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.

Other than Slaanesh, what armies can play hardcore monster mash/herohammer? Let's say, 50% of points or more in Heroes/Behemoths and the list being effective, tournament ready or what have you.

Flesh Eater Courts for certain fit that bill, but I'm having trouble thinking of other ones, hoping for others to fill in.

The armies I play and often times play against, with the before mentioned Flesh-Eaters being an exception, the heroes are buff-pieces or handy beatsticks, not entire armies on their own. Skaven are pretty bonkers without relying behemoths, Idoneth minimal beasts all cav, Sylvaneth Treelords, Kurnoth Hunters are most often the better choices.

Slaanesh, Flesh-Eaters and Beastclaw Raiders stick out as the behemoth/hero hammer armies, while most others are a nice balance between big cool models and armies of small dudes, with builds included in the rest of the armies that do allow for monster mash, to varying degrees of success.

Personally, I don't see the hero hammer style being too prevalent outside of a few armies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Overread pretty much nailed it: it isn't that competitive armies exist, it's that running a Slaanesh army as an army is handicapping yourself--an effective Slaanesh 'army' is 75% of your points spent on heroes and actual troops kept to a minimum. That is not good for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well, the more i think about it, the more i like it, the purpose so Slaanesh is to be greedy, what better way than having a lot of Heroes trying to get all the kills?

Well, look at what Slaanesh armies are in the fluff, in the art, in the images, in the sample armies. Four KoS and a handful of daemonettes are not it.

If anything multiple Greater Demons is actually against most of the lore. In general they tend to backstab each other and prefer to work alone unless going against some major opponent. Even then it often takes a weight of defeats before they'll team up.

For me I don't mind that GW has pushed for smaller model counts, if you compare demon prices in points between AoS and 40K you can see that the AoS are generally on the higher side. The way I see it is whilst it has a long legacy there are also a LOT of new gamers. So GW is taking things back a few steps (but not a vast number) to cut down the model count to get more people into the hobby. I'm sure as the game matures we'll see the counts increase up once again as people get bigger collections and want to use more models. Fantasy's main weakness is that it doesn't have as many army divisions at present as 40K. Ergo in 40K you've got fliers, super heavies, heavies, troops, anti tank etc.... There's a lot of broken down divisions of troops with specific roles to answer specific questions so armies have to be on the larger side to fit in enough potential answers.

In AoS this is somewhat muted and could be an area we see GW develop in the future.



Like I said, and others, its not that we hate the idea of a Keeper heavy army, its a fantastic thing, the keeper model looks outstanding. What the issue is, is that at present Keeper heavy is about the best army by a noticeable margin. Even if you don't go for Keepers the way the army works it wants you to take more leaders and to summon more leaders - all to feed depravity. The Tome needs some change there so that troops can become viable again. I want to be able to put down 6 fiends and blocks of infantry or take a rolling circus of chariots without them all being exalted with heralds atop (if just because if I have to clean THAT many blades I'll go nuts).

At present its almost as if the best way to build a troop heavy Slaanesh list is to build a Slaves to Darkness with a Slaanesh twist.

I would prefer them using points to chain model count. But because people are slaves to 2000 pts they had to go the other way and make 2000 pts equal 20 models.

And Ben is neon sign highlighting how you should play slaanesh if you dont want your face rubbed in another army’s crotch.

TBH, the reason why Keepers of Secrets are so good is because of the difference of fiability to force enemy units to strike last in combat phase. They are indeed great depravity points engines, but striking first to destroy opponents and keep your units alive (especially those squishy daemonettes) is even more crucial.

About the number of miniatures dropping, I believe the fact that in tournaments, time is short and moving huge horde units is always a hassle that can't be always solved with movement bases (especially when tournament players are very, VERY picky with measures from standard bases) are also big factors in favor of armies not having a high number of miniatures. Especially with GW focus on the "warrior code of honor" and how playing the clock is considered dirty.

The way AoS is working in combat phase is not friendly to movement bases, on the opposite with 40k. Measuring melee range in inches rather than working on bases like 40k has a huge impact here.

