000 points, but you only had one and your opponent almost certainly had an equivalent. So it basically played out like ancient armies: The two generals dueled to determine the winner.
Some armies. It was definitely all about heroes. My chaos army had 11 models though.
My undead army had like 22 models or something ridiculously small.
Those were the tourney standards back then.
When 6th dropped and made troops relevant again there was a good deal of howling and gnashing of teeth that GW was screwing its player base over by forcing people to buy crappy core tax just to get them to spend money when before they didn't really have to (there was a 25% min on troops back then but what constituted troops back then is like AOS considering battleline... my chaos knights were troops lol)
On that note, I remember in 5th a guy I fought in a league/multi-week elimination tournament at the FLGS his father owned who ran Bretonnia with a hero on a dragon and like some min archer squads who hid the entire game (I don't remember all the details but Bretonnia could take a larger percentage in heroes).
He crushed everyone and like everyone except me dropped out of the league because they didn't want to fight him as it was basically known he was playing a filth army specifically to crush everybody and win the league; like straigh tup admitted he was being TFG just because he could.
So it was down to him and me in the finals because while I hadn't done too well, everyone else dropped out. I remember I kitted out a Vampire Lord with the entire gimmick being trying to Hand of Dust his general since his whole strategy was going after your units with the hero on the dragon. I rolled like 2 wounds lower than would have killed him and conceded because that was literally my only chance to win. So he won the tournament and spent his winnings on Magic cards (in his dad's gaming store keep in mind) while I got.. I think something for 40k I forget for coming in 2nd, I think a box of space marines or something.
So this guy steamrolled a friendly league and made everyone drop out deliberately so he could win it to spend store credit on magic cards in a store that he worked in and that was owned by his father.
Yeah bretonnia could take 75% of their army in heroes whereas most everyone else could do 50%.
Our bretonnian player's "army" was king on emperor dragon (blue so lightning), a min size of archers, a min size unit of knights, and an assortment of heroes to fill out the army.
It was roughly 18 models or so.
But to win you really only had to kill the king on the dragon. And I played undead and chaos back then. My undead were rolling with hand of dust or curse of the years (auto death spells) with forbidden rod (irresistable force by using the rod, no roll needed) and my chaos lord on dragon had upwards of 44 attacks by himself with the hydra blade and mark of khorne.
auticus wrote: That is true. With the objective game that will definitely influence things.
Which is why GHB 19 scares me, because if they write new scenarios that give elite armies an even footing in those regards, we will be opening the gates wide to that direction I feel.
I only say that scares me because I enjoy the spectacle of armies clashing, not D&D parties clashing.
Doubt it. 16 out of the 18 GHB scenarios we've had so far have been some variant of 'most models gets the objective' with some needing no enemy models in range but also 5 of your own. The exceptions are three places of power and the other one that's similar (forget the name) which can be difficult for monster armies in their own way since the big monster needs to sit in the objectives rather than running about smashing things.
Wayniac wrote: On that note, I remember in 5th a guy I fought in a league/multi-week elimination tournament at the FLGS his father owned who ran Bretonnia with a hero on a dragon and like some min archer squads who hid the entire game (I don't remember all the details but Bretonnia could take a larger percentage in heroes).
He crushed everyone and like everyone except me dropped out of the league because they didn't want to fight him as it was basically known he was playing a filth army specifically to crush everybody and win the league; like straigh tup admitted he was being TFG just because he could.
So it was down to him and me in the finals because while I hadn't done too well, everyone else dropped out. I remember I kitted out a Vampire Lord with the entire gimmick being trying to Hand of Dust his general since his whole strategy was going after your units with the hero on the dragon. I rolled like 2 wounds lower than would have killed him and conceded because that was literally my only chance to win. So he won the tournament and spent his winnings on Magic cards (in his dad's gaming store keep in mind) while I got.. I think something for 40k I forget for coming in 2nd, I think a box of space marines or something.
So this guy steamrolled a friendly league and made everyone drop out deliberately so he could win it to spend store credit on magic cards in a store that he worked in and that was owned by his father.
What a dick.
I remember the days of percent points for your choice of units though (what edition was out at the turn of the millennium?). I wonder if it still has merits? Because sometimes I’m annoyed that a unit of 20 battleline models doesn’t carry the same weight as two units of 10.
I prefer percentages over slots, simply because percentages work with the resource values of the game (points) whereas slots do not and can be highly gamed.
25% battleline / core is great to me provided battleline/core are your backbone troops that are not superheroes. Puts some basic troopers on the board instead of letting everything be all jacked to 11 all the time.
auticus wrote: I prefer percentages over slots, simply because percentages work with the resource values of the game (points) whereas slots do not and can be highly gamed.
25% battleline / core is great to me provided battleline/core are your backbone troops that are not superheroes. Puts some basic troopers on the board instead of letting everything be all jacked to 11 all the time.
