Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Has anyone discussed the issue the war coven has with Escalation mission? It could be a reason they fall out of the running.

War Coven?

I'm saddened by some of the turn a few threads have taken on Dakka this week and though most of it comes from the ignore list I still see those when quoted by someone else. Hope things turn back around.

I've been thinking about the tone of the debate over balance theme with a wonderful gaming club that shares the same basic desires for a hobby we are heavily invested in and share a love for and we came to this (unpopular as it may be to some of you): feth balance. It's never going to happen; you're never going to get the unattainable it sounds like some of you want. Pick a list, experiment, play and enjoy. Win or lose or draw. Stop focusing on the negative. The less time lamenting a system you must have some interest (or a helluva lot of free time) discussing just go with it. Play, enjoy, let the hobby do its function of bringing fun and enjoyment.

To those of you who don't play there's nothing we can do to help satisfy that. If you want to play and are unfortunate enough not to have an acceptable gaming group then if you really want it, work out traveling to the nearest event (maybe only an hour or two away) and make it count. But just go for it and have some damn fun. For your own sake. Or, Warseer is apparently back up so perhaps you will find better discussion there.

Happy gaming.

Am I just stupid or something? I cannot find this "War Coven" people are talking about anywhere. A search doesn't turn up anything mentioning a battalion; the only thing I can find is a 40k Apocalypse formation, which I didn't think you could use in AOS . What is it?

My apologies its called the Enginecoven (battalion war scroll for Skyre). My question still stands:

Has anyone discussed the issue the 'Skyre Battalion' has with Escalation mission? It could be a reason they fall out of the running.

 thejughead wrote:
My apologies its called the Enginecoven (battalion war scroll for Skyre). My question still stands:

Has anyone discussed the issue the 'Skyre Battalion' has with Escalation mission? It could be a reason they fall out of the running.

Ah.

Interesting question. Per Errata'd deployment rules, you're allowed to deploy a Battalion as if it were a single unit. If that's the case, then... I have no idea how it works for that mission. I suppose you "set up" the Gautfyre Scorch in the Celestial Realm as your Turn 1 deployment, and then the rest has to come on per the mission rules... if the units in the Battalion were enough to constitute 1/3 of your army (rounded) as per the scenario. Which means if you bring double Gautfyre Scorch battalions, one is going to be broken up by necessity? I'm not sure. That really sounds like a FAQ question, since GW is actually doing those nowadays.

If I was a TO, I would say that it would work like that. If one Gautfyre Scorch's unit is more than 1/3 of your army, it can't deploy by itself and must be broken up. You could still use the Warp-Ginder Weapon Team to burrow in units, but not the whole Battalion.

I think that's fair. Missions should favor different army types. If you'll excuse the comparison, the Starcraft Brood War pro scene balanced a lot of its matchups not by balance patches (which Blizzard never really did for BW), but by people making maps that balanced out the strengths and weaknesses of the races. Terrans were better on maps where their tanks could be safer, Protoss and Zerg liked open spaces where their melee units could get surrounds, some maps were set up to discourage early attacks while others were open making early game defense impossible, etc. For AoS, maybe the comparable situation is that events run missions that are widely different so no one army type can take over the game.

The battalion's deployment rules override those of other scenarios I don't see why they wouldn't override escalation. It's 'instead of deploying normally' and in this case the escalation deployment is 'normal'.

@VeteranNoob, power to you and your community for finding something that works for you. For many others, a certain level of balance is important because the game is not enjoyable without that. It's different for different people, some, like yourself, have no troubles with where it is at while others find it unplayable. There isn't a right or a wrong way, but I can assure you that making real or implied statements that they could just enjoy things if they stopped worrying about it won't go over well. Further, it simply isn't true. While you and your friends enjoy things as they are another community may find they don't enjoy AoS with the current balance, or would enjoy it markedly more if the balance were improved. These people could easily come back at you with "well you clearly aren't really enjoying the game much, just deluding yourself into thinking it's OK" which I'm sure sounds ridiculous to you. And thats how your suggestion comes off to them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The battalion's deployment rules override those of other scenarios I don't see why they wouldn't override escalation. It's 'instead of deploying normally' and in this case the escalation deployment is 'normal'.

