They look awesome. Seem to be trying to give you a ton of different ways to play them and are almost taking a 9th 40k "all the cool rules piled on" approach which will be fun if 3.0 books are like this.
I like them quite a lot. Skeletons, Dire Wolves, Zombies, the Mother of Nightmares, the Wight King, all of it is fantastic and I can't wait to sink my teeth into the models and get them painted up.
Trouble is, the release feels incomplete. Even with all of what they've shown, the Grave Guard now look wimpier than normal skeletons. The Corpse Cart is ancient. The Vargheists are still tied to a box with the FEC, and the Black Knights are in a kit split with the Nighthaunt. They also make big talk about these different bloodlines under Lauka Vai and the other characters, but what models are we supposed to use to represent those things? Where are the Vrykos blood-born? Where are the vampire infantry? Where's our terrain or endless spells?
My theory is that either at the end of this year or into the next we're going to see a Soulblight Gravelords second wave, just like we've seen for Slaanesh, Lumineth, Sisters of Battle, and Admech...
drbored wrote: I like them quite a lot. Skeletons, Dire Wolves, Zombies, the Mother of Nightmares, the Wight King, all of it is fantastic and I can't wait to sink my teeth into the models and get them painted up.
Trouble is, the release feels incomplete. Even with all of what they've shown, the Grave Guard now look wimpier than normal skeletons. The Corpse Cart is ancient. The Vargheists are still tied to a box with the FEC, and the Black Knights are in a kit split with the Nighthaunt. They also make big talk about these different bloodlines under Lauka Vai and the other characters, but what models are we supposed to use to represent those things? Where are the Vrykos blood-born? Where are the vampire infantry? Where's our terrain or endless spells?
My theory is that either at the end of this year or into the next we're going to see a Soulblight Gravelords second wave, just like we've seen for Slaanesh, Lumineth, Sisters of Battle, and Admech...
I'm sure there will be a second wave, but I wouldn't expect most of what you've listed. The trend of second waves has been largely expansion of the range/conversion of non-plastic to plastic, rather than reissues of existing plastic kits. Grave guard might get redone because they are very old and don't work with the new aesthetic of the faction, etc. but the corpse cart probably has life left in it by virtue of the fact that it can't really be compared against another similar unit the way the grave guard can with skellie warriors. Vargheists and Black Knights are still very viable kits and GW is basically stuck with them unless they also redo the nighthaunt kits they are paired with, GW isn't going to invest in replacement minis for a kit that they are going to continue producing.
Not bad but its getting off to a shakey start, release wise; Cursed City discontinued on release day, limited stock of the underworlds warband, some hit'n'miss models for this week's preorders, and its Battle tome released at the same time as a new edition of AoS is announced.
Personally, I'm looking forward to running a Cursed City themed solo-coop campaign but waiting on certain kits to be released. This includes the Broken Realms witch hunters, a "varg" creature of some description, maybe the fabulous new radukar model and anything else that is interesting in a horror-monster kind of way.
Being a relative newcomer to the fantasy side of Warhammer, I wasn't aware that the Wight King, Sepulchral Guard and skeletons come under Soulblight so I'm chuffed that I've already have some models to get started with. I'm thinking that a box of armoured skeletons( up for preorder this saturday ) might be a good investment as they can be used for other games besides AoS.
Unless they're hiding some faction stuff (and I've seen most of the book, so I don't think they are) this super screws over my army, and probably a lot of other people that ran Legion of Grief type builds.
My whole army was based around Vampire Lords leading an army of Ghosts. I love the Lord on Zombie Dragon, but I can't even run that as an ally in Nighthaunt as its too many points...
Like... this stuff happens, I'm not fuming or anything. It's just a bit frustrating.
Stux wrote: Unless they're hiding some faction stuff (and I've seen most of the book, so I don't think they are) this super screws over my army, and probably a lot of other people that ran Legion of Grief type builds.
My whole army was based around Vampire Lords leading an army of Ghosts. I love the Lord on Zombie Dragon, but I can't even run that as an ally in Nighthaunt as its too many points...
Like... this stuff happens, I'm not fuming or anything. It's just a bit frustrating.
Legion of Grief itself is still valid; it is part of the Forbidden Power supplement. For that matter anything in the LoN battletome not directly updated in SGL is valid until they say otherwise. So legions of Night and Blood are replaced by the new versions as are updated warscrolls but Grand Host and Legion of Sacrament will remain useable for an indeterminate amount of time.
When I realized you can run a dragon list with Avengorii I can actually run my a lot of my FEC dragons as Soulblight. Even have all the Mounted Vampire Lord parts to and the riders magnetized to switch them out.
So I am liking things so far, only because I can technically dual field an army I already have.
I was considering painting some models. It is the monsters that drew me to it. But the FEC monster list with Ghoul back up is very strong and a well established list. Those monsters will stomp you.
After having seen through the leaks I do not see how regular vampires should be able to replicate that. Mind you I am just a lay person.
But all of the vampire spells are variations on magic missile for the most part. De buffs are in the morarts and deathmage section. And even then there are no buffs. Only buff come from command abilities mostly.
The graveside rule is unique and allows you to deepstriker a lot of stuff onto the table. Forcing your opponent to advance if he wants to block this.
Unless there is something I am not seeing FEC are better for monster mash. (Although the monster faction has - 1 to hit them unless you are a monster. And their heroes reduce rending by 1.)
But there must be things I can not see. At least 2 things gives zombies a bonus to their save. But they have no Armour save. I do not know what that is about.
The leaks are out now... Being a long time LoN player, I was initially very annoyed.
Mostly because lmost of the old stuff that used to be good, got nerfed (very significantly in some cases) but some of the bad stuff got really good.
For those starting out with vampires, a few things that seem pretty obvious by now:
1) Skeletons back on the shelf, zombies are great now and will do everything better than the skellies ever wil.
2) There is no reason not to pretend your VLoZD isn't prince Vordrai anymore. He'll fit into most other bloodlines, but will be even better in Kastelai. Mannfred is also good enough to slot into other bloodlines besides Legion of Night.
3) Elite vampire force through Kastelai is very much on the table... If it's got the vampire keyword, have it in there and it'll perform well. Gravesites have been nerfed so hard, I don't think it'll be a mechanic you HAVE to take, so full vampire definitely doesn't miss out on too much. Some wolves in there could still be good though.
4) I only see a foot vampire to be useful in a Vyrkos Dynasty who can really go mad with zombies and direwolves. This is the fully opposite build of the mounted Kastelai.
5) Graveguard with greatweapons are insanely good. If your force synergizes well with these, expect insane output from them.
Could you elaborate a bit more on why grave guard are good?
Also, why are zombies good and skeletons bad? The few saving graces for zombies are low points. But 5+ /5+ no rend is a though bar to push through. You are also unlikely to get all in melee range. The moral wound is nice. Spawning more is OK I guess, but I am not seeing them throw out the damage.
You probably want some summon units because you can randomly respawn them at times.
Gravesites I think is quite nice. I did not know what they where before. But you can essentially deepstrikers turn 1.
The only problem is if the opponent gets turn 1 and body block them you are stuck. But you still have 2 Gravesites in your deployment zone. And they really need to push far out to block them. Meaning you can counter charge.
It is a good way to get zombies and skeletons up the bord turn 1.
Niiai wrote: I was considering painting some models. It is the monsters that drew me to it. But the FEC monster list with Ghoul back up is very strong and a well established list. Those monsters will stomp you.
After having seen through the leaks I do not see how regular vampires should be able to replicate that. Mind you I am just a lay person.
I do agree that I am not so sure how powerful Avengorii will be, but for me it is just a cheap way to get into Soulblight which I could then build upon later.