Low model count is not restrained to the tournament hall. They are also fapped out over pick up game communities as well.

True, I do indeed restraint myself with my army lists because I feel like it won't be much fun to lose time with too many miniatures to move around. Easier to deploy and carry as well, TBH.

 Thadin wrote:
Other than Slaanesh, what armies can play hardcore monster mash/herohammer? Let's say, 50% of points or more in Heroes/Behemoths and the list being effective, tournament ready or what have you.

Flesh Eater Courts for certain fit that bill, but I'm having trouble thinking of other ones, hoping for others to fill in.

The armies I play and often times play against, with the before mentioned Flesh-Eaters being an exception, the heroes are buff-pieces or handy beatsticks, not entire armies on their own. Skaven are pretty bonkers without relying behemoths, Idoneth minimal beasts all cav, Sylvaneth Treelords, Kurnoth Hunters are most often the better choices.

Slaanesh, Flesh-Eaters and Beastclaw Raiders stick out as the behemoth/hero hammer armies, while most others are a nice balance between big cool models and armies of small dudes, with builds included in the rest of the armies that do allow for monster mash, to varying degrees of success.

Personally, I don't see the hero hammer style being too prevalent outside of a few armies.

I agree, and I feel this is fortunate. I hope it doesn't change.

 Sarouan wrote:
True, I do indeed restraint myself with my army lists because I feel like it won't be much fun to lose time with too many miniatures to move around. Easier to deploy and carry as well, TBH.

Yes and easier to paint up a whole army when its 15-20 models.

I totally understand the appeal.

That still doesn't salve my soul when I lament the loss of nearly everything that pulled me into wargaming long long ago lol.

 auticus wrote:
Things have been starting to swing in that direction for some time, and every year ups the ante.

Not really seeing it when you look big picture. Thadin had a good breakdown on how that isn’t the case, so we’ll leave it at that.

And its worth mentioning that Ben Johnson kind of has a thing for Max Behemoth/Min Battleline, and has since AoS infancy (5 or 6 Stardrakes and Celestinant Prime at SCGT16 for example.) Recently he’s gone with 4 Thirsters and maybe a dozen Hounds at a few tourneys, as well as running a Squigalanche list. Its just this time, he’s chosen a thoroughly broken army.

And through the years, he’s also built and played some fairly traditional sized armies(his SCE and NH for example are largely by the numbers and in some opinions, not all that optimal) while doing the Monstermash lists. I don’t think his choice in occasional listbuilding has any or even has had any bearing on the direction of the game. If it did, my recently sold BoC Warherd army would have been running the tables.

He was the driving force for the scgt comp having discounts for monsters to “encourage them to be played” so no surprise.

 Sarouan wrote:

The way AoS is working in combat phase is not friendly to movement bases, on the opposite with 40k. Measuring melee range in inches rather than working on bases like 40k has a huge impact here.

Umm how 40k is friendly for movenent trays(I assume you refer to those)? You declare charge. You move each model individually. You move yet another time for pile in. You measure 1" from your base to enemy base or 1" to your model that is already within 1". If you keep models in movement tray you will be losing # of guys that gets to attack.

I kinda like being able to run low model counts. Sure, I have gone big on model count(Morgaunt ghoul en masse and Witch Aelves, two army cores I run), but there is that delightful chill about just bringing a few models and still being able to do something. It makes it easier to travel with your army, and a game can be a bit quicker as you don't have to move 100 models or so(or throw gazillion dice for Crypt Ghoul attacks). Also, the army can be a nice shelf decoration when you get home if you are a good painter..

I personally think players should be able to do either: Go many or go big, and still do decently. In this case the Slaanesh tome is just problematic so it will always feel skewed.

It is also good to keep in mind that for tourneys you need to travel to fewer models are easier to transport than 100+ models. My friend plays IG here locally, but runs Ultramarines/Deathwatch when he travels to the UK/US for tourneys as it is much easier to transport.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

The way AoS is working in combat phase is not friendly to movement bases, on the opposite with 40k. Measuring melee range in inches rather than working on bases like 40k has a huge impact here.

