Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Chris Tomlin

AoS 2 - Ironjawz Discussion

Recommended Posts

Has anyone tried using the spell portal and sending a weirdfist boosted green puke through it?

It seems to me like you could get some seriously nasty attack vectors with that.  An allied Moonclan shaman (either variety) seems like a good cheap ally that can caddy the portal for the Weirdnob.

Thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen numerous mentions of Seraphon being really good right now - as a casual player, what makes them so good now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, muggins said:

I've seen numerous mentions of Seraphon being really good right now - as a casual player, what makes them so good now?

They were already good before AoS 2, but now they get 600-700 free pts cause of summoning wich totally break the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, muggins said:

I've seen numerous mentions of Seraphon being really good right now - as a casual player, what makes them so good now?

  • Ability to teleport around the board randomly. 
  • Skinks are one of the best screen units in the game, are battleline and are super cheap.
  • Massive amount of super powerful wizards letting them properly make use of the endless spells.
  • Ability to randomly summon in extra units because they needed two fully fledged allegiance abilities.
  • Engine of the gods now pretty reliably summons more units.
  • You can have four Engine of the Gods who can each summon units everyturn.
  • You are facing what was already a top tier army only now it fields 1k of free summons as well.
     
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Malakree said:
  • Ability to teleport around the board randomly. 
  • Skinks are one of the best screen units in the game, are battleline and are super cheap.
  • Massive amount of super powerful wizards letting them properly make use of the endless spells.
  • Ability to randomly summon in extra units because they needed two fully fledged allegiance abilities.
  • Engine of the gods now pretty reliably summons more units.
  • You can have four Engine of the Gods who can each summon units everyturn.
  • You are facing what was already a top tier army only now it fields 1k of free summons as well.
     

Yeah, they dropped the ball pretty hard with that army.  I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on summoning until we could see the full rules and how things would shake out.  I have played these games long enough that I have seen various versions of summoning and I think it is more interesting and thematic for some armies to have summoning rather than the heavily watered down rules that were used in last edition.  I did not care for summoning pretty much just being a reserve deployment in the last edition and in the current edition of 40k.  That just feels wrong to me.  But I also don't think every army needs to have summoning and it does feel like they slapped it onto a few too many allegiances.  I get the fluff reason why it is there for Seraphon now, but I am not really sure I am a fan of that.
 

I expected GW to drop the ball in regards to balance at the launch of this edition - they usually do.  It is usually especially noticeable when they create iterative core rules editions and maintain army books from previous editions.  Even a small change in core rules can have big ripple effects in books that were not written for that edition.  Some of the biggest changes to this edition are the expansion of magic and adding back in full-blown summoning rules and those seem like the most likely places for imbalances to occur.  I am not at all surprised to see that end up being the case.

The cynic in me says this is just par for the course for GW rules.  But, GW have done a good enough job charting the new course of Age of Sigmar that I am still willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they do have a plan.  The Seraphon are one of the oldest battletomes and aside from a handfull of resin models they have a pretty complete miniature line.  I am wondering if GW's plan is to hurry out a few army book rewrites over the next few months, possibly in model-light release windows, like they did for the 40k 8th launch.  If so I would not be surprised at all if the plan is to simply address Seraphon with a full new book.

I could be wrong and they simply had no idea what they were doing when they added summoning to Seraphon.  It may be that they just leave it alone and let that faction be very busted for a while.  Or it could be the case that they will be smashed hard when the first major errata comes out - which I doubt is too far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toying with Gorefist list. I've got the idea of dropping Gordrack for a classic Maw Krusha and put him the ghyran item that give him 6'' pile in. I've add Cog to compensate the loss of Gordrack extra move.

So round 1 even if your opponent screen, you can destroy the screen with Gruntas and MK have good chance of reaching juicy stuff

Allegiance: Ironjawz
Mortal Realm: Ghyran
Megaboss on Maw-Krusha (440)
- General
- Trait: Prophet of the Waaagh! 
Orruk Weirdnob Shaman (120)
Orruk Warchanter (80)
Orruk Warchanter (80)
3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)
3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)
3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)
3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)
3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)
Gorefist (190)
Chronomantic Cogs (60)

Total: 1670 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 7
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 107

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Yeah, they dropped the ball pretty hard with that army.  I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on summoning until we could see the full rules and how things would shake out.  I have played these games long enough that I have seen various versions of summoning and I think it is more interesting and thematic for some armies to have summoning rather than the heavily watered down rules that were used in last edition.  I did not care for summoning pretty much just being a reserve deployment in the last edition and in the current edition of 40k.  That just feels wrong to me.  But I also don't think every army needs to have summoning and it does feel like they slapped it onto a few too many allegiances.  I get the fluff reason why it is there for Seraphon now, but I am not really sure I am a fan of that.
 

