AoS 2 - Blades of Khorne Discussion

[Praecautus]

10 minutes ago, Impa said:

Reapers vengeance command ability Leave none alive and have him double attack. Man this would be crazy, can i assume he would gain the command ability since he is a hero? 

Yes 😀

Dont forget he has the locus of fury ability to reroll 1s

[Impa]

Just now, Praecautus said:

Yes 😀

Dont forget he has the locus of fury ability to reroll 1s

Awesome, and of course! Thanks

[Praecautus]

Just now, Impa said:

Awesome, and of course! Thanks

You are welcome. 

There are plenty of other options to kit him out, also consider jadewound thorn and blade of judgement are other good ideas for him.

[Xasz]

3 hours ago, Smooth criminal said:

Do you think 2x5 skullreapers are enough damage?  Should they maybe be 2x10? The idea is that taking more reapers may be just better than trying to improve them with mongers, aspiring, etc. since they already have everything.

I was feeling similar. Reapers are our absolute mathematically best hammer unit, slaughterborn is the best battalion for them. Presenting a wave of warriors forces opponent to commit hard to killing them, then you kill whatever he commited with reapers.

Not sure, it's hard to free up the points to pump both units. Even with just one you would lose the Wrathmongers + something else or other choices.

Maybe it's a good point to talk about list building or at least how I approach it, would fit nicely with the Blood Warrior and "screen" discussion that popped up recently.

There are some metrics thrown around which form the basics for every meaningful evaluation like ppm (points per model) or effective health. They have value but they have to be translated to some degree. In Magic the Gathering there is the concept of hidden or alternative card text, like a creature that does 2 damage when entering the battlefield and has 2/1 stats for 2 mana would often translate into deal 4 damage to your opponent, deal 2 and remove a card from your opponents hand or deal 2 and kill a creature. For tabletops there is something similar and at the same time completely different, the question about how likely it is that a unit does use everything you paid for. Which cannot be math-hammered in any meaningful way (at least not in a way that is always true).

Example, when I bring a unit of Blood Warriors, I pay for their offensive abilities, their defensive abilities and stuff that falls in neither of those categories. If such a unit is neither being hit or actually attacks I wasted points for stuff that was not used. If this happens a lot of times this unit can be described as "fat" of the list. That's pretty much why we use the cheapest units with the biggest footprint possible for screens, because we don't want to waste points (there are some other things that are important here, like you often actually want your screen to be wiped out to make room for your counterattack and so on, this is why Blood Warriors are godawful screens, a more fitting term for Chaos Warriors and the like would be "holders" as they tend to stand on key places and try to just survive).

The same principle applies to unit sizes and the question how many of those models will actually be active. For a unit of 30 Blood Warriors, with a reasonable amount of scenery on the table, this number will be rather low and one has to ask himself if this is really a good idea. Same applies to models with 40mm bases, which are especially unwieldy. I highly doubt that a 10 man unit of Skullreapers will actually have a high activity among models. You could argue that the additional models makes the unit more resilient and you are surely in the right with that one but if at the end of the battle there are always 5+ models alive, you probably paid good points for low gain -> fat (More of X doesn't always translate into better for purpose Y). In my games up till now, 5 felt like a good number as about 2 Skullreaper models per unit (or none) survived the battles with no units to fight in close proximity. That being said, 10 might still be better in some cases. 

So why even bother with big blobs when most of the models have a low activity rating? Because blobs are usually about surviving stuff and defensive capabilities (low ppm with high wound/effective wounds count). Some of them are capable of damage but that might not be their selling point (e.g. Nurgle Marauders or Chainrasps) or the unit has low effective wounds but also low ppm. In this case you add models too keep the potential count of active models high enough that it actually matters when close combat happens (Bloodletter come to mind).

Problem with all of this, that there is no clear line or ultimate truth (parking 30 Blood Warriors on a objective might be really good) but questioning unit choices and purpose of things you bring to the table can make a list significant better. Just adding units with good stats or comparing unit A with unit B without considering context or purpose is usually not enough. The concept of "razor's edge" from sports is oddly fitting for list building and revisions. You want to cut as much fat as possible but you don't want (but might) cut things that are actually important for the system to work properly (e.g. a runner cutting so much body fat that they actually collapse instead of having a peak performance).