I agree. It would certainly stop mini maxing in lists (taking only 3 tiny units to spam big monsters). I was running some numbers and in the modern game, I think 20% compulsory battleline (400pts at 2k) is a good start.
Yeah I like point percentages as well, because while I find slots more fun in theory the reality is they get abused. What I would really like to see is 25% minimum battleline, 50% behemoth limit, and 50% hero limit (behemoth heroes counting against both totals).
I'm not sure a % based battle line system is the solution.
Some armies just have it better with their "battle line if" options (especially the newer ones). It would just be another power creep factor.
My nighthaunt for instance, laugh at how easy a 25% battle line requirement would be (while still selecting quality troops). My FEC would be in deep trouble however. Additionally, it'll be mostly the older armies who really have crappy, underwhelming battle line options who will get affected.
Modern battle line troops are actually quite good imo. If you are stuck with a bunch of 1A 4+ 4+ dredges with older factions (wanderers, freeguild etc), you would be really SooL if that's 400 obligatory points in there. The modern armies laugh it away, the older armies would be struggling even more.
And I don't think it's really going to make some of the more hardcore builds softer.
Honestly the way the game is today I don't even see a need for battleline. The whole point of AOS is to spam the most powerful things and often your battleline includes some of that.
Battleline only works if your battleline are actually run of the mill troops. The moment you let things like stormfiends and dragons and trolls be battleline you have sunk the concept and might as well not bother with it.
Instead of adding percentages of battlelines I think it would be better to boost battleline unit to be stronger so you have a reason to take them. The big problem with tax is that too often the tax is useless chaff that you really don't want to have if you could skip them.
Thats because given the choice between something "elite" and something "not elite" you're going to want to take elite every time unless the chaffe is cost effective and provides a benefit.
Boosting battleline to be stronger is essentially making battleline on par with elite, erego not really needing the concept of battleline in the first place as if everything is elite there is no point in a battleline concept.
The point of battleline / core "tax" was to have normal guys in your army so that you couldn't just cherry pick all of the elite stuff. So get rid of battleline as a concept IMO in AOS.
I feel like battleline should get some sort of unique ability. Something akin to 40k's thing of them always counting as holding an objective over other units. Something utility based would make them more interesting to use
The ‘massive regiments’ concept could be a good start for battleline. Going forward in future, you could limit the discount to battleline troops, making them even better value when compared to elites.
I’ve come around to the idea of percentages too. I really think that 20% minimum for battleline and 50% max for the others would work out great provided that what constitutes battleline is properly determined beforehand (KO for example need some help in that regard).
The problem I have with battlelines is that depending on Tome some are going to get more of the good battlelines while others are going to get utter gak. I'd rather not be forced to have more crap battleline in my armies so I can lose harder because other armies are getting better battlelines. I mean, looking at current competitive Khorne armies and you see a distinct lack of battlelines for the most part except to get Gore Pilgrim and then Flesh Hounds for unbinding.
That is my biggest contention with percentages. Some battlelines for certain armies are above decent while others must linger in a deep grave of despair.
Now, if people could promise absolute parity between battlelines between armies then sure, percentages can work.
Thats the key. Battleline only works if the design team makes sure that all battlelines are rounded out against each other.
Having an army where bob the commoner is a battleline but then giving another army a snarling troll as battleline and another army a dragon as a battleline ruins that.
Yup, I'm completely in agreement with Eldarsif on this one...
Percentages would hamstring the (often older) armies that have the old "battleline is pretty crappy units" design.
Modern armies tend to have way more solid and interesting basic troops/battle line option... Changing to a % based system would create just as many imbalances in the current game and it would kick the armies that are already hamstrung by crappy battle line, down even more.
Also, the current meta seems to heavily favor a large amount of bodies on the table, for that reason alone, I often see large amounts of core troops still being fielded.
Extra incentive for some "true battle line" (not battle line if...) could still be added. An objective secured equivalent is an obvious choice.
I think another thing about percentages is, it's maths. Simple maths, but still maths. Slots are a lot easier to comprehend for a wider audience who want to chuck units together for lolz.
Well the slots are based on point cost categories (1000, 2000, 2500) so GW could easily just put the % numbers there instead. Allies are a percentage and it doesn't cause an issue.
As for battleline; some armies have poor battleline units, because some units are poor. Similarly some armies have OP battleline units, because some units are OP. Armies also have plenty of non-battleline which are poor, and plenty of non-battleline which are OP. That's a balance issue, not an argument against percentages.
If I made Unit A that was a generic troop choice with baseline stats, and made it cost correctly, and then made Unit B which was an elite version of that troop with elite stats, and also made it cost correctly, and then said you can choose whatever you want, Unit A is still not going to see much table time barring someone that loves the idea of normal troops.