I expected GW to drop the ball in regards to balance at the launch of this edition - they usually do.  It is usually especially noticeable when they create iterative core rules editions and maintain army books from previous editions.  Even a small change in core rules can have big ripple effects in books that were not written for that edition.  Some of the biggest changes to this edition are the expansion of magic and adding back in full-blown summoning rules and those seem like the most likely places for imbalances to occur.  I am not at all surprised to see that end up being the case.

The cynic in me says this is just par for the course for GW rules.  But, GW have done a good enough job charting the new course of Age of Sigmar that I am still willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they do have a plan.  The Seraphon are one of the oldest battletomes and aside from a handfull of resin models they have a pretty complete miniature line.  I am wondering if GW's plan is to hurry out a few army book rewrites over the next few months, possibly in model-light release windows, like they did for the 40k 8th launch.  If so I would not be surprised at all if the plan is to simply address Seraphon with a full new book.

I could be wrong and they simply had no idea what they were doing when they added summoning to Seraphon.  It may be that they just leave it alone and let that faction be very busted for a while.  Or it could be the case that they will be smashed hard when the first major errata comes out - which I doubt is too far off.

At the risk of slightly derailing the thread the issue comes down to three separate things of which two are glaring errors while one is just a natural shift in the game.

First is the endless spells, it's natural that they are a huge boost to all magic based armies. Both seraphon and tzeentch gained from their existence because they don't need to make major list alterations to use then. This is a natural shift which is to be expected.

Second is the most agregeous issue, the double allegiance ability. Both of them are powerful enough to be a main faction trait (smashing and bashing etc.). Giving them both is stupid, it would be like giving fyreslayers high tide without removing the runes, ofc it's to strong.

Really they should have removed the seraphon teleport and increased the summoning range to wholly within 36" more than 9" from an enemy unit. Cannot move or charge on the turn they are summoned. It keeps the essence of both while making the army on the board far more stationary, suddenly they have to protect their heroes rather than teleporting away.

Lastly is the engine of the gods. This unit is a relic from the fluff days of sigmar when stuff wasn't balanced. It's warscroll reflects that but it's points doesn't.

The best way to fix it would be to have one of the engines use the ability and the others all assist.

"Once per turn, if there are one or more engines of the gods on the table then you may consult the stars.

Roll two dice and add the engine of the gods stat on it's monster table (3/2/0/-1/-2). Roll an additional dice if there is a slann wholly within 12" of the engine and an extra dice for each other engine of the gods on the field. If more than 3 dice are rolled pick 3 and consult the table."

Stops the ridiculous stacking and means having multiple just makes it more likely you can pick the result you want. Having 4 isn't vastly more effective than having 1 or 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think Cogs are necessary with a Gorefist. You’re already pretty fast. 

Turn that Weirdnob into your basic grot shaman and take another KRUSSSHHHAAA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Malakree There are lots of ways to fix Seraphon, but at this point I am wondering if there is simply too much piled on for an errata and GW plans to rewrite their book.

The idea of summoning is not bad, and on the surface I don't mind how Seraphon's is implemented in regards to mechanics.  We can argue about how the units they can summon are priced, but I don't think there is anything bad about the mechanisms they use.  My suspicion is that GW wanted to get summoning back into the game and that they were willing to break a few eggs to do it.  Seraphon have all of the issues that effect old Age of Sigmar battletomes that were developed pre-allegiances & pre-spell lores.  The difference is that their issues work to their benefit rather than detriment.  It would bound to happen to some army - it just happens to be the cold blooded lizards that it happened to.

I think that at this point Seraphon are a bit of a mess and have issues across all levels of their rules.  The one thing that GW has managed to pull off is a thematic concept - and GW has always seemed to very much care about thematic elements.  I would put Seraphon in a bucket of a few other armies that have solid thematic concepts, but at this point have poor execution and need to be addressed with a new book.  The biggest offenders in that regard I think are Seraphon and Kharadron Overlords (at opposite ends of the spectrum).