I feel like I'm writing without actually getting to the point and taking a nose dive into rambling but maybe the gist of it comes across.  

TLDR:

• don't pay points for things that are not used (defensive capabilities, offensive capabilities)
• consider the logistics of the table/battlefield
• remind yourself that models that tend to be not active are wasted points (considering units meant for fighting)
• exception to the previous point: units with low wound count or defensive capabilities that need additional models to reach combat in a meaningful size
• any unit needs to have a purpose and do "something" otherwise it's obsolete
• reevaluate units and try to identify "fat" in your list
• nothing is really set in stone but evaluation is always useful (with metrics and consideration of context)

Edited April 17, 2019 by Xasz

[Darksteve]

2 hours ago, Warbossironteef said:

I just put together what I would consider as a unique Brass Despoilers list. I think this direction I'm going in has legit potential but it's a million drops:

Skullfiend:

LEADERS
Bloodsecrator (140)
Slaughterpriest (100)
Slaughterpriest (100)
Doombull of Khorne (120)
Great Bray Shaman (100)
UNITS
10 x Bloodreavers (70)
10 x Bloodreavers (70)
10 x Bloodreavers (70)
1 x Khorgoraths (100)
1 x Khorgoraths (100)
1 x Khorgoraths (100)
5 x Wrathmongers (140)
10 x Bestigors of Khorne (120)
10 x Bestigors of Khorne (120)
6 x Bullgors of Khorne (320)
Brass Despoilers (190)
Hexgorger Skulls (40)
TOTAL: 2000/2000

It's pretty fast, super choppy and has 2 powerful core "units" the bullgors and Khorgies. Both of those things reroll everything. As weird as the list looks I feel like something in this  could be scary on the table. 

I really like this concept. I had posted a similar list a few posts back. For me though I cut the reavers and beastigors for more regular gors with shields as having 80 point 4+ save screens in melee seemed great. Bullgors seem absolutely amazing in brass despoilers with great axes

[DarkProdigy]

4 hours ago, Gash Bauer said:

I'm very tempted as a completely for fun  general trying the hilarity of a Goretide Skullgrinder with the Gorecleaver.  Hew the foe would bring him to 4 damage at -2 rend and a six would turn it into 8 damage 😄  I know he's highly impractical as far as speed, defense, wound count goes but once he got into a frontline it would be a glorious mess!

I actually run this exact setup most of my games and for 80 points it’s huge fun. Sometimes he gets blasted off the table turn 1, but if he doesn’t he’s almost guaranteed to mulch something into utter paste. I’ve had him put out 20 wounds one one fight before (5 attacks with banner and wrathmongers, lucked out with 2 6s).

I like running him as a sort of insurance policy. If my enemy shoots him they aren’t shooting the real buffer units in my army, that’s a win, and I get a blood tithe out of it for his 80 points. If they don’t take the bait, he can punish.

[Ravinsild]

MFW we have all these amazing heroes and it’s hard to run everything awesome in 1 list. 

I love (from my personal experience in games) Exalted Deathbringer with impaling spear 

Skullgrinder 

i want to run the Daemon Prince

but I personally feel I must take a Bloodsecrator and 2 Slaughterpriests and if I’m running mortals a Bloodstokers so that’s 4 slots basically guaranteed. 

Yet we have so many cool heroes like Skarr, MLoK, Valkia, Skullgrinder, Exalted Deathbringer, Aspiring Deathbringer, Daemon Prince, Manticore Lord, and more! 

[Sleboda]

I am considering a demon prince like others, but I noticed something a bit odd.

Normally when a warscroll is trying to add an optional ability that takes a modeling option into account, it will say something like "Some X are armed with poking sticks, while others are armed with hitting clubs" or "Some X ride horses into battle." The it tells you that if your model has this weapon or that, use the rule for that weapon, or if the model is on a horse, increase his Move, and so on.

The demon prince just says some of them can fly and that the ones that can fly get extra Move.

Two issues:

1) It doesn't tell you what makes a model able to fly. Yes, we can all look at wings and assume that makes it fly, but then again that's not a guarantee of the rule being in place. Besides, you could say he uses internal powers to make himself fly. You know, magic or whatever.  Who am I to tell you you must show wings in order to fly, especially since there is no actual rule, either for the prince or in the game in general, that says wings=flying.

