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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
-The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.

I feel like the battalion section is woefully inadequate compared to what Sylvaneth had. I suppose the Glades make up for that in a way, but they force a warlord trait/relic onto your force. The battalions themselves are severely overcosted for what they provide with the exception of the Lords of the Clan, as you noted. However, I think LotC is cheap because the cost to unlock it is so prohibitive (800 for the three units and 60 for the battalion).

As for the rest of the book, they increased the overall healing available to the army, but the loss of the 2+ rerollable Ancient/Durthu save is pretty big. Mix that in with the stomp change, and I think the army is definitely less survivable overall initially (though the added heals may even it out).

My biggest gripe is definitely the lack of reliance on the woods. IMO they made it worse by preventing the daisy chain or toe in the 3 inch bubble and making it wholly within 6 inches.

A 2+ rerollable save is a huge negative play experience, so I'll never lament that being removed. Those shouldn't exist anywhere. All that does is further force your army selection down the narrow tube into a tiny fraction of viability.

The equivalent in WHFB is "never take strength 3 troops (the most common troops) because they are worthless".

The wholly within clause game-wide was needed. The daisy chaining "my toenail is within 3" so my whole unit gets this benefit" made positioning a very easy and trivial thing.

At least with wholly within (game wide so everyone has the same limitation) there has to be some more thought in regards to positioning of the models.

 auticus wrote:
A 2+ rerollable save is a huge negative play experience, so I'll never lament that being removed. Those shouldn't exist anywhere. All that does is further force your army selection down the narrow tube into a tiny fraction of viability.

The equivalent in WHFB is "never take strength 3 troops (the most common troops) because they are worthless".

The wholly within clause game-wide was needed. The daisy chaining "my toenail is within 3" so my whole unit gets this benefit" made positioning a very easy and trivial thing.

At least with wholly within (game wide so everyone has the same limitation) there has to be some more thought in regards to positioning of the models.

I agree with everything you've said, but the point still remains that the army wasn't tearing it up with the old book, and the changes made don't address all of the shortcomings that existed. The ability to finally re-roll some hits is huge, but being directly depending on staying within the immediate vicinity of the trees is going to be a problem going forward. I'm not sure how other folks play with terrain, but my FLGS uses a lot of it, which immediately puts me at a disadvantage because of where I can place my forests. Add on to that, the fact that all armies are getting their own free piece of terrain, and you end up with a board that has no space for tree placement. The new trees seem like they'd be better, but my understanding is they are roughly the same footprint, so that's maybe a side-grade at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, in my experience, battleshock crushes Sylvaneth due to lower battleshock scores on the battleline units. The one piece of terrain that gives immunity should help, but that again forces the army to cluster around a piece of terrain in order to stay on the level. If they had given the army more missile attacks, then all of this would be less of an issue. From a fluff standpoint, I think the army will play to its narrative, but that doesn't really translate to a fun tabletop experience.

I found sylvaneth to be one of those annoying to play in casual mode (mainly because of the trees everywhere) and not very strong at the powergamer level.

I feel they will still be about the same with the new book too but we shall see.

Their current issues will be what most of the middle of the pack books (pretty much every 2.0 book released minus DoK, Skaven, and FeC) have to deal with. They don't do nearly enough damage that the big three do and their durability can't last against those books either.

Until the big-three is addressed, the other books will remain middle of the road and not very good at competitive play, minus a few guys that live and breathe the game tearing it up with any build they put out.

Woods only having a 1" placement restriction is a big buff from the 3" and I think the new kit may be smaller, a huge benefit since you can better place them where you need them. All wizards getting the spell to summon them also helps with that.

Battletome: Hedonites of Slaanesh Errata and Designers' Commentary are up.

Oh yes, yes they are.


Q: Can an artefact of power that has already been depleted (e.g. a ‘once per battle’ artefact that has already been used) be sacrificed at the Fane of Slaanesh?
A: Yes.

A gimmick, sure, but an interesting one.

 Sarouan wrote:
Oh yes, yes they are.