Stux wrote: Unless they're hiding some faction stuff (and I've seen most of the book, so I don't think they are) this super screws over my army, and probably a lot of other people that ran Legion of Grief type builds.
My whole army was based around Vampire Lords leading an army of Ghosts. I love the Lord on Zombie Dragon, but I can't even run that as an ally in Nighthaunt as its too many points...
Like... this stuff happens, I'm not fuming or anything. It's just a bit frustrating.
Legion of Grief itself is still valid; it is part of the Forbidden Power supplement. For that matter anything in the LoN battletome not directly updated in SGL is valid until they say otherwise. So legions of Night and Blood are replaced by the new versions as are updated warscrolls but Grand Host and Legion of Sacrament will remain useable for an indeterminate amount of time.
Yeah I don't see these Legions sticking around. Especially Sacrament.
As I say, I ran Vampires with Ghosts. Which you can't even do in Legion of Grief as they don't get SOULBLIGHT units.
Just not sure what I'm supposed to do with my Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon now... can run my Ghosts as Nighthaunt, but the Lord doesn't even fit as an ally as its over 400pts...
Stux wrote: Unless they're hiding some faction stuff (and I've seen most of the book, so I don't think they are) this super screws over my army, and probably a lot of other people that ran Legion of Grief type builds.
My whole army was based around Vampire Lords leading an army of Ghosts. I love the Lord on Zombie Dragon, but I can't even run that as an ally in Nighthaunt as its too many points...
Like... this stuff happens, I'm not fuming or anything. It's just a bit frustrating.
Legion of Grief itself is still valid; it is part of the Forbidden Power supplement. For that matter anything in the LoN battletome not directly updated in SGL is valid until they say otherwise. So legions of Night and Blood are replaced by the new versions as are updated warscrolls but Grand Host and Legion of Sacrament will remain useable for an indeterminate amount of time.
Yeah I don't see these Legions sticking around. Especially Sacrament.
As I say, I ran Vampires with Ghosts. Which you can't even do in Legion of Grief as they don't get SOULBLIGHT units.
Just not sure what I'm supposed to do with my Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon now... can run my Ghosts as Nighthaunt, but the Lord doesn't even fit as an ally as its over 400pts...
They are playable now, cherry pick whatever you like from each faction. Also, Death gets the Cloak of Mist and Shadows, which is amazing! Stick in a Aborant Archregant too for some free models.
And, you can still have vamps leading all the ghosts. Even now ones which were not in Legions of Nagash.
One of the named vampires (manfred?) also comes with a Cloak of Mist and Shadows like abilaty. It sounds very anoying to play against because if you do not commit enough they fight and kill you. And if you commint enough they just bounce away and couter charge you.
Of course things cna bypass this. Missile weapons, pile on 6" etc. But potensially quite nice.
Amishprn86 wrote: Its built with 3.0 in mind so I honestly have no say in it until I see all 3.0 rules and play a game at least.
Gw's "x in mind" just means page or two less erratas. See how last 40k 8e codex had rules removed entirely with 9e and is among early factions to get 9e codex. And had no 9e style stuff in it to begin with
Niiai wrote: Could you elaborate a bit more on why grave guard are good?
Also, why are zombies good and skeletons bad? The few saving graces for zombies are low points. But 5+ /5+ no rend is a though bar to push through. You are also unlikely to get all in melee range. The moral wound is nice. Spawning more is OK I guess, but I am not seeing them throw out the damage.
You probably want some summon units because you can randomly respawn them at times.
Gravesites I think is quite nice. I did not know what they where before. But you can essentially deepstrikers turn 1.
The only problem is if the opponent gets turn 1 and body block them you are stuck. But you still have 2 Gravesites in your deployment zone. And they really need to push far out to block them. Meaning you can counter charge.
It is a good way to get zombies and skeletons up the bord turn 1.
6" pile in alone makes them outshine skellies... It makes it an almost guarantee that you get to strike first in the activation wars. They 6+ MW is really strong as summonable units are the only ones you can now buff with +1A in this army.
zombies can effectively run to anywhere within 6" of an enemy and start doing magic via buffs like vanhell's dance macabre, unholy impetus, Mannfred and crimson feast to really mess with an opponent who though they could just block them in their own zone. A simple +1A (you can even get to +2A with a few other combos), can see a blob get up to 80 attacks... even if you don't, I can see units with that simple buff going up to 6+MWs... add in the other damage (which is probably not all that great) and options for vanhell's dance macrabre, and you can really get some super heavy lifting for a 230p unit.
They are suprisingly versatile in both flooding the board with bodies AND still putting out a decent number of attacks.
It seems like this book is almost entirely about massed units of zombies/skeletons with their appropriate buff characters. Most of the monsters are fairly overpriced and most of the elite units aren't much more efficient point for point than hordes of dudes.
You might see a unit or two of blood knights or other fast movers for objective contesting but it looks like if you're going to try and be competitive you'll need plenty of movement trays.
I do not see zombies as beeing an auto include and the others beeing worse.
Zombies are cheap. But 5+ /5+ is horrible. Even with the mortal wound on an unmodified 6. They have terrible range, meaning you most likely want to get a charge of to get them in melee range. And with only 1 reach you only have so many base to base.
It might be one of the cheapest wounds in the game though, so that is good. (I do not know skaven or the ogor once.)
What are the realistic buffs to get on them? Vampire on foot for +1 attack. Necromanser for fight again. What else is there?
Other battle line. Wolves seems like a glass cannon and can have some support, can be power house. I do not know how the skeletons are. They seem like they need support as well.
Only battle line that does not 'need support' are blood knights and terrorgheist/zombie dragon. Blood knights need to get the charge of to get anything done. Big monsters seems a bit lackluster. I mean most lists needs some form of frontline. That is usually what battleline is for.
Zombie Mortal Wounds combined with their 2+ to add a new model makes them surprisingly nasty, especially with Bravery 10.
A big old horde of them may well prove a complete sod to deal with, as they’re a classic tar pit unit which is only a few lucky rolls away from doing serious damage to even quite hefty units.
So even without any synergy, they’re pretty reliable.
Zombies of all things doing MWs, and on 6s to hit, is like... Like there's
'meh, this rule is OK'
'this rule is kinda bad'
'wow this rule is very bad for balance/narrative'
'this rule is complete cheese/unfluffy'
Then there is beyond that, where a rule is so completely inane that it just doesn't sink in. I don't have words to express.
I like the Zombie rules. As a big fan of Zombie films, the MW suits my imagination. I see it not so much a single blow, rather a proper pulled down and torn apart.
Amishprn86 wrote: Its built with 3.0 in mind so I honestly have no say in it until I see all 3.0 rules and play a game at least.
Gw's "x in mind" just means page or two less erratas. See how last 40k 8e codex had rules removed entirely with 9e and is among early factions to get 9e codex. And had no 9e style stuff in it to begin with
AoS team isn't the 40k team and IMO the AOS one is better.
I haven't seen much of the rules yet, Battletome should be in next week. But the models are stunning. Very happy with what they've released, though I was hoping for Grave Guard to get redone along with Black Knights as well. Maybe they'll get a wave two like lumineth?
General opinion seems to be the book is pretty garbage, and appears to be phoned in. Skeletons are terrible, Zombies are the go-to, Black Knights are terrible, Blood Knights are okay, and in general it's clearly a "bin guy" book that wasn't written with any real overarching goal.
Miniwargaming had the cursed city stuff in there battle report, but I thought GW was not bringing that back, what’s going on with those?
Have they said anything.
Apple fox wrote: Miniwargaming had the cursed city stuff in there battle report, but I thought GW was not bringing that back, what’s going on with those?
Have they said anything.
The silence on what is happening with those units is frankly deafening.
Apple fox wrote: Miniwargaming had the cursed city stuff in there battle report, but I thought GW was not bringing that back, what’s going on with those?