There are outside factors as well such as the objective game. If the elites cost too much and you can't field as many, people will want to field some of Unit A to hold objectives, which is good.
But typically in games like this, beating someone in the mouth over and over again is a winning tactic, and the elites will always be chosen because they can do that easier and are also typically more durable.
The objectives in AOS make (currently) needing some chaffe ideal but if scenarios start bucking that, that will throw off composition desires.
I have always oposed to the idea of "chaff" or "tax". I have to buy those things. I hate buying uninspiring things that are by design crap and useless.
And I say this as someone that LOVES his average guys. I have much more joy building and painting my battleline infanry than characters.
I don't want my battleline and basic units to be super heroes, but I want them to feel like they are accomplising something on the battlefield that isn't just being there and dying to make some kidn of sense of a real "battle", and force me to buy more models.
So... I'm not opposed to having a forced minimun of "basic troops". I'm opposed to the idea that those should be useless. And I'm not talking about making a normal human spearmen equiparable to elite units. They just need to have their place on the battlefield.
As for battleline; some armies have poor battleline units, because some units are poor. Similarly some armies have OP battleline units, because some units are OP. Armies also have plenty of non-battleline which are poor, and plenty of non-battleline which are OP. That's a balance issue, not an argument against percentages.
Kinda is though. A percentage system will lock certain armies into mediocrity and bottom tier while the current system at least allows barely mediocre books to have a fighting chance by relying more heavily on elite slots(like the Cancon winner). The current system at least gives a sense of flexibility that can make up for imbalance. Having percentages just means us who have a weak tome and even weaker battlelines should just buy a new army(which I - in all honesty - did, but I come from the privilege of being able to own several armies).
Let's put it like this if there was a percentage tax:
Armies with weak battlelines - Become weaker. If they have strong elites they can not rely on them on to make up for weak battlelines.
Armies with strong battlelines - stay strong and/or become stronger. If they have weak elites they really don't care. They can even have more battlelines if they want to. If they have strong elites they have everything going for them.
Personally I'd rather want the flexibility to make up for weaknesses than having to rely on GW reaching Super Saiyan 3 and managing to create perfect balance of all units. To be fair I also do not have any nostalgia for WHFB and the image it sold of large core units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't want my battleline and basic units to be super heroes, but I want them to feel like they are accomplising something on the battlefield that isn't just being there and dying to make some kidn of sense of a real "battle", and force me to buy more models.
Exactly this. I am pretty much shelving my Blades of Khorne because I am just tired of seeing 20-40 bloodreavers killed without them doing anything. I don't want them to be 40-50 points just so I can field more cannon fodder for my enemy.
As for battleline; some armies have poor battleline units, because some units are poor. Similarly some armies have OP battleline units, because some units are OP. Armies also have plenty of non-battleline which are poor, and plenty of non-battleline which are OP. That's a balance issue, not an argument against percentages.
Kinda is though. A percentage system will lock certain armies into mediocrity and bottom tier while the current system at least allows barely mediocre books to have a fighting chance by relying more heavily on elite slots(like the Cancon winner). The current system at least gives a sense of flexibility that can make up for imbalance. Having percentages just means us who have a weak tome and even weaker battlelines should just buy a new army(which I - in all honesty - did, but I come from the privilege of being able to own several armies).
Let's put it like this if there was a percentage tax:
Armies with weak battlelines - Become weaker. If they have strong elites they can not rely on them on to make up for weak battlelines.
Armies with strong battlelines - stay strong and/or become stronger. If they have weak elites they really don't care. They can even have more battlelines if they want to. If they have strong elites they have everything going for them.
Personally I'd rather want the flexibility to make up for weaknesses than having to rely on GW reaching Super Saiyan 3 and managing to create perfect balance of all units. To be fair I also do not have any nostalgia for WHFB and the image it sold of large core units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't want my battleline and basic units to be super heroes, but I want them to feel like they are accomplising something on the battlefield that isn't just being there and dying to make some kidn of sense of a real "battle", and force me to buy more models.
Exactly this. I am pretty much shelving my Blades of Khorne because I am just tired of seeing 20-40 bloodreavers killed without them doing anything. I don't want them to be 40-50 points just so I can field more cannon fodder for my enemy.
Realistically though, what army with weak battleline is doing well and would be shafted by needing to spend 400-500 points on it?
Also Bloodreavers seem fine to me. They run in, do some damage, and die. Sure at tournaments they suck, but a solid 3/4 the units in the game suck at tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just to make sure we are on the same page; a unit that does well at tournaments is either OP itself or part of a battalion/allegiance exploit that is. Balanced units are bad at tournaments.
Also Bloodreavers seem fine to me. They run in, do some damage, and die.
