AoS 2 - Blades of Khorne Discussion

[Smooth criminal]

4 hours ago, Battlefury said:

I would like to ask, what we can do against that list:

This is basically nightmare matchup for Khorne. You want thirsters against his melee dudes, but ballistas shred thisters.

As a random tech how about Karanak battalion from the wrath&rapture set? The one that allows the whole battalion to deepstrike round 1. It's competitive legal because it has point cost, right? I think it can abuse low amount of screening units here.

[Impa]

28 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Thank you for your ideas.

It seems a little, that the Blood boils down to Tyrants of Blood.

@Killax What I basically own is massively reliant on non demonic units. For several games I had to lend units.
I have already noticed, that my mortal units are lack lusters, so I would have to buy demons I guess. Buggs me kind of...tbh.

The 3 Thirsters went straight up shred to pieced by deepstriking Ballistas on2 edges of the map and Evocators coming in.
Sequitors came from the front, but I didn't go for those. The Ballistas would be my target for some cheap units like Reavers, at least that was the plan in one of the games. I incrased the "chaffiness" by using Blood Warriors to lock the Ballistas in place, but that spread shot is a party pooper. Rend 2, wtf?!? After they came in, my Thirster where kind of in the middle of the map, as I had begun the game. They couldn't come up with the 10" move and then charge the Evocators. Distance was like 20" at that moment. So he then shot my thirsters, charged them with Evocators and Sequitors. Although I didn't bubble my units up, he just had enough power to wipe like 50% of my units including 2 Thirsters. Those Sequitor Hammers with Rend 1 and 2 Damage are just totally cheese. And then they reroll their hits, because fuc* you, that's why...we can load our weapons.

The lack of real damage made it kind of impossible to straight up take somewhat out, even when buffed properly. I made a lot of A, but he just saves it... .
Stormcast games are a competition called "how many 3s can you roll?". Thats absolutely broing.

@KazAgreed! Reavers where just...elt's just not talk about them. I did buff the Warriors though, but Rend 2 by ballistas in even then not funny. The Sequitors just batter with so much 2 DMG weapons... . The buff did kind of help to hold them in melee for 3 turn in the optimal way. The problem was then, that the Damagedealers, the Thirsters where already done or hit, that they didn't make that much damage, because of the table stats. I have to admit, that the random damage with the  Thirsters really sucks. It is not reliable enough. The MW output of the IR is pretty neat, but relys on a 16% to have 6s to roll. And when he was krippled within the table stats, it wasn't really that good anymore.
They did damage, but most of the time where wounded already with like 6 to 9 wounds, as they appeared in battle.

Don't know why, but Blood Letters didn't bother him too. Flesh Hounds where no match due to those "reroll just anything you like" buffs they have.

@ImpaYou're exactly right. The army is absolutely still reliant of the "Khorne wonderland" mechanic, where everything has to work completely like a clockwerk. If some buffs won't be applied...thats ******. Buffs and even more buffs lead to a little oddity, that I noticed. The enemy can easily choose whom to target and literally turn the army to uselessness within 2 turns. That doesn't only happen against SE.
The judgements are good, but also unreliable. The casting value of the Axe is little tricky sometimes, and the Random damage really handycaps it imo. The rolling, if the judement will stay is a little random too. Don't know if I really like it, but I would not rely on those judgements. The aftermath of the judgements is, that if I take them, I would need the altar, letting the Priests reroll. That's ok, but makes the army static, as they have to stay wholly within 8" of that. Can't get buffs done with them then. That's a choise I don't want to make, tbh.


And now the interesting part. At the local tournamt at saturday, I played my BoC army.
It was reliantly planned on a simple strategy, that totally worked! I have won the tournament and I have beaten that cheesy Stormcast list!
I was thinking, why I could manage to do that there, but now with Khorne.

The only conclusion I have is, it is the overall army design. BoC really looks great made in comparison. But I want to be good with Khorne too!