Q: Can an artefact of power that has already been depleted (e.g. a ‘once per battle’ artefact that has already been used) be sacrificed at the Fane of Slaanesh?
A: Yes.

A gimmick, sure, but an interesting one.

I agree; one of those times where leaving the exploit in creates more nuanced tactical options than removing it.

The only one I can think of is Cameo of the Dark Prince. Pop it for the CP and the battleshock, dump it immediately. Helps a godseeker Keeper.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
-The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.

I feel like the battalion section is woefully inadequate compared to what Sylvaneth had. I suppose the Glades make up for that in a way, but they force a warlord trait/relic onto your force. The battalions themselves are severely overcosted for what they provide with the exception of the Lords of the Clan, as you noted. However, I think LotC is cheap because the cost to unlock it is so prohibitive (800 for the three units and 60 for the battalion).

As for the rest of the book, they increased the overall healing available to the army, but the loss of the 2+ rerollable Ancient/Durthu save is pretty big. Mix that in with the stomp change, and I think the army is definitely less survivable overall initially (though the added heals may even it out).

My biggest gripe is definitely the lack of reliance on the woods. IMO they made it worse by preventing the daisy chain or toe in the 3 inch bubble and making it wholly within 6 inches.

A few things, I agree that the battalions are really not good, but I don't think they are as needed as before.Previously you pretty much had to get the lower drop so you could place your trees. The new book has several ways to put trees on the battlefield, and they have longer range. The Acorn is better, everyone know has the spawn wyldwood spell which is better, and a once per game TLA spawn is really good. There is also less restriction to putting them on. I think the only reason you will want battalions is because we have a lot of good artifacts.

The glades more than make up for it. Yes, they force an artifact/trait but this is the same thing other armies are doing. Really, there are only a few dud glades, with several being really strong (Witerleaf, Dreadwood, etc)

While it is painful to lose the 2+ rerollable, Durthu did get significantly cheaper, and I actually like the new stomp better. Ensuring that your Treelords swing before whatever they are enganged with is more more valuable than -1 to hit, imo.

So far it feels like this book is big improvement in a lot of ways.

I think there is an understandable tendancy to look at a battalion's benefits, compare to its cost, and make the call from there. But it it more complex than that. Even a battalion that does literally nothing would be worth points because it gives a command point, extra artifact, and more control over deployment drops. That is balanced against the additional cost of needing to meet the requirements. Lords of the Clan, for example, needs a large chunk of points in units and locks in 3 (or if you want the maximum benefit, all 4) of your behemoth slots.

I think that once all the factors are looked at the battalions are worthwhile.

I usually try to got for one Battalion just to get the CP and artifact.

However, to be fair, a lot of the old battalions in older books tend to be gargantuan and unwieldy and often make you wield units you don't even want to wield(like Stormcast for DoK). I think they've improved a bit in the newer books though and I often find myself interested in many battalions, especially when they compliment my army.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I usually try to got for one Battalion just to get the CP and artifact.

However, to be fair, a lot of the old battalions in older books tend to be gargantuan and unwieldy and often make you wield units you don't even want to wield(like Stormcast for DoK). I think they've improved a bit in the newer books though and I often find myself interested in many battalions, especially when they compliment my army.

Sylvaneth are stuck with the same battalions as they had before, with mandatory Treelords.

That's one of my biggest disappointments with the new book. "Free Spirits" was the perfect place to add the Arch-Revenant, given that she literally has the "Free Spirits" keyword and is said to be representing not just Alarielle but Kurnoth as well. The Household was a good place as well, allowing both Battalions to bump the Treelords to 0-1 rather than 1.


With the focus on Anvils from Forbidden Power, I've dusted off my Vanguard Chamber again...and man, even at 2500 points? Unless you go for 5 man units of Vanguard-Hunters, you're not achieving all 3 of their Battalions.

It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.

That's nice.

It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.

Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.

Houserule it in.

 Ghaz wrote:
Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.

Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.

In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.

Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.

In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.

Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.

That's nice.

It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.

Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.

In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.

Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.

I did. They won't comment on it since the book isn't actually available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.

That's nice.

It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.

You're welcome to think so, but all one has to do is compare the leaked Warscroll Battalions to what exists now.

