I do have a few questions, but i guess that this thread could allso function as the general discussion thread for this new faction.

Is this faction supposed to be the AoS version of 40k Imp Knights, or is it a more elite version of Beastclaw Raiders?
Allso, i have 1000p of troggoths(running the Troggheard battalion, so having one aleguzzler allready), i assume SoB would be a good ally for this force? If not, why not??

All those questions will be answered once the army book is actually released and we know anything beyond the point costs.

Wait we KNOW the point costs?

I assumed they'll have a rule like Grotek where they're beyond the usual 400 point limit at 2k?

We do, they were included in GH2020. So we know the mega gargants are 490/480 pts per model.

You was right, Cronch, Stats was released today exept the points cost.

Based on the stats alone, to me it looks very mutch like the AoS version of 40k knights. (35 wounds is alot!)
So before they release the points for the Megas and the guessing game is over, Should we expect perhaps 700p or more for the Megas??( i have been out of the rules loop for a few years so idk about this "Grotek" rule)

In AoS you can only take up to 20% in model count and points value as allies in your army. So for a 2K army you can only take 400 points worth of allies in any army.


The "Gotrek rule" is a rule that a character Gotrek has which allows him to exceed that limit as his points value is 520. It's important for hime because he can only be take as an allied character as he doesn't fit into any AoS faction/army.


The Giants for Sons are expected to follow suit. HOWEVER they also have a mechanic whereby each Grand Alliance can only take a named character giant (far as we know) which has unique stats different to those Giants in the actual "army" itself. This allows them to be themed for each of the four Grand Alliances.

So its likely that they use this same rule in order to have a points value which reflects their power, but allows them to be allied into other armies.



Needless to say in these situations you can't take other allies.

Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

Well so far there's only one exception for Destruction, Death and Chaos and two for Order. Each one being a Giant and then Order being a Giant and Gotrek.

Personally I like the limitations on allies. It really helps prevent "souped" armies that have been a problem for 40K in terms of visual aesthetics at times and also game balance. It allows AoS armies to take allies, but keeps them as a minor element (as you'd honestly expect) rather than diluting the main army to almost nothing. You can still also take Grand Alliance armies for a smash of everything and there's a few forces like Slaves to Darkness; Cities of Sigmar and Legions of Nagash which let you do a similar thing, with some restrictions and have a very visually diverse force.


I think one or two exceptions are fine, especially when they are basically built for the role.

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

That is pretty hyperbolic. The exceptions are rare and not particularly, err, exceptional. We are talking less than 100 extra points of allies, generally speaking. If having a few exceptions was reason to remove a rule we'd be removing most of the rules entirely. Plenty of units have ways to run & charge or run & shoot; should it just be that all units can do that? Some armies can get around the 4-behemoth restriction, should it be removed? Some units can cast the same spell even if it has already been cast that phase, should all units be able to do that with all spells? It goes on and on.

I don't see the exaggerations in my post sorry. I stated remove allies because cause was we started making exceptions, so why not just remove them because I find exceptions to be tedious. There are no exaggerations in any of that.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
You was right, Cronch, Stats was released today exept the points cost.

Based on the stats alone, to me it looks very mutch like the AoS version of 40k knights. (35 wounds is alot!)
So before they release the points for the Megas and the guessing game is over, Should we expect perhaps 700p or more for the Megas??( i have been out of the rules loop for a few years so idk about this "Grotek" rule)

We have the points. They're in the General's Handbook. I doubt they changed much if any in 2 months, so they should be 490 for gatebreaker and kraken eater and 480 for warstomper.

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

If they insist upon making things like Gotrek, mega-gargants, etc, then they should remove the points restriction for allies.

Wildly disagree on that one. The points restriction makes these exceptions stand out more, but it's not like there's a whole bunch of them.

So far it's Gotrek and the Mega-Gargants.

 auticus wrote:
I don't see the exaggerations in my post sorry. I stated remove allies because cause was we started making exceptions, so why not just remove them because I find exceptions to be tedious. There are no exaggerations in any of that.

Hm, I suppose 'hyperbolic' is not the best word choice. I read your post as implying there's little reason to keep the restrictions. Given that all of the reasons to have the restrictions in the first place are still valid and that having exceptions is not of itself a reason to get rid of a restriction, I interpreted your statement as being somewhat extreme.

ccs wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

If they insist upon making things like Gotrek, mega-gargants, etc, then they should remove the points restriction for allies.