Have they said anything.
Cursed City isn't coming back but the rules for the units are in the Battletome. It's sort of a frustrating case of 'Did you miss them? Sucks to be you!'
Amishprn86 wrote: Its built with 3.0 in mind so I honestly have no say in it until I see all 3.0 rules and play a game at least.
Gw's "x in mind" just means page or two less erratas. See how last 40k 8e codex had rules removed entirely with 9e and is among early factions to get 9e codex. And had no 9e style stuff in it to begin with
AoS team isn't the 40k team and IMO the AOS one is better.
Not for the past year they haven't been.
2016-2020 the AoS team dominated but since around the Kharadron book the AoS team has been really dropping the ball. Meanwhile the 40k team doing some really great stuff with 9th (drukhari being overtuned notwithstanding).
The last few battletomes are a fairly pathetic shadow of the equivalent 40k codexes in terms of flavor, internal balance, and external balance. Compare the DoK book to the SoB book and it's a joke how much less interesting Daughters of Khaine's listbuilding is, both competitively and thematically, compared to Sisters of Battle.
Apple fox wrote: Miniwargaming had the cursed city stuff in there battle report, but I thought GW was not bringing that back, what’s going on with those?
Have they said anything.
Those units are for preorder sale through the GW webstore Saturday. So if you weren't able to get Cursed City, you will be able to get units from that box that work with this faction.
NinthMusketeer wrote: New skeleton warscroll is still awesome just for different reasons, dunno what people are talking about.
Black knights were good before? At any rate blood knights always had increased damage on the charge, that isn't new.
Black Knights could at least be USED before
Ok I just noticed the new ones have a 5+ save instead of getting their shields incorporated into their save profile. No doubt a mistake as it should obviously be 4+ and without that you are totally correct; they suck hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: General opinion seems to be the book is pretty garbage, and appears to be phoned in. Skeletons are terrible, Zombies are the go-to, Black Knights are terrible, Blood Knights are okay, and in general it's clearly a "bin guy" book that wasn't written with any real overarching goal.
If the general opinion is that skeletons are terrible and blood knights merely ok I would hesitate to trust that overall assessment. Especially with skeletons, it hasn't sunk in for people how insanely good their regeneration ability is.
NinthMusketeer wrote: New skeleton warscroll is still awesome just for different reasons, dunno what people are talking about.
Black knights were good before? At any rate blood knights always had increased damage on the charge, that isn't new.
Black Knights could at least be USED before
Ok I just noticed the new ones have a 5+ save instead of getting their shields incorporated into their save profile. No doubt a mistake as it should obviously be 4+ and without that you are totally correct; they suck hard.
Yeah the lack of the save is painful.
But they also can no longer be used as a hammer, which was, imo, an incredibly fun list to play.
They lost:
No more +1 Attack from Wight King with Steed following them.
as well as
Deathly Charge no longer being +1 to wound AND +1 to damage of their Lances on the charge..
SamusDrake wrote: The preorders for saturday have helped improve things and just waiting on the price of Radukar's court, and the new model of Radukar himself.
The preorder preview is pretty big. It feels like 3 preorder weeks have been smooshed into 1. Normally I might expect the soulblight stuff and the underworld warband. And then another week would be admech and the combat patrols, and then another week would be lelith and the necron and space marine models. This is a lot in one week!
Pretty pleased by everything except the start collecting. Hiding the Wight King in amongst a bunch of old models is a pretty low move. The verbiage on it, "and you also pick up the amazing new Wight King on Skeletal Steed (which is exclusive to this set at time of launch) to lead your deathless minions into battle." makes it sound like the Wight King will be in its own box later, or maybe the start collecting will be replaced by a Combat Patrol-style box later on once we're fully into AoS 3.0
I remember some people saying that Cursed City and the Soulblight were supposed to be a Fall/Winter 2020 thing. If that's the case, a lot of this makes sense. If it was supposed to be released some 6 months ago, then some of the weirdness with it being so close to AoS 3.0 wouldn't have been as apparent. I think GW is trying to get all the last things they need out before AoS 3.0 so that they can shift gears to focus entirely on that.
Sounds about right, as its not just the "Indomitus" style boxset but also rolling out the inevitable new starter sets too.
It does feel a bit late for "Start collecting" sets now they are clearly going for "Combat Patrol" sets instead, but then again we aren't into AoS 3rd edition yet, I suppose it might be a while before Soulblights get their turn for a 3rd edition battletome and set.
Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
I would love to hear your ideas.
Because previously they were kinda.. OK at best, and I cannot see a single new benefit for them, except their horse does slightly more damage.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
I would love to hear your ideas.
Because previously they were kinda.. OK at best, and I cannot see a single new benefit for them, except their horse does slightly more damage.
I said they are not bad but it doesn't mean that they are auto-include, kinda meh really.
On 1-10 scale I would put them on dead 5 as there are other options. For example, Dire Wolves are the "Deadwalker" counter part to Black Knights, expect they also have 2 wounds, are battleline but you get 10 of them for almost same price as 5 Black Knights.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
I would love to hear your ideas.
Because previously they were kinda.. OK at best, and I cannot see a single new benefit for them, except their horse does slightly more damage.
I said they are not bad but it doesn't mean that they are auto-include, kinda meh really.
On 1-10 scale I would put them on dead 5 as there are other options. For example, Dire Wolves are the "Deadwalker" counter part to Black Knights, expect they also have 2 wounds, are battleline but you get 10 of them for almost same price as 5 Black Knights.
So then what is the redeeming factor of the Black Knights?
As I said, they are factually way worse than they were previously, and they werent even good then.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
I would love to hear your ideas.
Because previously they were kinda.. OK at best, and I cannot see a single new benefit for them, except their horse does slightly more damage.
I said they are not bad but it doesn't mean that they are auto-include, kinda meh really.
On 1-10 scale I would put them on dead 5 as there are other options. For example, Dire Wolves are the "Deadwalker" counter part to Black Knights, expect they also have 2 wounds, are battleline but you get 10 of them for almost same price as 5 Black Knights.
So then what is the redeeming factor of the Black Knights?
As I said, they are factually way worse than they were previously, and they werent even good then.
I have only looked at leaks but I have been toying with idea of Deathmarch battleplan (which now adds 3" to movement for up to 3 units if 12" from wight king) which could make Black knights quite fast unit, and this ability could be used on units that are summoned back with "Endless Legion" if the said unit is close enough.This could be combined with Legion of Night for some interesting manouvers.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I am maybe bit weird but I don't think Black Knights are that bad.
Sure they are not as good as before but their points remains the same and with the various core changes they could had been way too good if left unchanged. Although shield should had been counted.
So rather as cheaper alternative to Blood Dragons I think them rather as alternative to Grave Guard and there is some ideas that they could do.
I would love to hear your ideas.
Because previously they were kinda.. OK at best, and I cannot see a single new benefit for them, except their horse does slightly more damage.
I said they are not bad but it doesn't mean that they are auto-include, kinda meh really.
On 1-10 scale I would put them on dead 5 as there are other options. For example, Dire Wolves are the "Deadwalker" counter part to Black Knights, expect they also have 2 wounds, are battleline but you get 10 of them for almost same price as 5 Black Knights.
So then what is the redeeming factor of the Black Knights?
As I said, they are factually way worse than they were previously, and they werent even good then.
I have only looked at leaks but I have been toying with idea of Deathmarch battleplan (which now adds 3" to movement for up to 3 units if 12" from wight king) which could make Black knights quite fast unit, and this ability could be used on units that are summoned back with "Endless Legion" if the said unit is close enough.This could be combined with Legion of Night for some interesting manouvers.
Okay so this was exactly how Black Knights played before this book, and the new Deathmarch and new BK are worse in every way?