And hell, they took a step backwards by reverting Ylthari's Guardians to the crummy rules that we have now for the Tree-Revenants. Not sure who thought that smooth move was a great idea, but frankly...it wasn't.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.

Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.

In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.

Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.

I did. They won't comment on it since the book isn't actually available.

You did send it to the rule feedback email at AOSFAQ@gwplc.com? They never (or at the most very rarely) comment on the emails they receive even if the book is available.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.

That's nice.

It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.

You're welcome to think so, but all one has to do is compare the leaked Warscroll Battalions to what exists now.

And hell, they took a step backwards by reverting Ylthari's Guardians to the crummy rules that we have now for the Tree-Revenants. Not sure who thought that smooth move was a great idea, but frankly...it wasn't.

Well, you're acting like a very subjective opinion is objective fact...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, after a actually checking, the battalions have been updated. I am honestly surprised because I got the impression you play Sylvaneth so I trusted you when you said they were the same. It looks like they maintained the core function of the battalions but refined the mechanics to make it smoother; Free Spirits giving auto-runs of a 6 rather than a strange hero-phase-move gimmick, for example.

I have no experience with fantasy or age of sigmar, but a friend of mine has the the majority of two skaven halves from the Island of Blood starter set and he's giving it to me as he doesn't play. If I'm going to have them I may as well play the game.

How good are Skaven from a competitive standpoint and are the contents of Island of Blood a good starting point for a Skaven army in AoS?

Skaven are doing really well at present and the island of battle set gives you some great models to work with. You get some clan rats which are pretty much a mainstay in most skaven forces as battle-line (battleline are troops that you have to take a minimum number of for a legal army - eg at 2K points you need 3 minimum units of battleline troops). You also get new sculpts on the rat ogres, warpfire thrower, pack rats and a clawlord (general) and a warpfire engineer.

So you get a really sold core and the sets sell for a good price on ebay as many of the new plastic sculpts in it have not been released for general sale (because they were mashed in with the high elfs on the same sprues). So that's a really solid starting position.


Get the Battletome for skaven and you can work from there. Skaven are a tough army and have really come into AoS well as they are not fragmented into subgroups (tough they can run them if you want with the tome); and they are also a diverse army. Their only downside is some older sculpts and they still have some in metal.

Skaven are one of the broken power trio (along with flesh eater courts and daughters of khaine). They are a tournament standard right now at least until GHB 2019 potentially makes them pay the proper points for what they do.

Overread said everything I was gunna say!

Cheers for the responses and it's good to hear it gives me a decent base to work from.

In terms of expanding that core, what could be added to improve the list?

Also, how has the change to round based impacted horde armies? All of these clanrats are on square bases and it feels like they need a movement tray for the sheer number of them. Luckily they haven't been glued to the bases so would it be better to convert them over to round bases for the future?

Convert to the round bases, the square are dead and whilst you "can" use them on square, its better to go round as there are some subtle differences in the rank depths as a result of going round. Also AoS is going round fully and most tournaments/events will require round bases and that will only get stronger as time goes on and the old armies fall ever further out as new gamers filter in and old ones update their armies.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/age_of_sigmar_base_sizes_en.pdf

The base size chart for AoS which is up to date for Skaven (in fact thus far I think its only waiting for Slaanesh to get an update from armies with newly released models/battletomes).


As for expansion its kinda hard to say as you can go many ways from the core you've got. More clan rats is likely a must for most; but the getting started set is very good, gives you plague monk rats which are powerful and access to artillery and screaming bells/plague furnaces. It's a box full of skaven fun and solid options.

The Skaven Endless Spells are also good to pick up as they give you some neat and powerful spells to throw at your enemy.


After that it really depends - you could go for bits and pieces and build up a clan army; go for a specific clan like skyre (lots of techno machines); pestilens; moulder. A Verminlord is also a great thing to add plus a really great looking huge model with several variations.

I have still and never will rebase my older models. If you aren't playing in tournaments, its not an issue. However tournaments will require you to rebase, and people that are playing you outside of tournaments but to practice for tournaments will require you to rebase.