I've even found them to suck at a casual level. They are at best objective grabbers if you have some undefended objectives. In combat they fall like flies and often without doing any damage themselves.
The problem with Bloodreavers is a fundamental one and related to the old design paradigm of early AoS. They are built around synergy except the synergy units are so many that to make them viable in offence means piling on ton of heroes to make them work. Doesn't help that those heroes have often gone up in price themselves like the bloodsecrator. This also means that the Khorne army - if you want to run mortals en masse - requires a lot of bog-standard builds just to function. Gore Pilgrim for that bloodsecrator bubble. That Deathbringer for a boost, that killing frenzy to hit better, a Lord on Juggernaut for better wound rolls, Wrathmongers on the sideline for extra attacks, etc etc. That's a lot of purchases to make a unit viable in combat compared to Witch Aelves that need a Hag Queen for her ability who can also cast Catechism of Murder. Then, if you really want to, you can pile on Mindrazor. Hell, if I were to even compare a more cost comparative unit like Blood Warrior I would still take Witch Aelves as I need less to boost them comparatively to the Blood Warriors.
But, this is all a moot point because there is a new Khorne battletome on the way and I am brimming with excitement.
But to win you really only had to kill the king on the dragon. And I played undead and chaos back then. My undead were rolling with hand of dust or curse of the years (auto death spells) with forbidden rod (irresistable force by using the rod, no roll needed) and my chaos lord on dragon had upwards of 44 attacks by himself with the hydra blade and mark of khorne.
Wonder how many misplayed the hydra blade so that it could spread among units. It was much less scary when there wasn't one tough model. You have 5 attacks with hydra blade? Sure for every attack you hit you are going to get d6 hits against that model so enjoy killing 1-5 basic guys with your 5 attacks.
But to win you really only had to kill the king on the dragon. And I played undead and chaos back then. My undead were rolling with hand of dust or curse of the years (auto death spells) with forbidden rod (irresistable force by using the rod, no roll needed) and my chaos lord on dragon had upwards of 44 attacks by himself with the hydra blade and mark of khorne.
Wonder how many misplayed the hydra blade so that it could spread among units. It was much less scary when there wasn't one tough model. You have 5 attacks with hydra blade? Sure for every attack you hit you are going to get d6 hits against that model so enjoy killing 1-5 basic guys with your 5 attacks.
In my games, units were rare. The chaos lord with the hydra blade and frenzy wasn't there to kill units, because units weren't really how the game worked. It was there to pop enemy heroes and their generals. Units were kind of like cheerleaders, and I am speaking not at the casual anecdotal local level, back then I traveled north america and did the GT circuit.
Yeah a new Khorne tome does seem odd. They have a relatively recent style book (it has artifacts and such) and were just missing Endless Spells (or "Judgment of Khorne" whatever they are called).
Would have much rathered see Seraphon, Fyreslayers, Ironjawz, or especially Kharadron Overlords who have a really new book and somehow GW missed the boat so completely that they got totally shafted almost immediately. But especially any one of the armies that still have an original style AOS book.
But nope, new Khorne tome with more extras when Khorne was already apparently doing pretty good.
Would be nice if those other factions with nothing could get a book.
Considering that they admitted in the panel that more is coming along with classic armies I think this was just a low fruit they picked just to get it out of the way. They only needed to update the army to be useful in 2.0 and that's it so it is easy money for them. I kinda expect they'll do so with quite a few pre-Maggotkin books. Low hanging fruit that sells and can be thrown in with other big releases.
For factions that don't have a book I imagine they would want to throw a little more weight into the ring.
Personally I foresee a few potential tomes. This is just me attempting to be psychic and doing a cold reading so take from that what you will.
I imagine they will create Battletome: Orruks. In this they will combine all the Orruk factions much as they did with Skaven. The current Orruk lines are small so combining them probably creates a stronger overall faction, plus they have already done similar with legion of Nagash and Skaven now. Then I imagine they'll take Dispossessed. They might end up combining them and Fireslayers if they don't want to expand Fireslayers. I am most curious about what they will end up doing with Dispossessed as that is perhaps the most straight faction from the old world in the game.
Then there are the easy picks: Everchosen with Slaves to Darkness/Dark Oath and Slaanesh.
If they want to throw in a little monkeywrench to screw with people they might rerelease tomb kings for gak and giggles.
I also fully believe they will create the Tyrion and Teclis faction and use quite a few of the existing kits to fill that out.
I have to admit I am super psyched about what they will do with AoS this year. Also, with another survey out it will be interesting what they'll take away from that.
Now the mention of settra does excite me because I have a very large tomb kings force that I use for KOW and Erehwon that I'd like to return to using in AOS.
Eldarsif wrote: Considering that they admitted in the panel that more is coming along with classic armies I think this was just a low fruit they picked just to get it out of the way. They only needed to update the army to be useful in 2.0 and that's it so it is easy money for them. I kinda expect they'll do so with quite a few pre-Maggotkin books. Low hanging fruit that sells and can be thrown in with other big releases.