Like Deathmarch no longer has the healing for the units near Wight King.
Wight King no longer has +1 attacks for Black Knight.
Deathmarch is shorter, 3" rather than 4"
Black Knights do way less damage as they lost their +1 to wound and 2 damage lances on the charge.
There is more, but you basically listed exactly what you would do in LoN to make BK worth it, and even then they were "ok".
SamusDrake wrote: The preorders for saturday have helped improve things and just waiting on the price of Radukar's court, and the new model of Radukar himself.
The preorder preview is pretty big. It feels like 3 preorder weeks have been smooshed into 1. Normally I might expect the soulblight stuff and the underworld warband. And then another week would be admech and the combat patrols, and then another week would be lelith and the necron and space marine models. This is a lot in one week!
Pretty pleased by everything except the start collecting. Hiding the Wight King in amongst a bunch of old models is a pretty low move. The verbiage on it, "and you also pick up the amazing new Wight King on Skeletal Steed (which is exclusive to this set at time of launch) to lead your deathless minions into battle." makes it sound like the Wight King will be in its own box later, or maybe the start collecting will be replaced by a Combat Patrol-style box later on once we're fully into AoS 3.0
I remember some people saying that Cursed City and the Soulblight were supposed to be a Fall/Winter 2020 thing. If that's the case, a lot of this makes sense. If it was supposed to be released some 6 months ago, then some of the weirdness with it being so close to AoS 3.0 wouldn't have been as apparent. I think GW is trying to get all the last things they need out before AoS 3.0 so that they can shift gears to focus entirely on that.
Point costs in cc refer　to november so that's　when cc was supposed to come when they wrote points there. Sb points are for may so sb book is on time.
Does explain why cc models came so soon separate from limited discount box. Usually there's half a year minimum. Well they were supposed to be here too but cc getting so delayed altered plans. Also explains why points changed.
Knows. Not cast. Teclis knows 22 spells plus any endless spell you buy. Casts max 4 though. But bigger spell selection makes better tool box(especially if you cast multiple spells) so if nagash learned new spells he got buff likely. Like the new wind lore is buff(and quite a big buff) to Teclis. 6 more spells to cast at times and not useless ones either.
Remember; rend is a rare and precious ability, too powerful to be used often. It certainly cannot be handed out willy-nilly to just any unit like less powerful effects such as mortal wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Knows. Not cast. Teclis knows 22 spells plus any endless spell you buy. Casts max 4 though. But bigger spell selection makes better tool box(especially if you cast multiple spells) so if nagash learned new spells he got buff likely. Like the new wind lore is buff(and quite a big buff) to Teclis. 6 more spells to cast at times and not useless ones either.
Ah, a subtle but important detail I missed there...
Black knights are mobile though. Use them as screen or sueside units? Minimal unit size deal mortal wound when they charge. If they get resurrected they stil deal mortal wound when they charge. And they have a minimum charge of 6. Not good but that is how I see them. As opposed to the blood knights who are the cavery you use to fight. Likevice the hounds are the other throw away unit that is fast. But they degrade after resurrected where as black knights stil have D3 mortal wounds.
There are also some random dog synergies here and there.
How are the new skeletons? I never saw their warsscroll.
Also, 3rd edition is around the corner. It might change stuff.
Skeletons are good. You just need to get them in combat fast as possible.
And as for Black Knights, I just thought about it more and conclusion was that for every role I could have imagined it for there was always another unit that could do it much better for the cost. Black Knights are not durable or hard hitting enough to make it worth it.
As for mortal wounds, grave guard or even zombies are much better choice as they both cause one on 6s (deadwalkers 6+ hit, guard on wound) rather then just on charge.
Niiai wrote: Let's not split hairs over small margins. What is good?
Mannfred, zombies, grave guard, necromancer, corpse cart, blood Knights, Prince Vordrai, Neferata, Radukar the beast, dire wolves, coven throne. These are all good.
The only units I would consider to be very weak are the wight kings and the two new vampires.
I don't think the new vampires are weak - Kritza looks interesting, Annika looks like she will die quickly unless you're able to not let a unit kill her outright. She looks like she could take smaller units. Who knows how 3.0 will change everything again.
The 2 new dragon hybrid vampires are good for their points. New foot vampire can grant increased attacks. The old wolf lady on wolf is a lvl 2 wizard with good abilities. All of these stood out.
The foot vampire is worse than the LoN version though. Command ability only affects Summonable, whereas it used to affect any unit in the army.
Also lost the horse option. Fly was usually better, the extra movement was nice to have sometimes... and yes I am a little bitter at having kitbashed a Lord on horse that I've not even been able to use in a game yet...
Amishprn86 wrote: Its built with 3.0 in mind so I honestly have no say in it until I see all 3.0 rules and play a game at least.
Gw's "x in mind" just means page or two less erratas. See how last 40k 8e codex had rules removed entirely with 9e and is among early factions to get 9e codex. And had no 9e style stuff in it to begin with
AoS team isn't the 40k team and IMO the AOS one is better.
Not for the past year they haven't been.
2016-2020 the AoS team dominated but since around the Kharadron book the AoS team has been really dropping the ball. Meanwhile the 40k team doing some really great stuff with 9th (drukhari being overtuned notwithstanding).
The last few battletomes are a fairly pathetic shadow of the equivalent 40k codexes in terms of flavor, internal balance, and external balance. Compare the DoK book to the SoB book and it's a joke how much less interesting Daughters of Khaine's listbuilding is, both competitively and thematically, compared to Sisters of Battle.
Still better than 40kATM, 40k is a mess right now, some armies has a zero chance to win vs some others, internal balance is terrible (many options are not really an option), the Sisters of battle codex is also OP and has been for a long time, so I wouldn't consider that good balance. The new edition left some armies behind and GW did a "Update to stats" but literally ignored 70% of the armies like Chaos (Why did Tac marines get 2w in a FAQ but Chaos Marines didn't?, why di dall flamers get 12" range but any weapon not named flamer didn't?, etc.. etc.. Why didn't GK's get the updates?) and some armies like GSC, Tau, GK, Knights, etc.. that were made for 8th and was completely not set up for 9th style game not at least get some small FAQ to help them out in 9th? 40k is a mess right now, even though I have been playing it more than AOS lately, that is only b.c 9th came out and the drop off is the largest I have ever seen in 40k b.c so many armies just are not fun to play right now.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is much like the previous ones we have gotten, which is great because that is totally what I want to see and I hope they keep doing more of it.
Agreed. I'm glad it wasn't one and done, forget it exists like the pre-Crusade 40K version.
quickfuze wrote: Anyone else really disappointed they didnt break the CC group up so you could actually take them?
Things could have been different. I see them no different then the underworld data cards. Many of them are not worth taking. And two of them are not that impressive. Granny and wolf man are good though.
Isn't it a bit weird that both skeletons and zombies don't have some sort of number triggered special rules like other horde units? In my eyes, they look fine without any, but it's still a bit odd. Does anybody else thinks that those types of rules will be gone in 3rd?
epronovost wrote: Isn't it a bit weird that both skeletons and zombies don't have some sort of number triggered special rules like other horde units? In my eyes, they look fine without any, but it's still a bit odd. Does anybody else thinks that those types of rules will be gone in 3rd?
Yeah there are a lot of things with this, less rules, higher costs, no horde discount, etc... They could just be trying to streamline core battleline units to quicken game play. Not really sure, but there are changes all over once you start to look, and it must be a new design philosophy the studio is going for.
Got the tome, though it feels like I am late for having read it on the day it releases
The fluff is great, I really enjoyed reading the background and the motivations. Very good for giving a feel of what the army is about and gives more personality to the vampires themselves. Particularly Mannfred and Neffy. It also does a good job showing where SGL fit in the larger picture of Grand Alliance Death and what their relationship with Nagash is. Semi-confirmation that Arkhan will be back.