Umm how 40k is friendly for movenent trays(I assume you refer to those)? You declare charge. You move each model individually. You move yet another time for pile in. You measure 1" from your base to enemy base or 1" to your model that is already within 1". If you keep models in movement tray you will be losing # of guys that gets to attack.

B.c movement trays has some spaces, in AOS that could mean a full row of guys that cant attack, in 40k you can be a 1" within an 1" of another guy and be fine. There has been many times in 40k that the movement trays worked great, everytime i use them for AoS i have to get them off for combat or i lose attacks.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

The way AoS is working in combat phase is not friendly to movement bases, on the opposite with 40k. Measuring melee range in inches rather than working on bases like 40k has a huge impact here.

Umm how 40k is friendly for movenent trays(I assume you refer to those)? You declare charge. You move each model individually. You move yet another time for pile in. You measure 1" from your base to enemy base or 1" to your model that is already within 1". If you keep models in movement tray you will be losing # of guys that gets to attack.

Yes, but much less than in AoS. It's actually doable with movement trays (sorry, used the wrong word). Because the movement trays from Apocalypse do have less than 1 inch away from each base. In AoS, there is no such thing as counting bases 1'' to the enemy base or friend base already within 1'' - it's all individual measures depending on melee range. So you do lose way more miniatures fighting on movement trays than in 40k because of that difference.

 Eldarsif wrote:

It is also good to keep in mind that for tourneys you need to travel to fewer models are easier to transport than 100+ models. My friend plays IG here locally, but runs Ultramarines/Deathwatch when he travels to the UK/US for tourneys as it is much easier to transport.

Depends on models though. Big models also take up tons of space and have plenty of empty space within itself thus taking up huge amount of space from packing content. And big models often enough have lots of extensions to worry about breaking compared to human model.

My 40k orks goes more annoying to transport when I add vehicles. Infantry is easy peacy. It's the larger vehicles that are pain to transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

The way AoS is working in combat phase is not friendly to movement bases, on the opposite with 40k. Measuring melee range in inches rather than working on bases like 40k has a huge impact here.

Umm how 40k is friendly for movenent trays(I assume you refer to those)? You declare charge. You move each model individually. You move yet another time for pile in. You measure 1" from your base to enemy base or 1" to your model that is already within 1". If you keep models in movement tray you will be losing # of guys that gets to attack.

B.c movement trays has some spaces, in AOS that could mean a full row of guys that cant attack, in 40k you can be a 1" within an 1" of another guy and be fine. There has been many times in 40k that the movement trays worked great, everytime i use them for AoS i have to get them off for combat or i lose attacks.

My orks find in that case then not being able to attack with every model. Especially if opponent is any smart. In practice the moment close combat begins either I don't even try to get all into combat or I forget the movement trays as they will simply cost me attacks.

I tried to use the movement trays exactly once in AoS on the weekend. I abandoned them the first time I tried to charge and pile in.

The other issue is if the game board has a lot of terrain the movement trays don't work all that well getting around the terrain itself.

Trays are ideally suited to things like formation games where terrain is lighter and where units fight in organised formations; or in games like Apoc where its more terrain light again and where its more about the visual appearance of the battle.

40K/AoS are sort of stuck in the middel - enough models in some forces to make trays attractive, but the mechanics of the game mean that you might only actually use the tray in the first turn or two; thereafter having to move everything off the tray.

 auticus wrote:
That still doesn't salve my soul when I lament the loss of nearly everything that pulled me into wargaming long long ago lol.

There are other games to scratch that itch, but as you well know the problem is having traction in groups/stores.

Yeah playing games by yourself defeats the purpose. At that point i can just throw my collection in the trash and play total warhammer for the rest of my days.

New faction in Underworld from Gencon




Really interesting look to them, wood elves but not. I wonder if this means they'll appear in AoS proper as an army or if GW will now use Underworld for these mini-factions. Giving them a handful of models, but not developing them into full fledged factions of their own for the proper AoS (though they will likely get some generic basic "grand alliance" compatible rules to use for Aos)

 Overread wrote:

Spoiler:

Oh wow.