I admit I would buy Disciples of Tzeentch 2.0 if they just patch the rules and keep the layout and art identical. That book is gorgeous but I can't justify paying for it when almost every page has errata.
I'd be more excited for AoS if GW would be more open with what they actually plan to do. I'll likely be more excited when the new elves are announced, although, that is not to say that Warcry and Forbidden power won't excite me, once they release concrete information about the projects.
I couldn't have guessed Khorne would be getting endless spells and a new book. That feels a bit random.
Well that and allegedly stormcast are opening yet another chamber and getting their (fourth or fifth? i forget) book.
Because why not.
Warcry looks interesting. I bet that has bottle on it doing hinterlands adaption to be "official" now.
Forbidden power I'm meh on because i rarely use sorcery now as it is. Its just a points drain that has netted me very little.
I agree that it would be nice to know whats coming down the pipe for the entire year. So we know khorne (book 3) and stormcast (book 4 or 5) is coming. We don't know if the FEC book counts as the death release or not.
We suspect slaanesh book. Thats really it in terms of pretty much guaranteed.
I don't play Korn or have any future plans to play Korn but I'm not really upset by its announcement. I mean if this was the first AOS announcement after 3 month of nothing I would be upset, but given Skaven and Flesheaters coming out right on the heals of Trolls and Goblins, I fully welcome this news. I wouldn't exactly say Korn was struggling but they were still some what lacking what I will call tactical depth. This is also further prof that people hit with, lets call them premature battle tombs, aren't necessarily stuck with them. And while I would have rather seen something like Slaanesh, I also know that Slaanesh need a much larger overhaul and if they got something that can "fix" an army like Korn now, I would rather they release it now than sit on it and release it when it is "more fair".
Well that and allegedly stormcast are opening yet another chamber and getting their (fourth or fifth? i forget) book.
As I understand it this is an expansion and not a Battletome. So far all we know it could be another Firestorm or Malign Portents. I think they are trying to go for one big story development per year at least.
Now, in 2019, the Soul Wars continue – and something ancient and terrible is awakened…
This is very ominous and I do hope this is a big reveal for something that is coming.
I do find it intriguing that some people are saying that something "ancient and terrible" would definitely describe Tomb Kings, as an enemy of Nagash, which would ALSO definitely continue the Soul Wars.
AegisGrimm wrote: I do find it intriguing that some people are saying that something "ancient and terrible" would definitely describe Tomb Kings, as an enemy of Nagash, which would ALSO definitely continue the Soul Wars.
That's what I first thought when I saw the announcement. I could be terribly wrong, but GW probably knows there are people who have been asking for Tomb Kings' return and might think it worthwhile to bring them back. Only the future will tell.
Tomb Kings fit the 'ancient' part but in the Mortal Realms I'm not too sure that 'terrible' would describe them. Regardless I would love to see their introduction to the Age of Sigmar.
Also Bloodreavers seem fine to me. They run in, do some damage, and die.
I've even found them to suck at a casual level. They are at best objective grabbers if you have some undefended objectives. In combat they fall like flies and often without doing any damage themselves.
The problem with Bloodreavers is a fundamental one and related to the old design paradigm of early AoS. They are built around synergy except the synergy units are so many that to make them viable in offence means piling on ton of heroes to make them work. Doesn't help that those heroes have often gone up in price themselves like the bloodsecrator. This also means that the Khorne army - if you want to run mortals en masse - requires a lot of bog-standard builds just to function. Gore Pilgrim for that bloodsecrator bubble. That Deathbringer for a boost, that killing frenzy to hit better, a Lord on Juggernaut for better wound rolls, Wrathmongers on the sideline for extra attacks, etc etc. That's a lot of purchases to make a unit viable in combat compared to Witch Aelves that need a Hag Queen for her ability who can also cast Catechism of Murder. Then, if you really want to, you can pile on Mindrazor. Hell, if I were to even compare a more cost comparative unit like Blood Warrior I would still take Witch Aelves as I need less to boost them comparatively to the Blood Warriors.
But, this is all a moot point because there is a new Khorne battletome on the way and I am brimming with excitement.
All you need for bloodreaver synergy is a bloodsecrator, which you were bringing anyways. 31 attacks from 70 points of model is not bad at all. I've seen them used effectively time and again, so I really find it hard to believe they are bad. I would still bump them down to 60 per ten, 150 per 30 (they max are 30 right?) though, due to base size.