The allegiance is a lot of pieces with most of them being decent and only a small number being really powerful or particularly awful. Nothing jumps out at me as being really OP or UP, which is nice. But I think the problem is nothing jumps out at me as being particularly fun or interesting either. Unlike some I don't draw a correlation between the two; AoS has a ton of very interesting mechanics that are balanced and very boring mechanics that are not. Rather the allegiance feels like a bunch of small ideas all shoveled into one pile. To illustrate, an SGL army's allegiance abilities are;
-A 6+ fnp like all Death armies, an aura off the heroes
-Gravesites, which can be used for deep strike or summonables and act like heroes for granting the fnp -Slain summonable units can be returned at half strength, triggered off enemy units being destroyed and deploying from gravesites
-Spells double cast on a 9+
-A bravery debuff on enemies near zombies/skeletons
-Deathly invocation from heroes
-A bonus based on the bloodline chosen
-Another bonus based on the bloodline chosen
That I could summarize it in such a simple bullet-point style at all is not a good thing in my eyes. I would have much preferred some of those mechanics be cut in favor of fewer ones with more depth.
The command traits, artifacts, and spells feel much the same to me, design efforts were put into creating so many of them that it diluted the content into being bland. I am left with the distinct feeling that the rule writer(s) just weren't passionate about this project and it was just work to them. That said, it isn't that the rules overall are outright bad or poorly written, just uninspired. And at the end of the day it is still very much something that people can have fun with and, crucially, won't be trampling over other people's fun like some battletomes do.
Like the last few tomes the PtG rules are entirely phoned in with barely any effort behind them. It has been pretty clear for a while now they are going to be replaced.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: WHY did the make the new Vargulf exclusive to only one bloodline, and only as part of some overcosted hero unit!? Ugh...
Probably because they do not want Vargulfs in the codex. (That belongs to FeC.)
Further, many signs point to something terrible either Corona or brexit related happened to the cursed city release. Limited publication, two or three hero models that likely where meant as expansions released as heroes. It is all very odd.
I dislike that so many pages in the book bloats it up with all those unit entries though. They do not push above their weight at 720 points. I like that they are possible, but imagine having 10 unit entries you are never gonne take and had to be taken as a unit in another codex. Just weard.
I really like the rules for the new non cursed city models though. And the models are A+
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: WHY did the make the new Vargulf exclusive to only one bloodline, and only as part of some overcosted hero unit!? Ugh...
This can be said for the grave keeper, vykros blood born and the korgi orc undead models too. I was expecting new generic profiles for all of them. All we got was the weird hero/underworlds crew listing.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: WHY did the make the new Vargulf exclusive to only one bloodline, and only as part of some overcosted hero unit!? Ugh...
This can be said for the grave keeper, vykros blood born and the korgi orc undead models too. I was expecting new generic profiles for all of them. All we got was the weird hero/underworlds crew listing.
What really sucks is the undead Ogres (Korgi) would make a fantastic elite unit to run in deathrattle al a the Bladeguard from Lumineth, and honestly would have been a great thing to replace the horrid looking Grave Guard with. But sadly I think those sculpts will never again see any use.
Grotsnik - do you have any of the old Blood Knights to compare them to? Curious if the 20 old metal and finecast ones I have will look ok next to the new plastic ones or not.
Kanluwen wrote: Should be fine, if my memory of them isn't deceiving me.
Honestly I think the metal/Finecast versions might be a bit bigger?
Thats incredibly unlikely given the general trend of baseline humans sculpted for AoS standing head and shoulders above baseline humans sculpted for WHFB. I know vamps aren't "baseline humans" anymore, but I wouldn't expect their WHFB incarnations to have been sculpted that much bigger than one, whereas AoS vamps have been trending towards the huge side.
Kanluwen wrote: Should be fine, if my memory of them isn't deceiving me.
Honestly I think the metal/Finecast versions might be a bit bigger?
Thats incredibly unlikely given the general trend of baseline humans sculpted for AoS standing head and shoulders above baseline humans sculpted for WHFB. I know vamps aren't "baseline humans" anymore, but I wouldn't expect their WHFB incarnations to have been sculpted that much bigger than one, whereas AoS vamps have been trending towards the huge side.
Which baseline humans are you referring to? We only have a handful of characters and warcry cultists, who are the same size as WHFB era humans.
Kanluwen wrote: Should be fine, if my memory of them isn't deceiving me.
Honestly I think the metal/Finecast versions might be a bit bigger?
Thats incredibly unlikely given the general trend of baseline humans sculpted for AoS standing head and shoulders above baseline humans sculpted for WHFB. I know vamps aren't "baseline humans" anymore, but I wouldn't expect their WHFB incarnations to have been sculpted that much bigger than one, whereas AoS vamps have been trending towards the huge side.
Haven't built the new BKs yet, but the old ones were surprisingly large models. Around Varanguard sized if I'm remembering right.
That they fit on the 'normal' cavalry base was just because they were hunched in with very little dynamicism.
Kanluwen wrote: Should be fine, if my memory of them isn't deceiving me.
Honestly I think the metal/Finecast versions might be a bit bigger?
Thats incredibly unlikely given the general trend of baseline humans sculpted for AoS standing head and shoulders above baseline humans sculpted for WHFB. I know vamps aren't "baseline humans" anymore, but I wouldn't expect their WHFB incarnations to have been sculpted that much bigger than one, whereas AoS vamps have been trending towards the huge side.
Which baseline humans are you referring to? We only have a handful of characters and warcry cultists, who are the same size as WHFB era humans.
The Silver Tower Warrior Priest is massive next to WHFB Empire humans.
Chaos-empowered humans have always been bigger; note how the regular human of the warband in the last image is the exact same height as the guardsman. The human characters you are referring to are the same size as the freeguild general who is our best analogue.
I will admit I cannot speak for Cursed City models.
I think people confuse the 6th-to-8th WHFB scale creep with being an AoS thing. Having minis in more dynamic poses also makes them seem larger, as does big hats. Fyreslayers are the same height as 8th dwarfs but certainly seem larger thanks to a 30% height boost via mohawk.
It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
It's made me wonder exactly how implemented the Anvil of Apotheosis variants will be going forward.
I'm planning to run mine as a Vengorian lord, on a fancy base. He's fairly chunky already, based on a Varanguard.
I dont understand why they couldn't include that.
I'm probably going to use mine as a Vengorian Lord as well, especially since that model is god awful.
What makes the lack of mounted lord extra frustrating is you can't do an all mounted Kastelai Dynasty with all Blood Knights. What are you going to do? Have your one Hero on food playing catchup all game with the faster calvary??
NinthMusketeer wrote: It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
It's made me wonder exactly how implemented the Anvil of Apotheosis variants will be going forward.
Maybe we as a community could get together and create an unofficial resource of 'missing' hero options made using the Anvil, specifically tuned to be both generic and well-balanced. Obviously it is not much compared to something official, but it would grant a higher level of legitimacy for players who want to run something like that in casual games beyond 'hey guys I made this warcroll'.
My biggest issue is the "warband" style the used for cursed city.
There are a ton of great themed units and heros there and they lumped them all together.
Want to add to them or take additional units? Nope.
Really should have given them all separate entries in the book and then offered them together as a battalion.
Was hoping to run a couple of blocks of dead ogres, glad I waited before pulling the trigger and buying 10.
Just feels like a massive mistake to have all those themed units locked together as a single purchase.
Because of the unique entry you can't even take more than one either.
Honestly hoping a FAQ allows them to separate.
Given how they don't like splitting this stuff though due to not having individual sets, I highly doubt they will.