Agreed the judgements are hit and miss, but when they hit, they are handy. Yeah the sequitors being able to change stances at the beginning of every combat phase, buffs allowing them to re roll hits and saves, evocators being deepstriked then having shock and awe on that turn and if they get their charge off its crazy! 2 dmg normal attacks then lightning Mortal wounds on a 4+.. its alot going on with no real "skill" other than the gamble of the dice.  And here we are keeping units wholly within other units just to get the buffs we need to stay alive or output wounds. it is what it is though i guess. and to be honest SC aren't even the biggest threat! Kharadorn with good rolls melt your face with ranged! your thirsters get degraded first shooting phase, goodluck after that! anything heavy hitting that charges your 30 bloodletters and hits first seriously cripples them. bloodreavers are the most useless thing ever, they are like rice paper with sharp edges. Sure they have rend and can get out decent attacks, on a 4/4 Hopefully your opponent doesnt have any hit modifiers or crazy defense rolls, oh wait he does... wooooah your 30+ hits literally did nothing! then they folded like a cheap suit. hahaha its just comical you have to laugh at it. Skullreapers and wrathmongers are a fun combo. blood warriors are MUCH better now. they can at least bounce some mortal wounds back, double attack when dying with no respite. bloodthirsters are great if they survive a couple rounds (highly recommend reapers vengeance) slaughterpriests and blood boil is an absolute must have i think. but yes your locked to your terrain piece now. bloodsecrator is Meh. battleshock immunity is a huge loss. I hear you though i want to play Khorne! I want to win battles with them, when you do its a sweet bloody victory! But it does feel like an uphill battle most games. 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Battlefury said:

It seems a little, that the Blood boils down to Tyrants of Blood.

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

@Killax First off, thank you (and others who are active in the discussion) for all the insights (and for pretty much sticking to the sorts of info I am seeking). A question on Tyrants of Blood. Doesn't 140 points seem a bit excessive to allow one Bloodthirster to fight early once per game seem a bit much? I mean, I get that since it's a battalion you get an extra magic item and manage your drops a bit, but that's true of all battalions. What makes one extra fight that valuable?

[Easytyger]

Tyrants of Blood allows all your 3-8 Bloodthirsters to fight back to back if they are within 3’’ of an enemy and haven’t fought yet. And this can happen every combat phase.

[Darksteve]

2 hours ago, Smooth criminal said:

It can only go on the non-character demon since it's a gift and your thirster already has an artifact.

So I was wondering about this.  Demonic gifts are not a defined catagory in the battletome and that artefact does not have an actual written restrictions so RAW I believe you can give it to any hero.

 

[Smooth criminal]

25 minutes ago, Darksteve said:

So I was wondering about this.  Demonic gifts are not a defined catagory in the battletome and that artefact does not have an actual written restrictions so RAW I believe you can give it to any hero.

 

To be fair it's unclear and requires a faq. There is no such thing as "demonic gift" strictly speaking, only adornments and weapons. They made a similar mistake in the last tome and had to faq it there too.

Anyway, if mortals can take it, you slap it on the most important support hero.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Easytyger said:

Tyrants of Blood allows all your 3-8 Bloodthirsters to fight back to back if they are within 3’’ of an enemy and haven’t fought yet. And this can happen every combat phase.

It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.

"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."

That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'

It's not like there are not a dozen other simple ways to write it to mean it works on all of them in each combat phase.

For instance, off the top of my head 

"In each combat phase, after a model has fought, select another model that has not yet fought ..."

Edited April 2, 2019 by Sleboda

[Xasz]

25 minutes ago, Smooth criminal said:

To be fair it's unclear and requires a faq. There is no such thing as "demonic gift" strictly speaking, only adornments and weapons. They made a similar mistake in the last tome and had to faq it there too.

Anyway, if mortals can take it, you slap it on the most important support hero.

May I draw your attention to page 73 and that one big ass headline which classifies the next five boxes... it's even within them and the same headline can be found within the Slaughterhost boxes.

I know it's shocking, but they did in fact not make the same mistake twice.

 

19 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.

"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."

That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'

That's not how it works, at least not under the current wording.

That being said, there is a good chance that they kill even the last interesting battalion in the book.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Xasz

[Impa]

3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.