@VeteranNoob, power to you and your community for finding something that works for you. For many others, a certain level of balance is important because the game is not enjoyable without that. It's different for different people, some, like yourself, have no troubles with where it is at while others find it unplayable. There isn't a right or a wrong way, but I can assure you that making real or implied statements that they could just enjoy things if they stopped worrying about it won't go over well. Further, it simply isn't true. While you and your friends enjoy things as they are another community may find they don't enjoy AoS with the current balance, or would enjoy it markedly more if the balance were improved. These people could easily come back at you with "well you clearly aren't really enjoying the game much, just deluding yourself into thinking it's OK" which I'm sure sounds ridiculous to you. And thats how your suggestion comes off to them.

Fair enough there, I suppose. And that does indeed sound ridiculous to me But I still don't get it and I think it's because based on comments I truly believe some of these people will never be happy with these games. That's the honest impression I take from the 4-5 of them. Just seems like angry arguing for arguing's sake. If there were a solution, that would be one thing. I don't get what looks like electing to be unhappy (on this and other forums as well) that this degree, especially since that's counterproductive to the purpose of a hobby. Oh well.

And you're right, some of the people here aren't ever going to like AoS and are just bashing it. Trying to talk sense, while admirable, is somewhat of a lottery chance of getting through. But to lump those people in with others who just want a bit more out of their game does a disservice to those people and irritates them. Of course the crazies will be irritated as well but they already were so nothing's changed on that front

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And you're right, some of the people here aren't ever going to like AoS and are just bashing it. Trying to talk sense, while admirable, is somewhat of a lottery chance of getting through. But to lump those people in with others who just want a bit more out of their game does a disservice to those people and irritates them. Of course the crazies will be irritated as well but they already were so nothing's changed on that front

Nah, I don't see the crossover. They are very different distinct groups.

The idea being to just ignore the people who aren't going to add anything to the discussion, and perhaps offer your option as less of a "you guys should do this" and more of a "hey this works for me, maybe there's something there for you".

Oh they are indeed ignored. There used to be a bit more variety in this section on Dakka and it's unfortunate it's turned into this. I suppose though that's what TGA is for. Enjoy! YOu sir, have much more patience than I for these things.

So how are the Battle Tomes that have been released comparing to each other? Is there some kind of balance? I've not played enough against them to really know how they compare. Some armies seem complete while others seem incomplete and limited. What is the consensus?

From what I've seen:
-Beastclaw is generally OP across the board but no particular combination is broken enough to create any tournament-topping lists. They mostly seem to create issues in casual settings.
-Bonesplittaz has the Kunnin' Rukk. Presumably there are other options there too.
-Sylvaneth are tricky to play against, also have a steep learning curve to play as, and only really have Kurnoth Hunters as a highly-undercosted option (but man, are they cheap for what they do!). So they are all over the map.

Bonzai wrote:
So how are the Battle Tomes that have been released comparing to each other? Is there some kind of balance? I've not played enough against them to really know how they compare. Some armies seem complete while others seem incomplete and limited. What is the consensus?

Beastclaws are low model count but monsters have insane powerful rules, especially on a charge. But if you can lead them around or hit from afar, just don't get hit, and don't bank on battleshock hurting them.
Bonesplitters are fun and they are good vs. monsters. the arrow boys threat is real but the rest is not so bad. The mask doing mortal wounds until it fails and kills the wearer can be rough.
Sylvaneth are strong and well-rounded, the strongest of the three imo.