Everything around Cursed City has been weird, I really have no idea what was going on. Though come to think of it this tome does have a number of sporadic and strange errors/design choices puncturing what is otherwise more consistent with standard AoS rules writing. Hm.
-Wight king command ability being non functional, and black knights having a 5+ when they clearly should have a 4+. Basic errors here, but still obvious and game affecting rather than being a random typo.
-Zombies doing mortal wounds, and having a pile-in ability previously only associated with extremely agile units. It very inconsistent with how those rules have been applied in the past, to say nothing of theme and game function.
-Skeletons having an resurrection ability that is thematic and extremely powerful but also completely unique within a tome where lots of other units share the same theme. There is precedent for this sort of thing, but I note it is on top of the other stuff.
-Every vampire lord's basic melee weapon profile being standardized. Don't get me wrong--I LOVE that they did this and it is my single most favorite design aspect of the tome (ok I know I'm weird on liking it so much but still). But it is still very unusual for consistency in this element when AoS has up until this point almost entirely had analogous profiles differentiated even when there is no reason to do so.
Some other stuff too that I can't recall off the top of my head.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
The kits aren't really designed for that. You buy 5 blood knights, you get exactly 5 blood knights. The old days where kits could be bashed easily and a captain for example could be built from mixing bits from vanguard and tacticals is gone. No model, no rules. However, I think they'll get an update next year like Lumineth did, adding in a lot more kits. So it's possible that one such kit might arrive in the near future. However, I do believe their is a lord on a Terrorgeist, which is cav and can keep up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: note ​how the regular human of the warband in the last image is the exact same height as the guardsman
Uhhhh... no.
I'll admit that the mini is shorter than the others, but its very dramatically action posed and hunched over - much moreso than the Guardsmen - if it was standing upright it would be as tall as the marine.
Cebalrai wrote: The new blood knights are noticeably bigger than the previous ones.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
The kits aren't really designed for that. You buy 5 blood knights, you get exactly 5 blood knights. The old days where kits could be bashed easily and a captain for example could be built from mixing bits from vanguard and tacticals is gone. No model, no rules. However, I think they'll get an update next year like Lumineth did, adding in a lot more kits. So it's possible that one such kit might arrive in the near future. However, I do believe their is a lord on a Terrorgeist, which is cav and can keep up.
Evocator kit with Knight-Incantor option, Seraphon flyer kit with character options, FEC kits with character options all say hi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: I don't buy the 'but it's hunched overrrrr' argument anymore.
It's all about battlefield size and presence. Either it's too big or it's too small, and either way it's up to personal opinion.
In my mind, Warcry models are a lot like Necromunda. They're scaled up to fit a smaller scale game, so I don't mind it.
But, what do I know? They'll likely come out with new guardsmen for 40k that are twice the size of primaris yet still somehow 28mm scale.
I own both warcry models and empire plastics, I can look at them and tell very clearly they are the same scale. People just like to cherry pick the biggest humans from a warband and put them next to the smallest from another army, instead of actually comparing them to what their WHFB equivalent would be. Marauders are bigger than empire infantry too! Scale creep!
Its extremely frustrating that they put options in a unit kit to make one model a character, when that doesn't leave you with enough models to actually use in a unit...
So yeah I can make a Knight Incantor, but now I have 4 Evocators I can't use... sure I could ebay an extra model, but thats likely to cost as much as just having bought the character in the first place. It's really dumb.
It would make sense if we could add models one by one to units past the minimum strength and only pay for those models, but that would require a fundamental rework of unit pointing.
Just looking at Lauka Vai's lower body ( behave! ) and with green stuff and a large skull head it could be an alternative model to a Mourngul. Maybe give it green stuff robes and it'll fit right in with the rest of a Nighthaunt army...
Speaking of which, just noticed this amazing conversion of the same kit, although one seems to need a Thunderwolf cavalry wolf head...
Stux wrote: Its extremely frustrating that they put options in a unit kit to make one model a character, when that doesn't leave you with enough models to actually use in a unit...
So yeah I can make a Knight Incantor, but now I have 4 Evocators I can't use... sure I could ebay an extra model, but thats likely to cost as much as just having bought the character in the first place. It's really dumb.
It would make sense if we could add models one by one to units past the minimum strength and only pay for those models, but that would require a fundamental rework of unit pointing.
There are two options for that kit...
For such kits I cast the missing pieces or better still, sculpt them. Some parts of a body can be hidden by scenery, which is a feature on many GW models these days. Clever use of kitbashing accessories can also work.
Alternatively, purchase the current Getting Started magazine for £5. This includes the Knight Incantor which is perfect for converting into a 5th Evocator.
That's just one example, there are several other kits that do that. And I shouldn't have to kitbash or cast parts to be able to use the models I've bought in army.
I also think it was pretty darn shady of them to put multiple of models in the starter sets that aren't legal unit sizes. 3 Retributors and so on...
It would make sense if we could add models one by one to units past the minimum strength and only pay for those models
That's crazy talk!
Who ever heard of such a system?
If it made that much sense, surely GW would have used that system for decades...
Indeed
I dont hate only building units in multiples of the base size inherently. It's just when the numbers of models you end up with don't match those multiples it makes it seem really bad.
Also when you build a list and have like 30 pts left over hah. Sure, I could take an endless spell ill get no use out of I guess...
Stux wrote: That's just one example, there are several other kits that do that. And I shouldn't have to kitbash or cast parts to be able to use the models I've bought in army.
I also think it was pretty darn shady of them to put multiple of models in the starter sets that aren't legal unit sizes. 3 Retributors and so on...
Thats understandable, Stux. Most of the Stormcast unit models I've been collecting from Mortal Realms are sprues from the starter sets and have only one legal unit of five Liberators. Nighthaunts fared far better as a complete army.
Tyranids are a different matter altogether. The warriors and swarmlord kits are fantastic value with a bit of resourcefulness. For only £32.50 one can have a Tyranid Prime and 3 Warriors, and for £35 one has both a Hive Tyrant and Swarm Lord.
Where they got it right is with the Harlequin Troupe. It contains a minimum number of five players for a unit, but also one can either make the sixth Harlequin as either a Troupe Master or another player, which can be added to the unit without concern other than paying the points or power. Alternatively, that last Harlequin provided a complete body to kitbash with into an alternative character such as a Deathjester or Solitaire. Love that kit!
I also think it was pretty darn shady of them to put multiple of models in the starter sets that aren't legal unit sizes. 3 Retributors and so
Sigh....
1) it's a STARTER SET. You know, to get games going quickly, with minimal extra rules. Hence the basic rule pamphlet included.
2) please read the rules (BRB + tome) When you do you'll notice 2 things.
1st, there are two more modes of play other than matched. People do play them.
2nd, the units scroll, under unit size, almost always starts off with "this unit may contain any # of models". This matters (somewhat) in open & narrative play.
Stux wrote: Its extremely frustrating that they put options in a unit kit to make one model a character, when that doesn't leave you with enough models to actually use in a unit...
So yeah I can make a Knight Incantor, but now I have 4 Evocators I can't use... sure I could ebay an extra model, but thats likely to cost as much as just having bought the character in the first place. It's really dumb.
It would make sense if we could add models one by one to units past the minimum strength and only pay for those models, but that would require a fundamental rework of unit pointing.
I really understand this viewpoint, but at the same time I would much rather have the option. After all, you can build 5 evocators from the box no matter what, the only difference is if the character option is there. Plus, half the reason is just getting the box checked for GWs no-model-no-rules policy so we can all have a warscroll that we are going to convert characters for anyways.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It IS lame that there is no nightmare-mounted vlord option. I feel like it would not have been difficult to include a special head/weapon/torso in the blood knight kit to make one of the models as a vlord.