"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."

That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'

Multiple models in the battalion. So each model eligible from the battalion has a “first time” if your implying there is only one first time. Then you would only be able to perform one “in the beginning” or “at the start of” or “starts first” action every phase every round every game if you had multiples of each. I believe someone posted a link to when things happen “first” you decide the order of each individual “this happens first” or “at the start of” or “in the beginning of”. The person who’s turn it is also trumps the first occurrences I believe if both parties have “firsts” 

[Ravinsild]

8 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.

"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."

That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'

It's not like there are not a dozen other simple ways to write it to mean it works on all of them in each combat phase.

For instance, off the top of my head 

"In each combat phase, after a model has fought, select another model that had not yet fought ..."

If you're literally correct that's hilarious and kind of ****** all over that battalion making it only worth for a single alpha strike. Big oof. I'm laughing because everyone has been swearing but it and it might actually be not very good, and that means Khorne is /even worse/. Obviously am I going to still 3 Bloodthirsters? You bet your bottom dollar. 

Am I still going to play Khorne? Always and forever baby these are my bros. Good or bad they look cool and Khorne is one of the few factions I like. It's entirely possible I could play SCE and I have Ironjawz and maybe 1 other but Khorne is my main bread and butter. I only play World Eaters in 40k. Not anything else. 

[Easytyger]

52 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It's possible they meant that, I suppose, but that's not how it's worded.

"After a model from this battalion has fight in the combat phase for the first time..."

That is a situation that will only ever occur once in the game. You can't have two 'first times.'

It's not like there are not a dozen other simple ways to write it to mean it works on all of them in each combat phase.

For instance, off the top of my head 

"In each combat phase, after a model has fought, select another model that has not yet fought ..."

I understand how you’re reading it but rest assured that first refers to first time it has fought that turn not first fought in the whole game. 

There are many instances of abilities that are used once per game and they are explicitly stated as only being used once per game. This is not one of them. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Easytyger

[Sleboda]

36 minutes ago, Easytyger said:

I understand how you’re reading it but rest assured that first refers to first time it has fought that turn not first fought in the whole game. 

I'll use your post as a jump point to reply to the last few posts as well. 

First, I'm betting that they did indeed mean to say it works as others are opting to say, but (Second) it's not a matter of how I'm "reading it" or if I'm "literally correct" or that not being "how it works."

It's a matter of what I would have to concede to an opponent at the table who read the words in the rule and insisted I actually use them. Not what I wish were written, but what actually is.

I'm not interpreting anything or guessing. I'm not making assumptions about words and their meanings.

The rule specifies it is used in the combat phase (as opposed to, say, the hero phase where other armies do all sorts of shenanigans). It also shows the trigger for the rule. It is applied after a model has fought for the first time. Not the first time this phase or something else not written, just the first time.

So, are we in the combat phase? Yes? Check.

Is a (not the) model from this battalion fighting for the first time? No? Uh oh. Rule does not apply any more. It's a one-shot use.

 

To be clear, I'm saying I think everyone is going to end up having their opinion end up matching the rule once they change it, but I would currently have no actual evidence on my side to claim it works as I wished it would work if an opponent explained it to me as I've shown above.

We can wish for it to be worded another way, but right now, as worded, it is very limited. Keep in mind, Jervis (head AoS dude) recently told us in WD to read the actual words in the rules and apply them if possible. In this case, it's not only possible, it's easy (just depressing) to do so and does not have other readings. The words there, as presented, only mean one thing.

Finally, when you consider that we are talking about a battalion made up of $100+ single models, I'm not sure it's wise to go make purchases hoping and wishing they will issue an errata. 

I know it's hard in text, so let me just say for the record that I'm not being combative or irritated with my fellow posters here. I appreciate the discussion

Edited April 2, 2019 by Sleboda

[Impa]

16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I'll use your post as a jump point to reply to the last few posts as well. 

First, I'm betting that they did indeed mean to say it works as others are opting to say, but (Second) it's not a matter of how I'm "reading it" or if I'm "literally correct" or that not being "how it works."