Yes thats what I meant exactly. AOS is already a sandbox of min/maxing combos, why have arbitrary restrictions and then some exceptions? To me just embrace it for what it is. In this case I'm saying remove the point restrictions on allies. No sarcasm. You already have Gotrek running amuk and now these guys, just remove the point cap on allies instead of creating new exceptions. Let it be what it is.

Honestly by what we've seen they may be a bit more healthy than knights were. When knights came out they were a terror, and when their codex came out in 8th they shaped the meta around them.

Being close combat orientated with a few small ranged attacks the gargants will have more counterplay. They have to get in combat to do their damage and they have to carefully split their attacks to maximized damage. You can throw chaf units in front of them if you have them. Or try and weaken them with shooting before charging in for the kill.

But on the other hand. We don't know what command abilities, faction traits, relics and other sub options exist that could push them to the point of being broken. So far, i'd be interested to play against them. Could be plenty fun.

 auticus wrote:

ccs wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

If they insist upon making things like Gotrek, mega-gargants, etc, then they should remove the points restriction for allies.

Yes thats what I meant exactly. AOS is already a sandbox of min/maxing combos, why have arbitrary restrictions and then some exceptions? To me just embrace it for what it is. In this case I'm saying remove the point restrictions on allies. No sarcasm. You already have Gotrek running amuk and now these guys, just remove the point cap on allies instead of creating new exceptions. Let it be what it is.

I ask again; some units can cast specific spells even if they have already been attempted the same phase. By your logic, we should ditch the once-per-phase spell restriction entirely because of that. Having a few minor exceptions to ally point totals is next to nothing compared to eliminating the restriction entirely, it is not even subjective.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:

ccs wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Or they should just remove the ally restriction entirely. Once you start getting to a point where you have to start making exceptions... why not?

If they insist upon making things like Gotrek, mega-gargants, etc, then they should remove the points restriction for allies.

Yes thats what I meant exactly. AOS is already a sandbox of min/maxing combos, why have arbitrary restrictions and then some exceptions? To me just embrace it for what it is. In this case I'm saying remove the point restrictions on allies. No sarcasm. You already have Gotrek running amuk and now these guys, just remove the point cap on allies instead of creating new exceptions. Let it be what it is.

I ask again; some units can cast specific spells even if they have already been attempted the same phase. By your logic, we should ditch the once-per-phase spell restriction entirely because of that. Having a few minor exceptions to ally point totals is next to nothing compared to eliminating the restriction entirely, it is not even subjective.

I'm not seeing a question in there.
But yes, in general the one casting attempt per spell is another idiotic rule that needs to go.

So we are almost arguing for a no-restrictions rules set - so AoS Launch Edition?




Honestly one or two exceptions to the points restriction is fine. It allows for the possibility of units of greater power being added as allies, but when they are one model in count. It's nowhere near the same as taking a Daughters of Khaine army where you've only got a Slaughter Queen and 30 Witch Aelves for min-requirements and then the entire rest is Khadorans.

To me AOS is basically no-restrictions ruleset anyway.

You have what it is with its balance, and the restrictions being removed I don't think make something really badly balanced even more badly balanced. The end result still remains the same.

So again if AOS is the sandbox for do whatever you like for the most part, keep it that way IMO.

You’re advocating for Open Play, a game mode where there are basically no restrictions.

It already exists.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

Is this faction supposed to be the AoS version of 40k Imp Knights, or is it a more elite version of Beastclaw Raiders?
Allso, i have 1000p of troggoths(running the Troggheard battalion, so having one aleguzzler allready), i assume SoB would be a good ally for this force? If not, why not??

As someone who plays both systems, this feels more like an AoS version of IK. You can play them as either a stand-alone force or insert one into another faction.

As for running a Mega-G with your troggoth list, I think it works well thematically, but no idea yet from a rules standpoint. The article yesterday did make it clear that while warstompers use the same model as aleguzzlers, they are different units. My assumption for now is that your battalion could ally in one of the new units, but we will need to wait and see. I am sure those types of details will be in an article over the next couple of days.