I'm not mad about khorne book, just annoyed and slightly frustrated. As a Slaanesh player, I would love my book, and a mortal faction, and I know I will get that down the line, and i'm fine with waiting, it'll come and it'll be great. It felt like Khorne wasn't that far behind, much like... Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, seraphon, bonesplittaz, or the biggest of lads, BCR. Factions that got adopted early to new styles of battletomes, but get left behind for factions who have already seen a second book. I know it's technically getting them up to second edition, but Khorne wasn't falling off the face of the earth.
Ghaz wrote: Tomb Kings fit the 'ancient' part but in the Mortal Realms I'm not too sure that 'terrible' would describe them. Regardless I would love to see their introduction to the Age of Sigmar.
*Old man voice*
"You young ungrateful kids! You don't remember the days when a mummy ripping a man into bloody halves in a Nuln slum was scary enough for us Warhammer players!
Carnith wrote: I'm not mad about khorne book, just annoyed and slightly frustrated. As a Slaanesh player, I would love my book, and a mortal faction, and I know I will get that down the line, and i'm fine with waiting, it'll come and it'll be great. It felt like Khorne wasn't that far behind, much like... Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, seraphon, bonesplittaz, or the biggest of lads, BCR. Factions that got adopted early to new styles of battletomes, but get left behind for factions who have already seen a second book. I know it's technically getting them up to second edition, but Khorne wasn't falling off the face of the earth.
Getting mad would play right into Khorne's hands... Surely as a Slaanesh player you can appreciate the indulgent excess of certain factions?
Ghaz wrote: Tomb Kings fit the 'ancient' part but in the Mortal Realms I'm not too sure that 'terrible' would describe them. Regardless I would love to see their introduction to the Age of Sigmar.
*Old man voice*
"You young ungrateful kids! You don't remember the days when a mummy ripping a man into bloody halves in a Nuln slum was scary enough for us Warhammer players!
* Horrors are still garbage, no changes and they needed some
* Flayers got better. Scream is now 2d6 versus Bravery, -2, if they are more than 3" and every roll higher than bravery, is a mortal wound; their attack is an unmodified 6 to hit and is a mortal wound in ADDITION to normal damage instead of replacing it
* Terorrgheist is now 6 mortal wounds on an unmodified 6 to HIT instead of Wound.
* Archregent seems pretty beastly and is a must-take in any FEC army, at least one.
Oh good. Terrorgheists can also be battleline. And now will do 6 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit. Hmmm I wonder if its valuable to spam that? Such choices they give lol
EDIT: i haven't seen their points cost yet. If they are actually paying for that ability properly then that would be acceptable. My cynical response is having a feeling that they will not be paying for that ability either.
auticus wrote: Oh good. Terrorgheists can also be battleline. And now will do 6 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit. Hmmm I wonder if its valuable to spam that? Such choices they give lol
EDIT: i haven't seen their points cost yet. If they are actually paying for that ability properly then that would be acceptable. My cynical response is having a feeling that they will not be paying for that ability either.
Do we have confirmation terrorgheists can be battleline? I got the sense it was dragons only.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: App is updated with new scrolls. For FEC so far:
* Horrors are still garbage, no changes and they needed some
What? Horrors weren't/aren't garbage at all. They just need to be in ghoul king range for the buff. They are running around at LVO right now and the guy who won SoCal open was using them.
Each of the 4 Courts unlocks 1 battleline: Terrorghasts, Zombie Dragons, Horrors or Flayers (the latter two also still unlock with the corresponding Courtier general). You pay for this by being forced into some pretty naff Court command traits and artefacts. I can't confirm but people say you also lose the Delusion if you run a Court.
Double summon command trait is gone (well, it changes to your regular summon not costing a CP).
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Okay, so hypothetically you use your Grey Seer's Wither on an enemy blob on models/battleline. I'm guessing the resultant roll have to be high than the unit's total wounds in order for it to work in terms of mortal wounds and -1 to hit, or does it mean individual models within the unit?
I believe it means individual models, so basically is nearly automatic damage and debuff in nearly everything that is not a hero, mounted hero, or monster.
lord_blackfang wrote: Each of the 4 Courts unlocks 1 battleline: Terrorghasts, Zombie Dragons, Horrors or Flayers (the latter two also still unlock with the corresponding Courtier general). You pay for this by being forced into some pretty naff Court command traits and artefacts. I can't confirm but people say you also lose the Delusion if you run a Court.
Double summon command trait is gone (well, it changes to your regular summon not costing a CP).
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Well with Archregent at 200 balance is already gone no matter what. Even with nothing but generic Death allegiance you can run six of them, 450 pts of whatever, and have 6cp to do all their summons first turn and you have deployed between 2710-2950 points round one in a 2000 points game.
Do we have confirmation terrorgheists can be battleline? I got the sense it was dragons only.
I have not seen the book with my own eyes. However I have read in a couple places now they have something that makes royal zombie dragons AND terrogheists battleline.