The kits aren't really designed for that. You buy 5 blood knights, you get exactly 5 blood knights. The old days where kits could be bashed easily and a captain for example could be built from mixing bits from vanguard and tacticals is gone. No model, no rules. However, I think they'll get an update next year like Lumineth did, adding in a lot more kits. So it's possible that one such kit might arrive in the near future. However, I do believe their is a lord on a Terrorgeist, which is cav and can keep up.
Evocator kit with Knight-Incantor option, Seraphon flyer kit with character options, FEC kits with character options all say hi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: I don't buy the 'but it's hunched overrrrr' argument anymore.
It's all about battlefield size and presence. Either it's too big or it's too small, and either way it's up to personal opinion.
In my mind, Warcry models are a lot like Necromunda. They're scaled up to fit a smaller scale game, so I don't mind it.
But, what do I know? They'll likely come out with new guardsmen for 40k that are twice the size of primaris yet still somehow 28mm scale.
I own both warcry models and empire plastics, I can look at them and tell very clearly they are the same scale. People just like to cherry pick the biggest humans from a warband and put them next to the smallest from another army, instead of actually comparing them to what their WHFB equivalent would be. Marauders are bigger than empire infantry too! Scale creep!
Those are old kits, the last what, two years or less it's become quite clear that they're moving in a total what you see is what you get in terms of bits?
Stux wrote: Its extremely frustrating that they put options in a unit kit to make one model a character, when that doesn't leave you with enough models to actually use in a unit...
So yeah I can make a Knight Incantor, but now I have 4 Evocators I can't use... sure I could ebay an extra model, but thats likely to cost as much as just having bought the character in the first place. It's really dumb.
It would make sense if we could add models one by one to units past the minimum strength and only pay for those models, but that would require a fundamental rework of unit pointing.
I really understand this viewpoint, but at the same time I would much rather have the option. After all, you can build 5 evocators from the box no matter what, the only difference is if the character option is there. Plus, half the reason is just getting the box checked for GWs no-model-no-rules policy so we can all have a warscroll that we are going to convert characters for anyways.
The one positive for me is that its nice to get a load of character type bits for the bits box. That is nice, compared to just having an easy build type kit
I also think it was pretty darn shady of them to put multiple of models in the starter sets that aren't legal unit sizes. 3 Retributors and so
Sigh....
1) it's a STARTER SET. You know, to get games going quickly, with minimal extra rules. Hence the basic rule pamphlet included.
2) please read the rules (BRB + tome) When you do you'll notice 2 things.
1st, there are two more modes of play other than matched. People do play them.
2nd, the units scroll, under unit size, almost always starts off with "this unit may contain any # of models". This matters (somewhat) in open & narrative play.
I'm sorry, but I've time again seen new players be frustrated at not having models usable for matched play. Yes, technically you can understrength the unit, but that again feels awful. It being a starter set is no excuse, it would be so easy to change around the contents when making units for the sets to give people normal quantities of models.
I just think having character upgrades as alt-builds in kits is a great way for us to get extra hero options without GW doing a whole extra kit for them. Anyone who is unhappy with the models not matching up in number can simply not assemble the character, just like they can now. It would be an objective improvement over not having the option at all.
Well there are battletomes which did not get endless spells and also did not get a new tome in about a year, and there are battletomes which already had endless spells and did get a new tome in about a year (or less), so I do not see any reason to assume as such. What evidence are you looking at to reach your conclusion?
Well there are battletomes which did not get endless spells and also did not get a new tome in about a year, and there are battletomes which already had endless spells and did get a new tome in about a year (or less), so I do not see any reason to assume as such. What evidence are you looking at to reach your conclusion?
Coin flip + the basic assumption GW wants to sell me the same book again with minimal additions (see Karidon, & DoK).
It's as valid evidence as anyone else can present for/against something GW might do.
Coin flip is the way to put it, I'd agree that far.
Sometimes they do stuff, sometimes they don't. There is little discernable pattern. I wouldn't be too surprised if it just came down to having model designers spare to work up some spell models at just the right time or not.
Probably because they couldn't make the models in time for the release date and that the summoning mechanic already makes for some sort of equivalent. I think the AoS team was a bit rushed when it came to the Gravelords. They obviously wanted to release all new Death armies in 2nd edition, but with COVID recking plans and deadlines arriving they had to rush the development a bit and cut some corners. When it comes to models, Gravelords are in a very good position. They have enough variety to stand on their own so the absence of endless spells isn't so bad. As for rules issues, they can always be fixed in FAQ or that kind of thing. Plus, in about three or four years, they will probably receive a new book and it's always good to already have a few known missing piece to expend an army.
Well there are battletomes which did not get endless spells and also did not get a new tome in about a year, and there are battletomes which already had endless spells and did get a new tome in about a year (or less), so I do not see any reason to assume as such. What evidence are you looking at to reach your conclusion?
Coin flip + the basic assumption GW wants to sell me the same book again with minimal additions (see Karidon, & DoK).
It's as valid evidence as anyone else can present for/against something GW might do.
Well we can see from the past plenty of prior battletomes without endless spells that have not played out that way, and prior battletomes with endless spells that did. So clearly a battletome being released with endless spells does not prevent GW from performing the action you indicate, nor does releasing a battletome without guarantee it.
So there is no historical precedent or evidence to suggest that conclusion is valid. Again, I ask what are you basing this on? If it is just a theory you made up you can just say so--people come up with their own theories all the time.
Further, DoK was multiple years after their old (first edition) battletome and the KO battletome was a major overhaul that added and dramatically changed a number of mechanics. So those are, objectively, not examples as you claim them to be.
I thought I was quite clear on that. Maybe I wasn't? So I'll repeat it to you: Coin flip + the assumption they'll want to sell me a another, slightly changed, book in the nearish future.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If it is just a theory you made up you can just say so--people come up with their own theories all the time.
No ! The difference between me & others is I'm not pretending to be able to divine evidence from zero info. My conclusion is just as valid as the next guys paragraphs of reasoning. We both start & end with zero actual info.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Further, DoK was multiple years after their old (first edition) battletome and the KO battletome was a major overhaul that added and dramatically changed a number of mechanics. So those are, objectively, not examples as you claim them to be.
1) The original DoK tome is a 2e book.
2e logo, 2018 copyright (2e came out in 2018), PTG pages. I forget what month it landed, but a very early 2e book is still a 2e book.
2) You & I will just have to disagree wether the changes in those books were major/minor/other.
ccs wrote: 1) The original DoK tome is a 2e book. 2e logo, 2018 copyright (2e came out in 2018), PTG pages. I forget what month it landed, but a very early 2e book is still a 2e book.
I thought I was quite clear on that. Maybe I wasn't? So I'll repeat it to you: Coin flip + the assumption they'll want to sell me a another, slightly changed, book in the nearish future.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If it is just a theory you made up you can just say so--people come up with their own theories all the time.
No ! The difference between me & others is I'm not pretending to be able to divine evidence from zero info. My conclusion is just as valid as the next guys paragraphs of reasoning. We both start & end with zero actual info.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Further, DoK was multiple years after their old (first edition) battletome and the KO battletome was a major overhaul that added and dramatically changed a number of mechanics. So those are, objectively, not examples as you claim them to be.
1) The original DoK tome is a 2e book.
2e logo, 2018 copyright (2e came out in 2018), PTG pages. I forget what month it landed, but a very early 2e book is still a 2e book.
2) You & I will just have to disagree wether the changes in those books were major/minor/other.
I have something to admit; I knew from the start this theory has no basis in reality. But I wanted to know how you had arrived at it, and your responses have been informative so I thank you for that.
As someone who used to play Vampire Counts, back when AoS was WHFB, I can't say Soulblight has given me a reason to take my army off the shelf.
As far as I can see, every issue I had with Vampires in AoS is still there. In fact, Vampire Lords have actually gotten worse in their own battletome, which is impressive given how abysmal they were already.