It's a matter of what I would have to concede to an opponent at the table who read the words in the rule and insisted I actually use them. Not what I wish were written, but what actually is.

I'm not interpreting anything or guessing. I'm not making assumptions about words and their meanings.

The rule specifies it is used in the combat phase (as opposed to, say, the hero phase where other armies do all sorts of shenanigans). It also shows the trigger for the rule. It is applied after a model has fought for the first time. Not the first time this phase or something else not written, just the first time.

So, are we in the combat phase? Yes? Check.

Is a (not the) model from this battalion fighting for the first time? No? Uh oh. Rule does not apply any more. It's a one-shot use.

 

To be clear, I'm saying I think everyone is going to end up having their opinion end up matching the rule once they change it, but I would currently have no actual evidence on my side to claim it works as I wished it would work if an opponent explained it to me as I've shown above.

We can wish for it to be worded another way, but right now, as worded, it is very limited. Keep in mind, Jervis (head AoS dude) recently told us in WD to read the actual words in the rules and apply them if possible. In this case, it's not only possible, it's easy (just depressing) to do so and does not have other readings. The words there, as presented, only mean one thing.

Finally, when you consider that we are talking about a battalion made up of $100+ single models, I'm not sure it's wise to go make purchases hoping and wishing they will issue an errata. 

I know it's hard in text, so let me just say for the record that I'm not being combative or irritated with my fellow posters here. I appreciate the discussion

Good point. As I read it it just seems like they’re implying though that models have their own first time. “After a model from this battalion has fought in the combat phase for the first time”. I’m sure it will be FAQ. I seriously hope this is the intended meaning anyways haha. But your right, they absolutely could have written it differently. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Impa

[Xasz]

19 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not what I wish were written, but what actually is

And that's exactly the point, as it stands, it works the way @Impa stated. 

You are just getting hung up on the part that ensures the rule cannot be abused for multiple activations. 

Sadly, you are one of those guys on this board that really enjoys arguing ad infinitum (I think you got warned for that multiple times by now), so I'll check out right here and wait for the FAQ. 

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if GW pulls an 180 on the rule through it.  

 

[Sleboda]

2 minutes ago, Xasz said:

And that's exactly the point, as it stands, it works the way @Impa stated. 

You are just getting hung up on the part that ensures the rule cannot be abused for multiple activations. 

Sadly, you are one of those guys on this board that really enjoys arguing ad infinitum (I think you got warned for that multiple times by now), so I'll check out right here and wait for the FAQ. 

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if GW pulls an 180 on the rule through it.  

 

Wow, that's a very well executed passive-aggressive slam.  Well done.

I don't "enjoy arguing infinitum." (nor have I been warned for such an offense - not that one, anyway ) I enjoy having a proper understanding of the rules so that not only do I know what to do, but so that my opponents don't get boned by me misapplying the rules.  Yep, believe it or not, I actually care to make sure I don't cheat my opponents, and a discussion board is an ideal place to work things out before hitting the table. :shrug:

 

I truly would like to read something that changes my view on this issue (the idea of using 3+ of the big guys like this is exciting!) - something using language/words/sentence structures. At the moment, with no slight meant to others here and there readings of the words, I see now actual application of the rules of English that are open the rule up to those other readings.

Again, I would not in good conscious be able to tell my opponent I get to attack with three bloodthirsters before he gets to attack, each combat phase, with the rules that are present.  I would, by the rules, be cheating if I did this and I would not feel good about doing that.

[Easytyger]

 

42 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I'll use your post as a jump point to reply to the last few posts as well. 

First, I'm betting that they did indeed mean to say it works as others are opting to say, but (Second) it's not a matter of how I'm "reading it" or if I'm "literally correct" or that not being "how it works."

It's a matter of what I would have to concede to an opponent at the table who read the words in the rule and insisted I actually use them. Not what I wish were written, but what actually is.

I'm not interpreting anything or guessing. I'm not making assumptions about words and their meanings.

The rule specifies it is used in the combat phase (as opposed to, say, the hero phase where other armies do all sorts of shenanigans). It also shows the trigger for the rule. It is applied after a model has fought for the first time. Not the first time this phase or something else not written, just the first time.

