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.

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

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

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

Wait we KNOW the point costs?

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ccs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 auticus wrote:

ccs wrote:

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

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

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

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

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:

ccs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

To me AOS is basically no-restrictions ruleset anyway.

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

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

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

It already exists.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose thats better for a different thread though.

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

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

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

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

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

This article does specify things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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