As an additional thought, I am interested to see if the new rules will change how Mega-G's can be used in generic grand alliance destruction lists. I would like to believe they are just another destruction unit that can be added, but since the mercenary teasers mention that the one can be used with destruction armies, I get the feeling their rules will be different from the norm.

You're right it is open play albeit using points system.

I guess that begs the question, if balance being what it is is already universally accepted as being what it is, why not just use open play with points?

I suppose thats better for a different thread though.

Like with all things in wargaming, there is nothing stopping you from doing that if you find like-minded people. But that's always the case.

Hold on, did i understand this right, are aleguzzler beeing simply renamed and reboxed, so the faction is simply just current aleguzzlers as battleline and mega gargants?

articles dont spesify this so far, only that mancrusher will be up for preorder..

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Hold on, did i understand this right, are aleguzzler beeing simply renamed and reboxed, so the faction is simply just current aleguzzlers as battleline and mega gargants?

articles dont spesify this so far, only that mancrusher will be up for preorder..

This article does specify things.

Mancrushers are effectively Aleguzzlers that get sober and follow in their older siblings' footsteps(literally in some cases!).

Yea i saw the article but it still vague. Guess i will see on saturday.

There's a whole blurb at the bottom that explains it.

Yes, they're Aleguzzlers renamed. Because the rename is accompanying them no longer being winos wandering the Mortal Realms and following along with the Mega-Gargants to trample along causing mayhem and shenanigans everywhere they go.

Sons are looking really intreasting. They sure are tough and I feel like alot of armies are going to have trouble accounting for them in a TAC list.

My Tzeentch should be fine. My OBR are a little more concerned.

Are we really going to suggest that a TAC should be able to handle this army?

They shouldn't. It's a skew list, for all intents and purposes.

In theory a TAC should be able to handle them as they are a core army. If they are far too skewed then it will break game balance.

Thing is whilst hey are monstrously powerful, they also have very limited board control. It might also be possible to lock them in combat with fast units.

Like going against Ossiarchs, you might have to play more to objectives than just outright killing power.
And if the game is about killing power - mob up and focus fire on one. Each one you tear down is a huge chunk out of the enemy.



They might also be really vulnerable to magic, ranged attacks as well as being mobbed. So I can see potential for them to have weak points that allows other armies to exploit them; even if it might take a while for some to learn how to deal with them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Are we really going to suggest that a TAC should be able to handle this army?

They shouldn't. It's a skew list, for all intents and purposes.

It depends on how prevalent they become in the Meta. The issue being if they become prevalent enough, I don't think I have the tools in my OBR codex to handle it at all, TAC or not.

35 wounds behind a 4+ save is less durable than a lot of units; 30 mortek guard are harder to shift than that. 20 hearthguard zerkers, 30 grimghasts, 20 chaos warriors... If an army cannot kill a mega-gargant or two it has serious problems with damage output and either knows what it is doing or is not a TAC list. Plus Mega-Gargants are heroes and monsters. There are a LOT of anti-hero and/or monster abilities out there be they on a warscroll or from an artifact/allegiance ability, if a given player is concerned they can tap into those.

SoB have three lists:
1 Mega-Gargant and 9 Mancrushers
2 Megas and 6 Mancrushers
3 Megas and 3 Mancrushers

Unless the allegiance has something real good waiting in the wings which we have not seen yet those are not even close to the average tourney-topping army.

I guess we'll see then. Maybe I'm concerned for nothing and I won't have to worry about seeing them unless I get 1st round matched with them.

Have we seen any way for them to cast spells and dispel?

No, though I am betting Kraken-Eaters have an artifact and/or command ability for it.

 auticus wrote:
I don't see the exaggerations in my post sorry. I stated remove allies because cause was we started making exceptions, so why not just remove them because I find exceptions to be tedious. There are no exaggerations in any of that.

Well since exceptions are tedius...Let's remove cant' run and charge.

Cant' cast same spell twice? There are exceptions to that. Exceptions are tedius. Remove restriction!

Owner decides where damage goes. There are exceptions to that too. Make attacker allocate damage!

How will these lists look like? One big giant is around 500 points, one giant is around 200?

4 big once?
3 big once, 2 small once?
2 big once, 5 small once?