So, are we in the combat phase? Yes? Check.

Is a (not the) model from this battalion fighting for the first time? No? Uh oh. Rule does not apply any more. It's a one-shot use.

 

To be clear, I'm saying I think everyone is going to end up having their opinion end up matching the rule once they change it, but I would currently have no actual evidence on my side to claim it works as I wished it would work if an opponent explained it to me as I've shown above.

We can wish for it to be worded another way, but right now, as worded, it is very limited. Keep in mind, Jervis (head AoS dude) recently told us in WD to read the actual words in the rules and apply them if possible. In this case, it's not only possible, it's easy (just depressing) to do so and does not have other readings. The words there, as presented, only mean one thing.

Finally, when you consider that we are talking about a battalion made up of $100+ single models, I'm not sure it's wise to go make purchases hoping and wishing they will issue an errata. 

I know it's hard in text, so let me just say for the record that I'm not being combative or irritated with my fellow posters here. I appreciate the discussion

Interesting. So let's extend your interpretation to other abilities that have the same wording "fought in the combat phase for the first time" as this seems to be the text you are focused on.

How do you interpret Reapers of Vengeance command ability Leave None Alive. Can you on only use that command ability on a daemon unit once in the whole game to attack twice? So if in Turn 1 I have my unit of 30 Bloodletters fight twice then I cannot use that CA on them on any other combat phases?

Edited April 2, 2019 by Easytyger

[Impa]

16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Wow, that's a very well executed passive-aggressive slam.  Well done.

I don't "enjoy arguing infinitum." (nor have I been warned for such an offense - not that one, anyway ) I enjoy having a proper understanding of the rules so that not only do I know what to do, but so that my opponents don't get boned by me misapplying the rules.  Yep, believe it or not, I actually care to make sure I don't cheat my opponents, and a discussion board is an ideal place to work things out before hitting the table. :shrug:

 

I truly would like to read something that changes my view on this issue (the idea of using 3+ of the big guys like this is exciting!) - something using language/words/sentence structures. At the moment, with no slight meant to others here and there readings of the words, I see now actual application of the rules of English that are open the rule up to those other readings.

Again, I would not in good conscious be able to tell my opponent I get to attack with three bloodthirsters before he gets to attack, each combat phase, with the rules that are present.  I would, by the rules, be cheating if I did this and I would not feel good about doing that.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/

Seems like they’re saying if you have multiple things that happen at the same time you choose the order in what happens first, second, third etc. As “you have opportunity to do several things at the same time”.    

Edited April 2, 2019 by Impa

[Sleboda]

Hey @Impa

Thanks for the highlight, but that's not in question. The issue is not timing or how many go in a generic sense.  If it were, the rules your are highlighting would clear things up.

The actual bugaboo is the complete confluence of several elements of the sentence. It talks about "a" (not "the" or "the chosen" etc.) model. It talks about "the combat phase" (the combat phase happens, potentially, 10 times in the game) as opposed to "this combat phase" (which would mean that a new instance of the combat phase is now "this" combat phase) and "for the first time" as opposed to "the first time in this turn." When taken together, it leads to a pretty direct checklist as I outlined earlier.

Are we in the combat phase (does matter which one, just "the" combat phase)?

Has a model (not "the" or "this" model - just "a") from the battalion fought for the first time (the first time, not first time this phase or turn, just _first_)?

If both of the above are true, trigger the effect.

If not, then you cannot.

You cannot use this ability in the shooting phase or hero phase.

You cannot fight for the first time more than once.

 

At the risk of repeating myself (doing it because some seem to ignore it when I say it), I am not doing this to argue or to rob anyone of an ability.  I am trying to make sure I don't hose my opponents who would have every right by the printed rules to expect me to make a single early attack one time in the game.

 

@Easytyger I need to spend some time with the rule you mentioned before replying.  Thanks for pointing that one out.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Sleboda

[Impa]

30 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Hey @impa

Thanks for the highlight, but that's not in question. The issue is not timing or how many go in a generic sense.  If it were, the rules your are highlighting would clear things up.