Blackfang said above that one special court does dragons while another does terrorgheists (and it is confirmed these are indeed the unridden kind). That I am OK with; doing either would push it too far IMO. Now those options may be OP but that is a balance issue distinctly seperate from the concept.
It makes me think of the all-troggoth army. That army is possible but not all that good despite the component units being more or less balanced. Which is perfect because an army like that should be run for theme. It is also an excellent example of why list building still matters quite a lot even when things are balanced.
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Each Archregent can only summon once per game though. Also the units it brings on have to be within 6" of a table edge.
lord_blackfang wrote: Each of the 4 Courts unlocks 1 battleline: Terrorghasts, Zombie Dragons, Horrors or Flayers (the latter two also still unlock with the corresponding Courtier general). You pay for this by being forced into some pretty naff Court command traits and artefacts. I can't confirm but people say you also lose the Delusion if you run a Court.
Double summon command trait is gone (well, it changes to your regular summon not costing a CP).
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Well with Archregent at 200 balance is already gone no matter what. Even with nothing but generic Death allegiance you can run six of them, 450 pts of whatever, and have 6cp to do all their summons first turn and you have deployed between 2710-2950 points round one in a 2000 points game.
Isn't it even better than that with the Charnel Throne?
Without the Throne you have to buy CPs and at that point you're paying 50-90 pts for the Archregent's body depending on what you summon, which seems okay to me.
I think the simplest fix would be to errata the Throne to only pay for 1 command ability per round.
AegisGrimm wrote: I do find it intriguing that some people are saying that something "ancient and terrible" would definitely describe Tomb Kings, as an enemy of Nagash, which would ALSO definitely continue the Soul Wars.
Slaanesh fits the bill a bit better...
Especially since the Aelf deities have been holding Slaanesh to extract Aelf souls from the World That Was out of Slaanesh's belly.
lord_blackfang wrote: Each of the 4 Courts unlocks 1 battleline: Terrorghasts, Zombie Dragons, Horrors or Flayers (the latter two also still unlock with the corresponding Courtier general). You pay for this by being forced into some pretty naff Court command traits and artefacts. I can't confirm but people say you also lose the Delusion if you run a Court.
Double summon command trait is gone (well, it changes to your regular summon not costing a CP).
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Well with Archregent at 200 balance is already gone no matter what. Even with nothing but generic Death allegiance you can run six of them, 450 pts of whatever, and have 6cp to do all their summons first turn and you have deployed between 2710-2950 points round one in a 2000 points game.
Isn't it even better than that with the Charnel Throne?
Archregent spam is real. He's 200 pts and can summon your choice of 170 pts of Horrors/Flayers, 160 pts or Varghulf or 200 pts of Ghouls. Deploy him on the throne for free summons. So he leaves behind a literally free 7W body with decent melee, casting ability (with a great base spell) and literally the best healing in the game (auto 3 wounds a turn). So after you take your fill of dragon/terrorghast riders, you basically fill up all your leftover Leader slots with this guy every time.
Each Archregent can only summon once per game though. Also the units it brings on have to be within 6" of a table edge.
Any table edge. So it's actually better since you get to outflank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Without the Throne you have to buy CPs and at that point you're paying 50-90 pts for the Archregent's body depending on what you summon, which seems okay to me.
I think the simplest fix would be to errata the Throne to only pay for 1 command ability per round.
A restriction that only the general gets to do it would be the only way to salvage things as it stands.
Looks like Gristlegore grand court does indeed get dragons AND terrorgheists as battleline. I think that goes too far; if it was one or the other that would be limiting on flexibility for theme but with both... I think it is cool and fun to let people do theme armies even if they are monster focused but that pushes it into 'what's the point of needing battleline at all?'
That mirrors what I saw doing well at LVO; Daughters, Legions, and Stormcast with a side of Khorne and Idoneth. Builds were limited; Daughters had Morathi + Shrine + Infantry with only variation in support to that, Legions had grimghasts, 5-man dogs, and skeleton blobs almost universally, Stormcast focused on sequitors/evocators/ballista, Khorne probably had the most variation with gore pilgrims but diversity otherwise, while Idoneth was just eel spam.
Hopefully we'll start to see Gloomspite, Skaven and others that are getting new tomes start to push into the meta. There will always be a bit of lag time and Gloomspite has a fair few new models in it. So we might see something like skaven jump the line or even Flesh Eaters since both are pretty much running on legacy models for both armies.
Needless to say my excitement level on the game has not changed. It is still pretty low with these new issues coming out.
My community is starting to ramp up competitive AOS again as well so I have taken my narrative desires underground to the garage and have canceled trying to do any public narratives until gw addresses this without the need for houseruling.
The Skaven and Flesh Eater Battletomes are "issues" now?
Also surely Narrative is all about house-ruling on matters since its, you know, narrative and thus a far more acceptable area to introduce house rules and quirky adjustments to the game beyond just pure matched play with a bit of story.