2) Even if we figure out the first bit, isn't it weird that the prince that can fly does not get the Fly rule, just extra Movement?  It makes him still cool, but less useful than I was expecting.

[Ravinsild]

12 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I am considering a demon prince like others, but I noticed something a bit odd.

Normally when a warscroll is trying to add an optional ability that takes a modeling option into account, it will say something like "Some X are armed with poking sticks, while others are armed with hitting clubs" or "Some X ride horses into battle." The it tells you that if your model has this weapon or that, use the rule for that weapon, or if the model is on a horse, increase his Move, and so on.

The demon prince just says some of them can fly and that the ones that can fly get extra Move.

Two issues:

1) It doesn't tell you what makes a model able to fly. Yes, we can all look at wings and assume that makes it fly, but then again that's not a guarantee of the rule being in place. Besides, you could say he uses internal powers to make himself fly. You know, magic or whatever.  Who am I to tell you you must show wings in order to fly, especially since there is no actual rule, either for the prince or in the game in general, that says wings=flying.

2) Even if we figure out the first bit, isn't it weird that the prince that can fly does not get the Fly rule, just extra Movement?  It makes him still cool, but less useful than I was expecting.

I don’t know about all that but in 40k his wings are worth 24 points which puts him at 180 points total and it is specifically what makes him fly and does give him the fly keyword. 

Hopefully they clean up the warscroll to be more precise and more in line with AoS 2.0 because apparently it was last touched sometime in 2018. 

I genuinely believe the writers of AoS took a lot of presumption about player knowledge and also had “borrowed knowledge” or assumptions from 40k. I think they use wording shortcuts and sort of easy to read language that they believe the reader will innately understand at face value and that’s why not everything is written in highly technical reiterative lawyer speak to spell out each and every single thing. 

Although I agree they should probably tighten it up and be more specific. Most of the time I think their rules are pretty nice but I also don’t go actively looking for exploits and tend to go with the common sense or face value/intended interpretation. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Ravinsild

[Bjornas]

29 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

I genuinely believe the writers of AoS took a lot of presumption about player knowledge and also had “borrowed knowledge” or assumptions from 40k. I think they use wording shortcuts and sort of easy to read language that they believe the reader will innately understand at face value and that’s why not everything is written in highly technical reiterative lawyer speak to spell out each and every single thing. 

Although I agree they should probably tighten it up and be more specific. Most of the time I think their rules are pretty nice but I also don’t go actively looking for exploits and tend to go with the common sense or face value/intended interpretation. 

This. It's funny, I followed how GW became increasingly precise in their wordings and descriptions of units/rules through 4th to 6th ed. 40k codices as a response to such misunderstandings (and the inevitable abuses that followed). You'd think they had learned their lesson when they designed AoS, instead we have to sit patiently and watch them reinvent the wheel all over again. 🙄

I think that was my first thought when I read a Warscroll for the first time in like 2015: "Yeah, they're gonna be re-writing and FAQing these for a long time..."

Edited April 17, 2019 by Bjornas

[Ravinsild]

6 minutes ago, Bjornas said:

This. It's funny, I followed how GW became increasingly precise in their wordings and descriptions of units/rules through 4th to 6th ed. 40k codices as a response to such misunderstandings (and the inevitable abuses that followed). You'd think they had learned their lesson when they designed AoS, instead we have to sit patiently and watch them reinvent the wheel all over again. 🙄

I think that was my first thought when I read a Warscroll for the first time in like 2015: "Yeah, they're gonna be re-writing and FAQing these for a long time..."

Yeah I mean I think the RAI is “if it can fly it has the flying keyword” but they didn’t specifically and literally write the keyword anywhere so it seems implied but isn’t defined. 

I hadn’t even really noticed but that’s because I use them in both systems (them being Daemon Princes) and just sort of carried over that knowledge where the wings are literally separately point valued and need to be specified and it does give the flying keyword etc...

[Sleboda]

47 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Although I agree they should probably tighten it up and be more specific. Most of the time I think their rules are pretty nice but I also don’t go actively looking for exploits and tend to go with the common sense or face value/intended interpretation. 