The actual bugaboo is the complete confluence of several elements of the sentence. It talks about "a" (not "the" or "the chosen" etc.) model. It talks about "the combat phase" (the combat phase happens, potentially, 10 times in the game) as opposed to "this combat phase" (which would mean that a new instance of the combat phase is now "this" combat phase) and "for the first time" as opposed to "the first time in this turn." When taken together, it leads to a pretty direct checklist as I outlined earlier.

Are we in the combat phase (does matter which one, just "the" combat phase)?

Has a model (not "the" or "this" model - just "a") from the battalion fought for the first time (the first time, not first time this phase or turn, just _first_)?

If both of the above are true, trigger the effect.

If not, then you cannot.

You cannot use this ability in the shooting phase or hero phase.

You cannot fight for the first time more than once.

 

At the risk of repeating myself (doing it because some seem to ignore it when I say it), I am not doing this to argue or to rob anyone of an ability.  I am trying to make sure I don't hose my opponents who would have every right by the printed rules to expect me to make a single early attack one time in the game.

 

@Easytyger I need to spend some time with the rule you mentioned before replying.  Thanks for pointing that one out.

Well it’s great to have debates about this stuff. I agree I don’t want to cheat my opponent (friends!) out of anything. It just seems like they’re focusing on “a” model not “you”. “After a model has fought for the first time” not “after you have fought for the first time” or “after the player has fought for the first time in the phase” implying multiple models can fight for a first time. Then you choose the order. But I understand your interpretation that their saying there’s only one instance of “a model in the combat phase” 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Impa

[Sleboda]

Different question:

When a battalion refers to "bloodthirster" is that the name on the warscroll card or the keyword?

For instance, Can Skarbrand be one of the bloodthisters in a battalion?

[Xasz]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Different question:

When a battalion refers to "bloodthirster" is that the name on the warscroll card or the keyword?

For instance, Can Skarbrand be one of the bloodthisters in a battalion?

Keywords and yes.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Xasz

[Impa]

3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Different question:

When a battalion refers to "bloodthirster" is that the name on the warscroll card or the keyword?

For instance, Can Skarbrand be one of the bloodthisters in a battalion?

I’d say Yes. Because he has the keyword bloodthirster

Edited April 2, 2019 by Impa

[Kaz]

6 hours ago, AresX8 said:

I also just noticed that Sequitors re-roll their saves only in the combat phase.... I like the idea of the Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster's Bloodflail being shot at them :). Do it under Wrathmongers too!

Komrade, our Skull cannons have BLOODLETTER keyword. You know what that means? You buff them with a Skulltaker and Wrath of Khorne, they’re now re rolling ALL hit rolls, and wound rolls of 1. And combo with Bloodmaster, they get to whack bef the enemy can, deal damage, then shoot! It’s pretty insane. Combi with Wrathmongers to basically double the damage. I’m gonna try it out just for fun. We’re more accurate and even more damaging than those annoying steampunk dwarves

6 hours ago, Battlefury said:

Thank you for your ideas.

It seems a little, that the Blood boils down to Tyrants of Blood.

@Killax What I basically own is massively reliant on non demonic units. For several games I had to lend units.
I have already noticed, that my mortal units are lack lusters, so I would have to buy demons I guess. Buggs me kind of...tbh.

The 3 Thirsters went straight up shred to pieced by deepstriking Ballistas on2 edges of the map and Evocators coming in.
Sequitors came from the front, but I didn't go for those. The Ballistas would be my target for some cheap units like Reavers, at least that was the plan in one of the games. I incrased the "chaffiness" by using Blood Warriors to lock the Ballistas in place, but that spread shot is a party pooper. Rend 2, wtf?!? After they came in, my Thirster where kind of in the middle of the map, as I had begun the game. They couldn't come up with the 10" move and then charge the Evocators. Distance was like 20" at that moment. So he then shot my thirsters, charged them with Evocators and Sequitors. Although I didn't bubble my units up, he just had enough power to wipe like 50% of my units including 2 Thirsters. Those Sequitor Hammers with Rend 1 and 2 Damage are just totally cheese. And then they reroll their hits, because fuc* you, that's why...we can load our weapons.