If you get 3 small ones it's about 500 pts. So it's basically 1 big or 3 small for 500 pts blocks. So from 4 big ones to 12 small ones. Most likely combos I would expect 2 big, 6 small or 3 big, 3 small

Ok. The small once are battleline? So no 4 big ones?

I think they discount the Mancrushers (small ones) if you take units of 3. It seems the minimum number of models one can take is 6 with a max of 10.

 Overread wrote:
In theory a TAC should be able to handle them as they are a core army. If they are far too skewed then it will break game balance.

Thing is whilst hey are monstrously powerful, they also have very limited board control. It might also be possible to lock them in combat with fast units.

And if the game is about killing power - mob up and focus fire on one. Each one you tear down is a huge chunk out of the enemy.

Same way i see them, the more megas that is on the table, the less objective control the force have. It may take some effort and some unit losses to bring down one mega(seeing some of the traits), but when one it is down things will change.

Yep plus can they even do anything in the magic phase? So that's a whole phase of damage and buff/debuff output that they might not be able to tap into on their own. Heck those Endless Spell walls could come into their own when you've factions that can't just get rid of them and could seriously be messed up by them.

I would imagine at least one relic deals with magic.

I wonder if they have detachments?

 Overread wrote:
Yep plus can they even do anything in the magic phase?

so far, no.
But that is perhaps where allies can come in.

Mega-Gargant Mercenaries on Warhammer Community:

Yea no bomb that one.
When we knew on saturday that all armies could have a mega, it was very clear megas would not follow the point limitations for allys at 2kp or less. (what are the ally points for armies above 2k btw?)

So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Yea no bomb that one.
When we knew on saturday that all armies could have a mega, it was very clear megas would not follow the point limitations for allys at 2kp or less. (what are the ally points for armies above 2k btw?)

It's the same, 1/5th of points and model count. The limit just scales up and down with the points value you select.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

Sounds right from what we know so far. Which is a neat idea as it allows GW to separate the balance and stats of the gargants in their own army and those who are taken as allies. It might mean that allied ones are weaker or stronger or very niche built compared to the regular ones.

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

Kinda/sorta?

To use an example:
If you want to take a Mega-Gargant as Order? You have to take Bundo Whalebiter.
Bundo Whalebiter is always going to be a Kraken-Eater Mega-Gargant.

There's a bit of a sneak peek on the Sunday preview here:

I hope GW ordered extra of those cards as I can see a LOT of people getting them instead of getting the battletome

The exception is Destruction forces; several armies have SoB listed as traditional allies. Presumably they will also benefit from the point restriction being replaced if one picks up an allied MegaG.

@Overread to clarify, the allied restriction outside of points is one-in-four units, so three in-faction unit choices for every one ally choice. The points restriction is an additional rule for matched play only. Model count never comes into it either way.

And there we have it, an artifact for kraken mega gargant that makes one into a basic wizzard.

That first artifact in the preview is extremely powerful.

Yea, thouse 35 wounds might not go down so easily.

Just ordered my 2000pt list
Warstomper
Gatebreaker
2 x 3 Mancrushers

Well we have the full warscrolls now. Underwhelming, but not surprisingly so given GW's general reluctance to offer Destruction more powerful options. They just don't deal that much damage for being nearly 500 points. I would not be surprised to see the next GHB drop them down around the 400 point mark.

The army may still have a viable build or two thanks to allegiance and such, at least. And with their extra abilities the named character allies may make SoB most viable outside Destruction. Which is kind of sad if you ask me.

To be fair underwhelming might have been intentional - GW might not want to catch flak for releasing the most expensive models ever which are also coincidentally the most powerful ever.

 Overread wrote:
To be fair underwhelming might have been intentional - GW might not want to catch flak for releasing the most expensive models ever which are also coincidentally the most powerful ever.

I have trouble believing GW thought it that far through. Their established inadequacies in assessing potency seems a far more likely culprit.

Looking forward to the lore - interested to see if they are all actually Sons and if any mention of more intelligent Giants is referenced alongside the Destruction boys

Well, I guess it's time to get back into GW wargaming...

So, since this is the army I'll be getting into, the question I have is this;

I'm getting 3 Mega Gargants and 6 Mancrushers, Battletome and Warscrolls. Besides those, what other books do I need to play Warhammer Fantasy?