Still maybe you'd be happier once the AoSRPG game comes out later? That at least would be totally narrative driven and RPG engines are designed to run through a DM and thus any errors or issues can be ironed out by a DM (this is not to excuse errors or problems; but simply being realistic that no RPG system is perfect and also that sometimes errors and problems are not actual and are wrong conclusions by people)
The issues being they continue to push the over powered builds that are obvious. The false choices. I consider those issues.
It also ruins any attempt to do a narrative campaign unless you're just ok with removing 9/10 of the game once those builds show up on your table.
They aren't issues if you are a tournament oriented or competitive gamer playing the game as an exercise in seeing who builds the better list and competing at events like LVO or Adepticon. They are issues otherwise and require social pacts to ensure a good game.
An RPG is not a wargame. They are two totally different entities that fulfill two totally different set of requirements / desires.
Overread wrote: Hopefully we'll start to see Gloomspite, Skaven and others that are getting new tomes start to push into the meta. There will always be a bit of lag time and Gloomspite has a fair few new models in it. So we might see something like skaven jump the line or even Flesh Eaters since both are pretty much running on legacy models for both armies.
Gloomspite was there, they are just a largely balanced battletome so obviously get slaughtered at tournaments.
I wasn't aware we'd spotted the overpowered choices yet. Skaven certainly appear to be a bit all over the place with good choices in a variety of places. Flesh Eaters are simpler if just because they've a much smaller range and whilst there might be some questionable formations (eg all dragons) it still waits to be properly seen if its balanced or unbalanced.
I dunno if they are in-line with Daughters of Khaine and the others on the top end of the curve then it just means the curve is higher for 2.0 and as GW updates each faction they will land in the same ballpark region.
Also Auticus, and I mean this sincerely not as an insult, have you considered taking a step back from AoS entirely? I say that only because it seems, from your internet posting (which I appreciate can be but one facet of a persons interest which they display) you've a heavily negative viewpoint of AoS. Indeed a vast number of your posts seem to dislike various aspects of the game/mechanics/gw and I just wonder if what's needed is a break. A chance to step away and try out some other stuff and give yourself a breather.
Skaven I don't think we know about. FEC we don't really onow barring the Archregent. Problem is unless there is a significant restriction we are missing the Archregent alone is so massively overpowered it shatters any semblance of balance even if everything else is fine.
As for Auticus, consider he has a meta filled with TFG. All the worst exploits we hear about but rarely see are the majority of the armies for him. I think that would sour any of us on the game even if we really wanted to like it.
Also it seems like he runs really good narrative campaigns despite that.
If I could do something with the vast amounts of models that I have spent a bazillion hours painting and modifying over the last 20 years I would certainly fully divorce myself from it entirely.
Barring that if I could play games knowing that I didn't drive 30 minutes to the store to auto lose by unpacking my army, I'd probably be in a better place. Problem is the armies that I really love (chaos warriors and knights, tomb kings, and dark elves) have nothing to stand up to the current jobber-bait.
Skaven we don't fully know about. There is a good chance that they'll be ok.
The FEC stuff though... between archregent obvious choice, max level summoning, and the terrogheist and zombie dragon being battleline choices, that book seems quite a bit bent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Auticus, consider he has a meta filled with TFG. All the worst exploits we hear about but rarely see are the majority of the armies for him. I think that would sour any of us on the game even if we really wanted to like it.
Also it seems like he runs really good narrative campaigns despite that.
My community isn't filled with TFG, but rather it is highly competitive. It only takes one TFG (and yes we have had a couple) to escalate and blow up a campaign with 15-20 others by causing the arms race because no one wants to be a jobber to someone else and lose by virtue of plopping down a fun army vs someone plopping down an LVO finals netlist army.
So when I see things like FEC dropping with the obvious choice character and dual zombie dragon / terrorgheist battleline choices and the ability to bring in 1000-1200 points of free troops extra, I know that it will show up and that the campaign will implode because of it because people will need to also bring their A lists (it is human nature).
I love the public narrative thing we've had going because its quite frankly unique. It breaks my heart to have to make it private because the only public games new players will be exposed to will be competitive league and tournament games and pick up games prepping for those.
So now knowing these results...I will stop bringing my Khorne army against my buddy's Overlords, and start bringing my Beastmen instead, apparently that's a fair fight!
It's the quality of the list more than the rank of the army. Every Khorne list doing well had Gore Pilgrims, and a Bloodsecrator is auto take even without it. Bring Khorne but don't use any bloodsecrators, should do the trick.
Fair enough, the Bloodboi is just an incredible force multiplier. So makes sense he is an auto-pick. Hopefully he gets changed in the new book, while keeping the book's power.
but really the pile-ins are what eats time, at least for me. 