The lack of real damage made it kind of impossible to straight up take somewhat out, even when buffed properly. I made a lot of A, but he just saves it... .
Stormcast games are a competition called "how many 3s can you roll?". Thats absolutely broing.

@KazAgreed! Reavers where just...elt's just not talk about them. I did buff the Warriors though, but Rend 2 by ballistas in even then not funny. The Sequitors just batter with so much 2 DMG weapons... . The buff did kind of help to hold them in melee for 3 turn in the optimal way. The problem was then, that the Damagedealers, the Thirsters where already done or hit, that they didn't make that much damage, because of the table stats. I have to admit, that the random damage with the  Thirsters really sucks. It is not reliable enough. The MW output of the IR is pretty neat, but relys on a 16% to have 6s to roll. And when he was krippled within the table stats, it wasn't really that good anymore.
They did damage, but most of the time where wounded already with like 6 to 9 wounds, as they appeared in battle.

Don't know why, but Blood Letters didn't bother him too. Flesh Hounds where no match due to those "reroll just anything you like" buffs they have.

@ImpaYou're exactly right. The army is absolutely still reliant of the "Khorne wonderland" mechanic, where everything has to work completely like a clockwerk. If some buffs won't be applied...thats ******. Buffs and even more buffs lead to a little oddity, that I noticed. The enemy can easily choose whom to target and literally turn the army to uselessness within 2 turns. That doesn't only happen against SE.
The judgements are good, but also unreliable. The casting value of the Axe is little tricky sometimes, and the Random damage really handycaps it imo. The rolling, if the judement will stay is a little random too. Don't know if I really like it, but I would not rely on those judgements. The aftermath of the judgements is, that if I take them, I would need the altar, letting the Priests reroll. That's ok, but makes the army static, as they have to stay wholly within 8" of that. Can't get buffs done with them then. That's a choise I don't want to make, tbh.


And now the interesting part. At the local tournamt at saturday, I played my BoC army.
It was reliantly planned on a simple strategy, that totally worked! I have won the tournament and I have beaten that cheesy Stormcast list!
I was thinking, why I could manage to do that there, but now with Khorne.

The only conclusion I have is, it is the overall army design. BoC really looks great made in comparison. But I want to be good with Khorne too!

Tbh, Beasts of chaos are a VERY different army from Khorne. I was once considering them , but felt they aren’t really my playstyle. Unlike Khorne, they are a LOT faster, use wayyy more wounds, and can overwhelm o objectives. They also have less killing power spread out across the entire army, more concentrated in specific units (I honestly dislike Enlightened because the ungor/Enlightened combo strikes me as really annoying). Usually, the beasts f chaos seem to play around objectives, which allows them win matchups against super Killy armies by simply capturing objectives with sheer numbers. But here with Khorne, we generally prefer slaughtering things  

6 hours ago, Smooth criminal said:

It can only go on the non-character demon since it's a gift and your thirster already has an artifact.

Hounds are strictly better than letters in small units until letters hit 20+ dudes bonus. More attacks, faster, can unbind.

I don't think demons can deal with significant ranged presence.  Maybe consider the "can't shoot me" realm artifact on thirster.  2+ crushers is as best as you can do against shooting and if it doesn't work then nothing works.

Right now, I feel like best way to deal with range is to use our own ranged units. Gorethunder Cohort, Wrathmongers and Skulltaker. One of the dumbest things is that we can buff the WRATH OF KHORNE’s 6 DAMAGE SNIPER RIFLE with command ability AND WRATHMONGERS!! Which is pretty funny, and you can assassinate heroes quite handily, or seriously dent monsters or big units. 