It's been a long time

General's Handbook 2020, the free AoS app (which is really good and has easy access to the core rules in it).

Or get the Game Book which has all the games rules and is a more sensible size for actual gaming compared to the Big Rule Book which is a fantastic book but more for art and lore than practical gaming.

You will still want the 2020 Generals Handbook alongside as some elements - like Realm Rules - have changed

Thanks guys!

Why get the gamer's book anymore? It is outdated; the scenarios have been replaced, the realmscape rules & spells are now narrative-only. I don't reccomend it to new players unless they are specifically getting into a community which runs narrative and/or house rules that stuff into matched play.

The only part that's changed is the realmscape rules. All the games core rules are exactly the same plus, if I recall right, its had the erratas edited in as well to those. So core rules wise its up to date and far easier to carry around than the Big Rule Book.

Sure if they are going to use the app then its a non-issue they use the app; but for those who prefer a physical book its far better than the BRB.

It is a display of GW's somewhat haphazard approach to rules to release a useful resource and then make a portion of it invalid with another publication - another sign perhaps of different teams working on different things or GW not wanting to tip their hand to future changes etc... For whatever reason they changed the realm rules side of things. But in the end many of those were not even used universally in every game location and sometimes people used bits of them not the full set.

 Overread wrote:
So we are almost arguing for a no-restrictions rules set - so AoS Launch Edition?




Honestly one or two exceptions to the points restriction is fine. It allows for the possibility of units of greater power being added as allies, but when they are one model in count. It's nowhere near the same as taking a Daughters of Khaine army where you've only got a Slaughter Queen and 30 Witch Aelves for min-requirements and then the entire rest is Khadorans.

No. Just because I'm against two restrictions doesn't mean I'm not for others.
For ex;
Pts limits on games.
1+ leaders, 2+ battle lines, 0- x whatever
I'm even good with allies only being limited to 1 in every 4 units.

 Overread wrote:
The only part that's changed is the realmscape rules. All the games core rules are exactly the same plus, if I recall right, its had the erratas edited in as well to those. So core rules wise its up to date and far easier to carry around than the Big Rule Book.

Sure if they are going to use the app then its a non-issue they use the app; but for those who prefer a physical book its far better than the BRB.

Uh, no one suggested the base rulebook...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The only part that's changed is the realmscape rules. All the games core rules are exactly the same plus, if I recall right, its had the erratas edited in as well to those. So core rules wise its up to date and far easier to carry around than the Big Rule Book.

Sure if they are going to use the app then its a non-issue they use the app; but for those who prefer a physical book its far better than the BRB.

Uh, no one suggested the base rulebook...

Aye but if you want the full rules in physical form then its either the game book or the big rule book and of the two the game book is cheaper, smaller, lighter and more practical to use.

Or print the PDF for free rather than buying the gamer's book only to use 12 pages of it.

Or snag one of the starter set booklets off ebay for a few bucks.

Wait, people are actually buying those booklets?

Dangit. I've been giving them away!

Where you get enough to give them? You don't get gaming book for free anywhere at least legally.

They come in the big boxes. If you do any split-boxing, amusingly enough, people don't seem to want them.

The forge word giant has ben added to this faction as a mega gargant, so 1 more model for diveristy. (nothing special about its rules other then some more freedom in movment due to its tall and slinky size)

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
The forge word giant has ben added to this faction as a mega gargant, so 1 more model for diveristy. (nothing special about its rules other then some more freedom in movment due to its tall and slinky size)

The Bonecrusher Gargant?

I'm not a fan. Ugly model in context to the mancrushers and mega gargants. As for aesthetics, I want my table top force to have the same overall harmonious look.

When was it made? It looks like a relic of a bygone era.

 BuFFo wrote:

When was it made? It looks like a relic of a bygone era.

Probably in the top 5 of oldest things still in FW production.

And yeah, was never a fan either.

It's old, but its nice to see it getting some attention! I'm always sad things like the Wolf Rats and Warpfire dragon didn't get a time to shine (and now are gone for good).

 Overread wrote:
It's old, but its nice to see it getting some attention! I'm always sad things like the Wolf Rats and Warpfire dragon didn't get a time to shine (and now are gone for good).