Slightly related but one thing I've noticed across many years in Warhammer if you can often tell what kind of player someone is by what they play. For example there are one or two people at my local GW who jumped onto Beast claws I think even before the battle tome but tend to feel that big army of monsters all the time and of course the person at least seems to act like one of those players who only care about winning and don't really care about their opponent having a good time only themselves too. I could be wrong because I don't really know the guy and have only talked to him a handful of times but he seems to come off like that sort of as long as I have fun it's good screw you type of player. It's just something I could. We noticed that you often can't tell who the TFG is just by their mannerisms even if you've never played them

Wayniac wrote:
Slightly related but one thing I've noticed across many years in Warhammer if you can often tell what kind of player someone is by what they play. For example there are one or two people at my local GW who jumped onto Beast claws I think even before the battle tome but tend to feel that big army of monsters all the time and of course the person at least seems to act like one of those players who only care about winning and don't really care about their opponent having a good time only themselves too. I could be wrong because I don't really know the guy and have only talked to him a handful of times but he seems to come off like that sort of as long as I have fun it's good screw you type of player. It's just something I could. We noticed that you often can't tell who the TFG is just by their mannerisms even if you've never played them

I wouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. Ogre Kingdoms have been strong in fantasy for a long time, and beast claw raiders appear to be no different. Yeah, power gamers are drawn to them, but so are people who simply want an elite army and would rather only have to paint and carry around a few models. Then there is the cost factor. The box set is only $215 US, and it has a full 1500+ army. That has to apeal to a lot of people.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
only really have Kurnoth Hunters as a highly-undercosted option

While it isn't on the level of Kunnin' Rukk or Gautfyre Scorch, Gnarlroot Wargrove is very powerful/undercosted as well I think. If the Sylvaneth player goes all-out-abusive and starts dropping triple sized wyldwoods (as is technically allowed), things can get ugly real fast.

swarmofseals wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
only really have Kurnoth Hunters as a highly-undercosted option

While it isn't on the level of Kunnin' Rukk or Gautfyre Scorch, Gnarlroot Wargrove is very powerful/undercosted as well I think. If the Sylvaneth player goes all-out-abusive and starts dropping triple sized wyldwoods (as is technically allowed), things can get ugly real fast.

That's a good point, I forgot about battalions. Though really almost all of them are too cheap because they come with the added deployment and artifact benefits.

Kunnin Rukk seems especially troublesome as it can fit into 1000 point games. I am finding it hard to come up with a counter to this army.

I was going to post a separate topic, but here seems as good a place to ask.

I'm after a game for pick-up play at clubs/shops and occasional tournaments. How does AoS post Generals Hand Book fair in these situations ?

Ideally I want something close to 5th ed 40K in terms of balance, where a TAC list I'd play amongst friends wouldn't look so different to something I'd take to a tournament.

Bartali wrote:
I was going to post a separate topic, but here seems as good a place to ask.

I'm after a game for pick-up play at clubs/shops and occasional tournaments. How does AoS post Generals Hand Book fair in these situations ?

Ideally I want something close to 5th ed 40K in terms of balance, where a TAC list I'd play amongst friends wouldn't look so different to something I'd take to a tournament.

I am by no means the expert as there are a lot of AoS armies I haven't fought against since the new edition..or whatever this is came out. However, Its not overly different from before. Only a few armies are at the extreme top of the rankings and even then only a few builds are what get them there. There are some armies that are generally stronger as TAC forces then others. I myself play dwarfs and feel like most other armies are generally stronger and more synergistic than mine.

However, the game does feel much better now that the GHB came out and there is a points system. If you are going to get into the game, do so because you like the fantasy theme. I wouldn't do so in hopes of an ultra balanced gaming system.

aquietfrog wrote:
Kunnin Rukk seems especially troublesome as it can fit into 1000 point games. I am finding it hard to come up with a counter to this army.

There are soft counters of kunnin' Rukk but no hard counters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bartali wrote:
I was going to post a separate topic, but here seems as good a place to ask.