 

[Kaz]

6 hours ago, Impa said:

Agreed the judgements are hit and miss, but when they hit, they are handy. Yeah the sequitors being able to change stances at the beginning of every combat phase, buffs allowing them to re roll hits and saves, evocators being deepstriked then having shock and awe on that turn and if they get their charge off its crazy! 2 dmg normal attacks then lightning Mortal wounds on a 4+.. its alot going on with no real "skill" other than the gamble of the dice.  And here we are keeping units wholly within other units just to get the buffs we need to stay alive or output wounds. it is what it is though i guess. and to be honest SC aren't even the biggest threat! Kharadorn with good rolls melt your face with ranged! your thirsters get degraded first shooting phase, goodluck after that! anything heavy hitting that charges your 30 bloodletters and hits first seriously cripples them. bloodreavers are the most useless thing ever, they are like rice paper with sharp edges. Sure they have rend and can get out decent attacks, on a 4/4 Hopefully your opponent doesnt have any hit modifiers or crazy defense rolls, oh wait he does... wooooah your 30+ hits literally did nothing! then they folded like a cheap suit. hahaha its just comical you have to laugh at it. Skullreapers and wrathmongers are a fun combo. blood warriors are MUCH better now. they can at least bounce some mortal wounds back, double attack when dying with no respite. bloodthirsters are great if they survive a couple rounds (highly recommend reapers vengeance) slaughterpriests and blood boil is an absolute must have i think. but yes your locked to your terrain piece now. bloodsecrator is Meh. battleshock immunity is a huge loss. I hear you though i want to play Khorne! I want to win battles with them, when you do its a sweet bloody victory! But it does feel like an uphill battle most games. 

Honestly, Kharadrons are relatively meh in the Current meta. When you catch them, they really have 0 staying power. They’re pretty bad at taking objectives too, because they lack brute force. StormcSts imo are just stupid. Their ranged is too good. Their magic is good. Their melee is ridiculous. Their durability and mobility is ridiculous. I’ve hated them in crunch, and I also hate their books too; they just never clicked with me. Personally, such lists remind me of T’au/imperial guard cheese back in 40K, that I was hoping to avoid here in AOS. I’m lucky my playgroup has none of that cheese... 

HOWEVER, despite my salt, i’ll Say this much. Even since AOS 1.0, it was an uphill battle for us. And why? Because Khorne chose us as his rightful champions, because he KNOWS that we alone are deserving of that honor. We are stronger than any other fool, we have no need for cheese! Only the blood and skulls of our foes! 

One thing that helps me a lot is to focus on positive things: When I lose, I have this mindset; when we go to Khorne’s halls to feast forever, we must remember that our Blood too is welcome by the Blood god.. in the grand scheme of things, we always win, for it is an age of unending war

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

@Killax First off, thank you (and others who are active in the discussion) for all the insights (and for pretty much sticking to the sorts of info I am seeking). A question on Tyrants of Blood. Doesn't 140 points seem a bit excessive to allow one Bloodthirster to fight early once per game seem a bit much? I mean, I get that since it's a battalion you get an extra magic item and manage your drops a bit, but that's true of all battalions. What makes one extra fight that valuable?

Tbh mate, you’re right, it’s likely RAW problem. It might actually not get FAQ, but i’ll Explain why it’s good. 

0 range. It’s basically unlimited. No matter where your Bloodthirsters are, they will get it. 

Attacking first: Why is this so good? Bloodthirster are actually squishy. That 4+ save means little compared to a Great Unclean One with its 5+ FNP, and Bloodthirster have only 14 wounds, which isn’t that much. And as you prob already know, an injured Bloodthirster loses a LOT of it’s killing power. This battalion solves that glass canon problem, by allowing them to attack first. Letting your Insensate rages attack first means they can blow their full load of MWs, and potentially cripple the enemy before they get hit back. This allows your tjirsters to fight at full power

Don’t forget, Reapers of vengeance Command ability can be used when you attack first, allowing you to maximize your damage output before they (possibly die). And killing things before they can hit you indirectly increases you chance of surviving the counter attack. 

140pts is honestly cheap for a battalion, and allows you to fit in possibly a Murderhost to fill your battleline, or heck, a Goreblade Pilgrims.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Kaz

[Darksteve]

@Sleboda

Is it your reading that our unbinds can only be used once per game? They almost universally say "# in the hero phase" as opposed to in each hero phase.