Good point. With so many models going way of the dodo without any so much as a warning ( FW chaos dwarves going bye bye slowly over the years, for example ) breathing some life into the Bonecrusher is a positive.

It isn't my cup of tea aesthetic-wise, but if I had a collection of older models, I'd probably make a mega gargant army out of those much more cheaper than with the newest mega gargants.

 BuFFo wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
The forge word giant has ben added to this faction as a mega gargant, so 1 more model for diveristy. (nothing special about its rules other then some more freedom in movment due to its tall and slinky size)

The Bonecrusher Gargant?

I'm not a fan. Ugly model in context to the mancrushers and mega gargants. As for aesthetics, I want my table top force to have the same overall harmonious look.

When was it made? It looks like a relic of a bygone era.

Bonegrinder Gargant.

Seems they renamed him since you all talk about Bonecrusher.
And yea, visualy very different from the new megas, slinky, lacking some meat on the bone. Him alone whit 2 or 3 GW megas i would imagine look wierd, but if you proxi some other giant models aswell then it could not look bad i think.

warscroll:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/aos_warscrolls/Downloads-AoS/aos-warscroll-bonegrinder-gargant.pdf

Oh, the Bonegrinder has his own rules for the current SoB army? Really? Wow...

Looks like I might have to get a fourth Mega Gargant to use as a Bonegrinder!

Well, actually... after reading his warscroll... No thanks... FW continues the decades long tradition or making high cost models with under powered rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Are we really going to suggest that a TAC should be able to handle this army?

They shouldn't. It's a skew list, for all intents and purposes.

Not really? It's just low model count. They don't have particularly strong defensive stats other than a high wound pool and their offense is on the low side for a model their cost. A skew list was a couple dozen tzeentch flamers, not this.

 BuFFo wrote:
Oh, the Bonegrinder has his own rules for the current SoB army? Really? Wow...

Looks like I might have to get a fourth Mega Gargant to use as a Bonegrinder!

Well, actually... after reading his warscroll... No thanks... FW continues the decades long tradition or making high cost models with under powered rules.

Funny. Others complain FW always make broken stuff.

Anyway GW took control of FW model rules so...Direct complain to GW studio. They are the ones who wrote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They come in the big boxes. If you do any split-boxing, amusingly enough, people don't seem to want them.

Are you sure you aren't mixing with core rules with gaming book? Gaming book is

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Age-Of-Sigmar-Gaming-Book-EN-2019

And 88 pages is bit more than what I would classify as booklet.

I'm talking about the booklets. I referred to booklets initially and Ninth did as well.

Looncurse, Carrion Empire, Lumineth box, etc all have come with the little core booklet.

Most definitely confirmation bias, but it seems like these were a hit. My media feeds are filled with fully painted, WIP, conversions and the obligatory ‘Look what just showed up in the post” box photos.

I myself purchased the tome (as I do for all battletomes) and 1 Mega-gargant. Gonna do a Kraken-Eater for my Order armies and see where it goes from there.

They are expensive but the trick of making them ally into any army is going to give them a vast appeal; more so than most new armies. Because their target market is "anyone" who wants a giant model.

So yep I figure they'll do alright. The army itself might not end up the most popular, but I figure it could in time esp for players who play armies from more than one GA and thus can easily end up with two or three ally giants

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm talking about the booklets. I referred to booklets initially and Ninth did as well.

Looncurse, Carrion Empire, Lumineth box, etc all have come with the little core booklet.

Or get the Game Book which has all the games rules and is a more sensible size for actual gaming compared to the Big Rule Book which is a fantastic book but more for art and lore than practical gaming.

You will still want the 2020 Generals Handbook alongside as some elements - like Realm Rules - have changed

By overread.

Couple posts below by ninth:

Why get the gamer's book anymore? It is outdated; the scenarios have been replaced, the realmscape rules & spells are now narrative-only. I don't reccomend it to new players unless they are specifically getting into a community which runs narrative and/or house rules that stuff into matched play.

I have been talking about gaming book in response to these.

 Overread wrote:
They are expensive but the trick of making them ally into any army is going to give them a vast appeal; more so than most new armies. Because their target market is "anyone" who wants a giant model.