Hey, remember those models that used to be among the strongest in the game? You know, the ones that combined impressive melee statlines with powerful spellcasting and vampire abilities? Yeah, now they're just Lv1 wizards with pitiful defensive profiles and melee that's mediocre at best. Oh, and now you get no options at all. No flight. No blood chalice. Nothing.
Boy, what a thrilling unit to lead my army. Truly the possibilities are endless.
But of course, I'm not meant to be using them for that, am I? Because like everything in AoS units are only allowed to be worth a damn if they're the size of a 3-story building. Alas, Vampires are only worth a damn if they have a mount glued to their buttocks.
Also, I fear I find most of the relics and general traits to be uninspired at best.
Sadly, it seems what little creativity there was went into the special characters, which I have zero interest in. Some of the models are nice (very nice, in fact) but I hate special characters and I hate the increasing degree to which both 40k and AoS are focussing on them.
All in all, whatever its merits, it's just too far removed from the army I'd want to play.
vipoid wrote: As someone who used to play Vampire Counts, back when AoS was WHFB, I can't say Soulblight has given me a reason to take my army off the shelf.
As far as I can see, every issue I had with Vampires in AoS is still there. In fact, Vampire Lords have actually gotten worse in their own battletome, which is impressive given how abysmal they were already.
Hey, remember those models that used to be among the strongest in the game? You know, the ones that combined impressive melee statlines with powerful spellcasting and vampire abilities? Yeah, now they're just Lv1 wizards with pitiful defensive profiles and melee that's mediocre at best. Oh, and now you get no options at all. No flight. No blood chalice. Nothing.
Boy, what a thrilling unit to lead my army. Truly the possibilities are endless.
But of course, I'm not meant to be using them for that, am I? Because like everything in AoS units are only allowed to be worth a damn if they're the size of a 3-story building. Alas, Vampires are only worth a damn if they have a mount glued to their buttocks.
Also, I fear I find most of the relics and general traits to be uninspired at best.
Sadly, it seems what little creativity there was went into the special characters, which I have zero interest in. Some of the models are nice (very nice, in fact) but I hate special characters and I hate the increasing degree to which both 40k and AoS are focussing on them.
All in all, whatever its merits, it's just too far removed from the army I'd want to play.
Same exact thoughts, this army doesnt work for me anymore and it just sucks that it does. It just feels terrible and non sensical.
Also, they aren't Vampires, they are SoulBlep Blebloplop TM.
Lookin through the new book, one thing I can't really figure out is what exactly do the Vyrkos dynasty named characters get out of being counted as Generals? Is that almost purely futrue-proofing for AoS 3.0 where Generals have better Command Ability range?
I guess in current 2.0 the basic Command Abilities also get range buffs...
I almost wish that Vyrkos Dynasty had a battle trait that let every hero get a command trait a la Slaves to Darkness Ravagers.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I just think having character upgrades as alt-builds in kits is a great way for us to get extra hero options without GW doing a whole extra kit for them. Anyone who is unhappy with the models not matching up in number can simply not assemble the character, just like they can now. It would be an objective improvement over not having the option at all.
Sure. Provided there either isn't warscroll for that or there's alternative way to get that model. Forcing to buy whole box and waste bunch of models is crammy anti-customer behaviour.
See though it isn't a choice between getting a separate character or getting one that is an upgrade in the kit. It is a choice between getting one that is an upgrade in the kit or not getting the option at all. Besides, a $50 mounted vlord? People would shell out the extra to get a blood knight box and convert one anyways. And people would split things out on ebay, and the models wouldn't be wasted because someone could say convert a unit filler for that extra dude. Warcry exists as well.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I just think having character upgrades as alt-builds in kits is a great way for us to get extra hero options without GW doing a whole extra kit for them.
I agree in principle but when you're selling those models in units of 3 and arbitrarily limit unit sizes to multiples of 3, it seems every bit as anti-customer as if they'd just not bothered making the heroes in the first place.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyone who is unhappy with the models not matching up in number can simply not assemble the character, just like they can now. It would be an objective improvement over not having the option at all.
What about the option to choose how many models you want in the unit, rather than only being able to have 3, 6 or 9? That used to be an option as well and retaining it would have gone a long way to make this sort of thing more reasonable.
I've had no issues with my Soulblight. The codex is quite fun to play and the new model range is gorgeous. What kinds of issues have you seen that make them "bad to play?"
Its an improvement on Legions for sure, but it still feels like an early 2e book imo. Almost all the sub faction allegiance traits, command traits and artefacts feel pretty underwhelming, no endless spells or faction terrain, little in the way of powerful synergies to build across the faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and tha Battalions are also mostly quite poor and there are very few of them.
Stux wrote: Its an improvement on Legions for sure, but it still feels like an early 2e book imo. Almost all the sub faction allegiance traits, command traits and artefacts feel pretty underwhelming, no endless spells or faction terrain, little in the way of powerful synergies to build across the faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and tha Battalions are also mostly quite poor and there are very few of them.
The Gravesites represent a faction terrain in my opinion.
I wonder if the new edition is going to open up endless spells to everyone in Death/Destruction and so on. So we might have access to Nighthaunt and FEC endless spells, because they are also death, even though we dont have them.
I don't see terrain/spells as being necessary for a 'complete' allegiance. Oruuks, CoS, KO, and others are lacking them plus many more who only have one or the other. But they don't feel incomplete--quite the opposite in CoS case! Besides, getting an 'optional' terrain piece is in a realistic sense needing to buy/convert and paint up a terrain piece one may not even like because it is a pointless handicap not to bring it.
It's all in the potency your going for. The same list can be overpowered in one group then turn around and get utterly wrecked in another, due to how wide the power spread is. However to answer your question yes I think it would be viable (running the units as 15/15/5/5) but particularly prone to having large advantages or disadvantages based on the matchup.
Rounding out the list with some other units would help. Dire wolves or fell bats could jump in without messing up the theme; knights have their hunting hounds and falcons do they not? It would give you room to upgrade to Vhordrai as well.
Thanks for the input. I'm trying to decide if I need 2 more boxes of Knights or not. I dont want to use Vhordrai because he doesn't get access to Artifacts or anything.
Using Wolves would stick to the fluff, the little bit of fluff they have, and allow me to take advantage of some of the genric special rules I'll lost for not fielding ANY summonable units. I wish there was a Blood Senechal as mentioned.
I literally just got the Red Duke and then it disappeared with SBG. Ah well, Anvil of Blood character it is then.
The Path to Glory tweaks (being point based) seem to sit really nicely with Anvil stuff - seriously considering seeing if the local group would be willing to run some hybrid Narrative-matched stuff as a campaign.
Create your anvil character, advance with it.
Thinking of setting 20 DP as the start (depending on the Anvil of Destruction options) and allowing people to spend X Glory to buy more DP for their Anvil character to overhaul or upgrade.
It's funny, the moment it came out I added the anvil into the house system we use at my flgs for PtG so I totally forgot that the base rules don't have it. With the old style PtG it isn't an intuitive matter of slotting it in either, so I'm glad people will be able to do that more readily in the new edition.
As an FYI, one of the White Dwarfs (the last one I think?) has an anvil specifically for vampires in it with a bunch of thematic options. Highly reccomend.
Platuan4th wrote: The base Anvil rules in GHB20 tells you how you can go about gaining more DP.
They do, however those are more suggestions and guidelines than anything solid. And considering the nature of PtG, something more solid than a vague suggestion may go down better.
Good to see we will have the true picture tomorrow!
! The difference between me & others is I'm not pretending to be able to divine evidence from zero info. My conclusion is just as valid as the next guys paragraphs of reasoning. We both start & end with zero actual info.