I'm after a game for pick-up play at clubs/shops and occasional tournaments. How does AoS post Generals Hand Book fair in these situations ?

Ideally I want something close to 5th ed 40K in terms of balance, where a TAC list I'd play amongst friends wouldn't look so different to something I'd take to a tournament.

Balance is worse than 40k 5th but unless people are trying to optimize it's not too bad from a pick-up perspective. However, unless you have a laid-back tournament scene an army appropriate for competitive play will be utterly crushing in casual play.

Wouldn't something like stormcasts vanguard wing counter it easy?

Jump forward with prosecutors and drop a large liberator unit in charge range.
20 liberators running in will tear through the unit, killing the entire 1 trick pony idea.

 Jackal wrote:
Wouldn't something like stormcasts vanguard wing counter it easy?

Jump forward with prosecutors and drop a large liberator unit in charge range.
20 liberators running in will tear through the unit, killing the entire 1 trick pony idea.

Thing is that deadly Archer unit isn't alone. It's only like a quarter of the bodies in the army. The battalion is going to include melee units as well to meet battleline, and can make them pile&attack in the hero phase. Or just pick another archer unit, it's only 400 points for a 40-man unit as well. The only real way to stop the battalion before it does it's damage is to kill the hero, but doing that turn 1 is difficult for a variety of reasons and the effort may very well cost you the game anyway since there's still 100+ savage orcs staring you in the face.

Ah, not so easy then.
Ironically I don't think there's a single orc player in my area.
So it's something I've actually yet to face.

From what you have said, no matter what you do your going to take a hit.
I can see why people have the views about it now too.

Almost like throwing a mystic shield on a mourngul for annoyance lol.

It's funny because unlike many op combos the component units are pretty well balanced on their own, it's really just how the battalion works with the archers that is completely game breaking.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bartali wrote:
I was going to post a separate topic, but here seems as good a place to ask.

I'm after a game for pick-up play at clubs/shops and occasional tournaments. How does AoS post Generals Hand Book fair in these situations ?

Ideally I want something close to 5th ed 40K in terms of balance, where a TAC list I'd play amongst friends wouldn't look so different to something I'd take to a tournament.

Balance is worse than 40k 5th but unless people are trying to optimize it's not too bad from a pick-up perspective. However, unless you have a laid-back tournament scene an army appropriate for competitive play will be utterly crushing in casual play.

I hear a lot of people talk about 5th edition being really balanced, but I don't remember it as such... At least toward the tail end. Once Space Wolves came out, they were the clear cut "best army", and then were replaced by Grey Knights. Before then, it was kind of sort of balanced, but Mech was the obvious King and armies that didn't do it well we're kind of out of luck. It was mech or anti mech, like 6th was all Deathstar or anti Deathstar.

Generally it takes 40k about 6 months after a codex release for it to settle into its place in the meta, and for it to be fully digested. Heck it's usually a few months before fully painted armies start showing up. The GHB was like a codex release for everything, and it's been about 3 months since it's come out. I've been scouring every tournament report I can find, and haven't seen anything specific dominating. It's going to be a while before the "internet effect" goes into full swing, and with the blistering release schedule GW has been putting out the meta's going to be shaking up for a while.

The other option is to just lay down massive damage on the Ruk itself in order to deplete the number of bodies it possesses, but being able to do that isn't very easy. And depends on having good deployments to have it in range and having the turn before it shoots. Most artillery will fold before the masses of arrows the Ruk will put into it if it gets priority,

The ways to deal with it are generally having units drop in straight on top of it, killing the hero and gutting the units as well. Which rolls back to Skyrefire and Lightning Strike Stormcast lists. Both of which the Bonesplittas player can work to counter with good deployment that denies the ability to put damage in the right place.

On the subject of balance the only real complaint I have is that shooting is way over-the-top because there's very little restrictions on it and as a result it can easily dominate the game then you have a small handful of very powerful battalions. But in my experience for the most part it's pretty decent much better than 40K