So yep I figure they'll do alright. The army itself might not end up the most popular, but I figure it could in time esp for players who play armies from more than one GA and thus can easily end up with two or three ally giants

Exactly my toughts aswell, the popularity and reason for sales atleast in the first 6 months will be primarely from the Ally aspect.
Pure SoB armies with more then 2 megas wont be viable as you will loose the objective game, atleast not until they do some future adjustments to points or warscroll stats.

Been able to read through and digest the new battletome, as well as play a game against the Sons. First off, the fluff is fantastic. I really enjoyed reading it, it's loaded with character, has just the right amount of humor, and is all-around awesome.

In terms of gameplay the situation is a bit disappointing. One would expect a gargant army to play like gargants; stomping forward, smashing things to bits. Unfortunately the viable option is to play the objective game as this is where the army really shines. Going with a taker tribe (which is what people will be doing) each kraken-eater is worth 30 models and each mancrusher is worth 15, allowing them to readily seize objectives. This is straightforward because while a conventional unit wanting to put a 30-count on an objective needs all 30 models within range all the gargant has to do is toe in the front millimeter of his base to get his full value. Stuff like retreating over enemies (mega gargants can move over models with 10w or less) to grab objectives is the kind of tactic to win games with Sons. That and others along the same line of thinking give the army viability on the battlefield but it just doesn't fit the theme well at all. Not to mention leaving stomper & crusher tribes out to dry.

This is a result from what I feel is the biggest flaw of the 'tome; mega gargants do not deal much damage compared to their point cost. Their profile is scary up front but considering they cost nearly 500 points it is unimpressive. Ditto for their defenses; 35 wounds seems like a lot, but there are plenty of units which have been running around since AoS' launch that are as tough or tougher. This is before debuffs come into play, and with no access to unbinds beyond one artifact in the taker tribe Sons have next to no ability to stop penalties coming in. This all pushes them towards objective-centered play, which they are indeed good at but it would be nice to see more diversity in how to run the army. More specifically it would be nice to have the models on the board match up better with the awe-inspiring destruction they heap upon foes in the fluff.

Seriously though, I have to hand it to whoever wrote the lore. It is hard to read it and not want to go out and buy a mega gargant or two, price be dammed.

The Sons of Behemat audio book was fun too, if a bit short.

My biggest complaint with the book is the allies matrix for them. A big fat “none”. I think they would have benefitted greatly from at least one ally.

And yeah Ninth, its crazy that they are more of a “finesse” army than a straight up smashface army.

Funny how people said they lose due to objectives and now ninth say objectives is where they shine. or is the army so bad that even though they shine in objectives they lose on that too?

I think it is because if you try to play Sons as a 'smashy' army you will fail to smash sufficiently and then lose on objectives. But once you actually aim for the objectives specifically one will find much more success. And that starts at listbuilding before models even touch the board, so it is easy to show up and get a distorted impression.

That said it is not a very strong army. They aren't weak to the point of non-viability, but these aren't OBR where things click so long as you don't screw up.

To be fair with Ossiarchs "not screwing up" does mean having a pretty good game plan and a strong eye on the objectives otherwise you might win in 9 turns but you'll lose in 5 or 6 to objectives (when the game actually/typically ends).

 Overread wrote:
To be fair with Ossiarchs "not screwing up" does mean having a pretty good game plan and a strong eye on the objectives otherwise you might win in 9 turns but you'll lose in 5 or 6 to objectives (when the game actually/typically ends).

Obs aren't actually op, its just they are really easy to ruin people's day with if you go in looking to club seals. Their ability to stomp casual players without needing much research is silly. Run a maxed out battle line, a catapult and a harvester, and you basically roll over any unprepared friendly list.

Once people bring actual good lists though? None reaper players suddenly have to think when they play.

They do reasonably well at tournaments, so yeah they are OP. Don't let fotm/bandwagon players stand for what the faction is capable of; I have seen in person what they do in the hands of skilled players. Like always it is specific elements being exploited, but that should go without saying. Anyways this is a Sons thread so I'll avoid going into detail. Certainly in comparing OBR to Sons there is a very clear power disparity. What I was commenting on is the subtle mirror where an OBR player gets along fine as long as they don't do anything seriously wrong, where a Sons player will only get along fine if they do everything seriously right.