That centaur on the left reminds me of my wood elf army from when AoS launched - it consisted a mounted spellsinger and a load of wild riders and sisters of the thorn, all converted to be centaurs, topped off with a kitbashed Orion and a ton of hounds for summoning shenanigans.

Here's my question: are they Order?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I kinda like being able to run low model counts. Sure, I have gone big on model count(Morgaunt ghoul en masse and Witch Aelves, two army cores I run), but there is that delightful chill about just bringing a few models and still being able to do something. It makes it easier to travel with your army, and a game can be a bit quicker as you don't have to move 100 models or so(or throw gazillion dice for Crypt Ghoul attacks). Also, the army can be a nice shelf decoration when you get home if you are a good painter..

I personally think players should be able to do either: Go many or go big, and still do decently. In this case the Slaanesh tome is just problematic so it will always feel skewed.

It is also good to keep in mind that for tourneys you need to travel to fewer models are easier to transport than 100+ models. My friend plays IG here locally, but runs Ultramarines/Deathwatch when he travels to the UK/US for tourneys as it is much easier to transport.

I am on the same page here, especially with players being able to do either or in-between and have it work.

I feel like the Slaanesh situation is analogous to, say, the best Ogor build being gnoblar-spam with a handful of casters. It's just... Lame.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's my question: are they Order?

I'd say Order, as Kurnoth was alive and well until the Age of Chaos, according to the new Sylvaneth tome. He died defending his region, but a dryad was able to recover what remained of him. Maybe the Kurnothi were Alarielle's attempt to bring him back.

 nels1031 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's my question: are they Order?

I'd say Order, as Kurnoth was alive and well until the Age of Chaos, according to the new Sylvaneth tome. He died defending his region, but a dryad was able to recover what remained of him. Maybe the Kurnothi were Alarielle's attempt to bring him back.

It's worth mentioning that the same fluff bit talks about Kurnoth's warriors of the Great Hunt.

Currently I'm working off the assumption that the Kurnothi are those warriors. There's supposed to be a Realmgate in Kurnotheal(the continent/hunting preserve for Kurnoth in Ghyran) that links up with Ghur, which is why the place was full of beasts for him to hunt while there. I'd be surprised if all of the Kurnothi would have been killed in that last stand, and it was the Heartwood Grove that launched a punitive expedition to recover his remains and armament to give to Alarielle.

Maybe wishful thinking on my part that destruction would get something really different.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Maybe wishful thinking on my part that destruction would get something really different.

You jerks already stole my Merwyrm, you're not getting Kurnoth and his deer Aelves!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's my question: are they Order?

I'd say Order, as Kurnoth was alive and well until the Age of Chaos, according to the new Sylvaneth tome. He died defending his region, but a dryad was able to recover what remained of him. Maybe the Kurnothi were Alarielle's attempt to bring him back.

It's worth mentioning that the same fluff bit talks about Kurnoth's warriors of the Great Hunt.

Currently I'm working off the assumption that the Kurnothi are those warriors. There's supposed to be a Realmgate in Kurnotheal(the continent/hunting preserve for Kurnoth in Ghyran) that links up with Ghur, which is why the place was full of beasts for him to hunt while there. I'd be surprised if all of the Kurnothi would have been killed in that last stand, and it was the Heartwood Grove that launched a punitive expedition to recover his remains and armament to give to Alarielle.

Speaking of the Sylvaneth battletome, was there a distinct lack of any sort of mention of the Wanderers? I could've swore they were mentioned a few times in the previous tome, but this new tome doesn't have a single mention.

I don't have the previous one to compare it to, but there was very little. I wonder if it's because some of that lore is in the Age of Sigmar Core Book now?

The Apoc movement trays are useless for Age of Sigmar unless you are running a shooty army. I personally just use pile-in trays I bought off ebay and they've done a better job for me. They have their own problems, but not glaring ones like the Apoc ones.

Interestingly enough, when I first played Daughters of Khaine I just used some old WHFB movement trays just fine, at least up until they had to charge into combat.

I use these and they work great (I also magnetized them so its even better) https://tectoniccraftstudios.com/collections/movement-trays/products/pile-in-round-base-movement-trays