polarbear Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 They bumped up the wounds, didn't they? I think that was a good call. A lot of the legacy units were rather soft, and orruks shouldn't be killed so easily. Think they should go back and give all the Fyreslayers 2 wounds to be honest as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucio Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Am I going blind or have they lost the warpaint special rule that gave them most of their uniqueness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Apparently it's the Command Trait (which sucks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarbear Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Two-wound regular guys and three-wound cavalry though, pretty awesome. I actually love the new warscrolls. The anti-monster theme was a smart way to take their mini-faction, what with not having any big models itself. Hoping the Weirdnob Shaman could make an okay stand-in for the Bonesplitterz shaman, as I don't want resin/metal characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sangfroid Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 they lose the ward save and get 1 extra wound is much better im really hoping they do this for the normal Greenskinz as they have felt underpowered compared to ogors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Those big stabbas are great. The archers are great. Other neat rules. I'm curious to know the spells and traits. Quote Apparently it's the Command Trait (which sucks). Why? You always had to bring a shaman to increase the ward in the past. There could always be extra wards in the battalions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Prices seem pretty reasonable, too. A drop on infantry and the characters stayed the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Ares Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 So found this lot in my loft Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Ares Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Ares Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Sooooooo excited!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstimpson38 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 These warscrolls don't really do it for me to be honest. I think I'll be sticking with a combined Greenskin/Ironjaws Destruction army. Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Ares Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 The strength will be in the battalion rules (I hope...) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dez Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 I like the Morboar boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sangfroid Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Strength in numbers too 100pts for 10 (20 wounds) makes these the cheapest pt per wound troops in the game (except for grots and what self respecting warboss even allows those wimps in his Waargh) and they are average combat with it too (unlike zombies who need numbers) even just as battleline tax 60 of boyz or archers is 120 wounds of models the enemy has to hack thru before they even make a start on the tough stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dez Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 I was thinking that a unit of 30 savage arrow Boyz would be great back/mid field objective holders for cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 I'm concerned about Battleline. Looking over the stuff I already have it adds up to 1130 points without formations (counting the odd number of Big Stabbas as 50 pts for the extra one), but it's zero battleline unless it's Bonesplitterz allegiance, in which case I have 2 allegiance-Battleline units. The trick is that the only universal Battleline unit is Savage Orruks with shields. Bows? Never Battleline. Two weapons? Never Battleline. The only other chance you've got is the two Boarboys, who are allegiance-Battleline (and that's what I have - my 30 S.O.s are built with two weapons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarbear Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 7 hours ago, amysrevenge said: I'm concerned about Battleline. Looking over the stuff I already have it adds up to 1130 points without formations (counting the odd number of Big Stabbas as 50 pts for the extra one), but it's zero battleline unless it's Bonesplitterz allegiance, in which case I have 2 allegiance-Battleline units. The trick is that the only universal Battleline unit is Savage Orruks with shields. Bows? Never Battleline. Two weapons? Never Battleline. The only other chance you've got is the two Boarboys, who are allegiance-Battleline (and that's what I have - my 30 S.O.s are built with two weapons). The battleline in general is way too restrictive in my opinion. It seems like a heavy-handed push to get people to go 100% into individual factions. I think they could have emphasized the rank and file type troops in a different way, such as making them necessary for winning the scenario or whatnot. I've built three armies for AoS since it launched, and the only one battleline-compliant is the one that I like least and looks most like a hodgepodge of random stuff. I think it's the biggest miss in the GHB and not in tune with what people said they like about AoS. That said, Savage Orruks are a good battleline unit, and so are basic Ogors in an overall Destruction sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Ares Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I respectfully disagree with this. I think the battleline choices are a brilliant way to 'enforce' theme driven games of AoS which was woefully lacking in WHFB. Want extra cool rules? Stay themed then... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I think that so far I've never once played an AoS game that would retroactively be "legal". Including 90% Tzeentch mortals, 90% moonclan, 100% Dispossessed, and 90% warherd. Sometimes due to too many monsters or characters, almost always due to not enough Battleline - the 90% lists would have had trolls or dragon ogres or something to exclude allegiance-Battleline, but even swapping the 10% out for other in-allegiance models I own wouldn't be enough. A couple of my 150 SCGT standard lists don't have ANY Battleline in them. I've got a Dispossessed list built around Ironbreakers and Irondrakes that's fun and fluffy and out the window for Matched Play. As a guy with 5 new bespoke AoS armies so far, I'm really REALLY hard pressed to field even one legal Matched Play army at 2000 - I can just barely make it with Stormcast and Moonclan. I can get close with Warherd but not quite. Not even close with Dispossessed or Tzeentch mortals. So basically I'm a bit frustrated to have my painting schedule dictated to me by comp, rather than being able to paint as fancy strikes. Gotta churn out those Longbeards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucio Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I'm puzzled why the Battleline thing is an issue, AoS is pretty clear that we can use whatever methods we're comfortable with to create our forces, that the Matched Play option exists doesn't mean you have to use it at all, or you can pick and chose the parts that you want to use. As long as you and your opponent are working from the same limitations, things should work out fine, and if they don't, then play a different force composition next time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarbear Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 58 minutes ago, Lucio said: I'm puzzled why the Battleline thing is an issue, AoS is pretty clear that we can use whatever methods we're comfortable with to create our forces, that the Matched Play option exists doesn't mean you have to use it at all, or you can pick and chose the parts that you want to use. As long as you and your opponent are working from the same limitations, things should work out fine, and if they don't, then play a different force composition next time! I'm a fan of all the game types for sure, just think battleline wasn't done well period. I'd prefer a matched play system that had a less clunky mechanism for "core." There are so many fluffy combinations this wipes out, and the new 3x10 thing is perhaps the most blatant tax I've ever seen in Warhammer, rivalling dispel scroll caddies. I actually like force composition and gravitate toward the core type troops anyway, but I don't think they implemented this well. It is a really big dilution/standardization move that I don't think was necessary for matched play and I'm skeptical it's needed as a balancing mechanic either. Certainly not the end of the world, just think they could come up with something more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 20 minutes ago, polarbear said: I'm a fan of all the game types for sure, just think battleline wasn't done well period. I'd prefer a matched play system that had a less clunky mechanism for "core." There are so many fluffy combinations this wipes out, and the new 3x10 thing is perhaps the most blatant tax I've ever seen in Warhammer, rivalling dispel scroll caddies. I actually like force composition and gravitate toward the core type troops anyway, but I don't think they implemented this well. It is a really big dilution/standardization move that I don't think was necessary for matched play and I'm skeptical it's needed as a balancing mechanic either. Certainly not the end of the world, just think they could come up with something more fun. I'm okay with it - but that's because I really like the core units well. That's just me, as an Orc+Gob player, loving expendable horde units, which generally aren't able to compete against most elites in the game. I do like this way they've done it and I don't - all these core units have a mob rule, where they get better the bigger they are. This is where the strategic decision making comes it - do you put more, unnecessary points into a batteline unit to make it better, or do you just throw down the minimum on the table and beef up your elites? However, like you said, this does detract from fun and fluffy army comp. If I wanted to run an all-mounted orc army, it would be very difficult to because of the battleline restrictions - I'd have to stick strictly to one faction, which would be boring. I'm happy with the comp rules. Obviously it is impossible for them to be perfect, especially on the first stab at it, but what we have right now isn't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespan Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 The 2 wounds on savage orcs is a nice change, but it makes me sad that big stikks are now a separate unit. Much easier to kill them when not surrowned by fellow orcs. And a unit with big stabbas does not look as good as in a mixed horde. But I suppose that with the wounds change it would mąkę them too strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I'm ALL about Matched Play. Just the thought of Open Play gives me heart palpitations (I would HATE to win an Open Play game - I'd feel so guilty that I took too strong of an army). Looking eagerly forward to doing plenty of Narrative Play games using Matched Play points and rules. I'm just a bit surprised that this is the direction they chose to go with Matched Play. Seems like a strange choice, after a year of freedom, to put the Core Tax handcuffs back on. Back to Bonesplitterz though, I'm super stoked to make them my next hobby project. Even though it's likely I'll never be playing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsmith Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Making them a really competitive battleline choice is fine by me simply because they look great, and as majority skin they're fast to paint up! Does anyone with more experience in the game know if the archers are competitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.