In the past GW has often launched a set of core rules that worked pretty good but kept older army rules that did not quite always fit.  In many cases that made those armies worse off, but in some cases those armies got a lot better.  They have usually been pretty good about sorting it out over the course of an edition with book rewrites though.  This edition just launched so it is too soon to say if that will be the case here also.  But let's hope that they continue the trend.  As much as I would like to see whole new armies and small allegiances like Moonclan or Spiderfang expanded the game as a whole will be much better if existing stuff is tweaked to better fit the edition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skabnoze, I actually really enjoy the way Seraphon play right now.  I think it is thematic and I also think it is something that can be balanced through a few simple errata.  I play against Seraphon more than any other army and have won every game this far in v2.  Now, I think that will change as the players learn to better utilize their new bag of tricks, but at no point has it felt hopeless playing against them.  

Suggestions:

Make EotG unique

Change Kroak's spell

Adjust the cost of a few of the summoned units.

Change rippers to advise by the rule of one

You'd keep everything that makes the army fun and flavorful while removing the problematic aspects.  They would still have all the tools to be a top tier army.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, what is the consensus on the waaagh abilities and stacking them? MB uses it multiple times stacks on all units in range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lanoss said:

I don’t think Cogs are necessary with a Gorefist. You’re already pretty fast. 

Turn that Weirdnob into your basic grot shaman and take another KRUSSSHHHAAA!

I think you need the Cog to replace Gordrack. But you could drop one of the Pig unit for a second MK ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

@Skabnoze, I actually really enjoy the way Seraphon play right now.  I think it is thematic and I also think it is something that can be balanced through a few simple errata.  I play against Seraphon more than any other army and have won every game this far in v2.  Now, I think that will change as the players learn to better utilize their new bag of tricks, but at no point has it felt hopeless playing against them.  

Suggestions:

Make EotG unique

Change Kroak's spell

Adjust the cost of a few of the summoned units.

Change rippers to advise by the rule of one

You'd keep everything that makes the army fun and flavorful while removing the problematic aspects.  They would still have all the tools to be a top tier army.

I think it probably needs modification of warscrolls, tweaks to the allegiance abilities, and probably the addition of actual spell lores if we really want to maintain the current Seraphon flavor but also put them on a relatively even footing with everyone else.  This is why I made the comment about them having a mess across all level of rules.

For example, consider if they created a spell list and moved the teleport ability from the allegiance ability and into the spell lore.  A change like this could have a few ramifications.  The Seraphon player would have to make a few more choices than they often do currently.  For example, more useful spells creates a real counter-point to simply using Slann to spam summoning points.  Simply giving their wizards a wider array of useful options can potentially tone down the pure summoning factory.  It could also reduce the range and make the spell attached to a specific wizard - which would have implications for how it would be used. 

Now I'm not saying that this specific change would be the ideal one - I am just trying to show how they can keep a lot of the same theme but juggle where these rules are and how they interact.  I think they could end up with an army that is more flavorful than it currently is and provides a better play experience for both players if they rework the battletome.

Also, GW has shown a serious reluctance to make real Warscroll changes in errata.  They do the bare minimum of changes possible the majority of the time.  That is probably a good idea for errata, but those types of changes seem more like band-aids than real long-term solutions.

Anyways, we should probably stop derailing the Ironjawz thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skabnoze, believe me, I'm with you.  I think "make new battle tome" should be the answer to most things, and hopefully some of the 40k Codex writers can move to AoS now that they're mostly complete. 

I definitely think pretty much everything in destruction deserves a new tome before anyone else though, which is why I think the few minor adjustments I mentioned would be a good stopgap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on board with you that Destruction needs new battletomes.  I would honestly rewrite all of them if I had the power to change it.

 Beastclaw are far too limited due to trying to build a whole army with 3 resin kits and 2 plastic kits.  Nothing they have is terribly bad but they just don’t have enough options.  Give them access to a wizard and/or some sort of buff character on mournfangs and watch that allegiance roar back to life.  Even better would be to give them a couple more unit options - like a dual unit yhetee kit.

Ironjawz are a bit similar.  They just need a bit more variety.  They could split existing units into multiples based on weapon options or make a couple new units.  They also could use a couple heroes, a spell lore, and some added synergy.

Bonesplitterz could use some type of centerpiece model and then warscroll tweaks.  They would be ok with the number of units they have, but at this point I feel that what they need are alterations to warscrolls.

But, I don’t expect GW to rework a specific allegiance first.  I expect that if they do start rewriting a bunch of books, which I do think will happen, that we will see the various allegiances sprinkled throughout.  I would expect that the order of books will be a combination of popularity/profitability, which ones need accompanying model waves, which ones have the most balance need, and which ones have the loudest advocates within the dev team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×