Two things:

1. I'm definitely not looking to exploit. The opposite in fact. I'm looking to be able to show my opponents the rules, the printed rules, that give my units their abilities when the opponent asks me to. I'm looking to not cheat.

2. If there's one thing I've learned over the decades, it's that you cannot lean on common sense to resolve things because there is no such thing. It's usually invoked sort of like (and I don't mean this as a shot at folks who have religion) faith - when you cannot explain your position it convince others with reason and careful explanation, you (not you specifically, just in general) say "common sense."

Not to get too far off the path, but even simple things like where you are from, who raised you, or the language you speak can result in radically different views of what constitutes common sense.

Anyway, yeah, I think he's probably supposed to gain the Fly rule, but the difference in his warscroll's wording compared to do many others that explicitly call on the Fly rule makes me cautious.

 

Also, keep in mind that the head AoS rules writer recently told us in WD to not use "intent" as a way to play.  He specifically said to play with the printed rules, not what someone may believe the writer may have meant to write.

 

Also, also, fingers crossed this gets fixed. I may finally have a reason to paint this guy up! An old, old, old conversion ...

Edited April 17, 2019 by Sleboda

[ledha]

18 hours ago, Roark said:

I think the fully invested Mantilord (as Goretide general) is more than twice as good as a fully invested Juggerlord or Mighty Lord, and he's less than twice the cost (I still don't get why they raised the points on those two guys).

I also think you should play him at his best at least once. 😉

to be honest, the juggerlord was hilarious strong for 140 pts. He deserved a nerf. Or a point increase. Both at the same time is harsh. But hey, he is not lord-celestant on dracoth bad. He is "okay now". The nerf of his CA is what hurt the most

Edited April 18, 2019 by ledha

[jazman84]

I'm finding it a little annoying trying to creare a 4xThirster Tyrants list under 2k; while having priests/judgements to play with. Points are scarce! 😅

[Ravinsild]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Two things:

1. I'm definitely not looking to exploit. The opposite in fact. I'm looking to be able to show my opponents the rules, the printed rules, that give my units their abilities when the opponent asks me to. I'm looking to not cheat.

2. If there's one thing I've learned over the decades, it's that you cannot lean on common sense to resolve things because there is no such thing. It's usually invoked sort of like (and I don't mean this as a shot at folks who have religion) faith - when you cannot explain your position it convince others with reason and careful explanation, you (not you specifically, just in general) say "common sense."

Not to get too far off the path, but even simple things like where you are from, who raised you, or the language you speak can result in radically different views of what constitutes common sense.

Anyway, yeah, I think he's probably supposed to gain the Fly rule, but the difference in his warscroll's wording compared to do many others that explicitly call on the Fly rule makes me cautious.

 

Also, keep in mind that the head AoS rules writer recently told us in WD to not use "intent" as a way to play.  He specifically said to play with the printed rules, not what someone may believe the writer may have meant to write.

 

Also, also, fingers crossed this gets fixed. I may finally have a reason to paint this guy up! An old, old, old conversion ...

Well I wasn’t saying you specifically, but people do read the rules with intent of breaking the game and finding exploits.

i straight up didn’t notice it did not have the fly keywords or that it didn’t specify what exactly gave it flying, but what I personally mean by “common sense” is I read it with a bit of “mental grease” just assuming that if it says it can fly it’s treated like literally everything else in the game that has fly, so if it flies it flies. That’s why I didn’t read it so precisely or closely, I just went with the picture and assumed the wings meant flying and that flying things act like flying things and when something can fly it specifies that and therefore it adheres to the general rules of flying. 

[Sneeto]

For the flying daemon prince discussion....you can model it without wings you want and still let it fly. There are goblin models that fly that are represented by them jumping.

I think it’s easy to imagine a powerful daemon vaulting across the battlefield. Fly also has its dangers, so it’s not always a beneficial aspect to have. 

I don’t think I’ve ever been to a tournament and someone would say “no” to that. If they did get the TO and I’m 100% sure they’ll say it’s ok as long as you disclose it to be polite to the opponent. Conversions are encouraged and cool, just take time to explain prior to match! 

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, jazman84 said:

I'm finding it a little annoying trying to creare a 4xThirster Tyrants list under 2k; while having priests/judgements to play with. Points are scarce! 😅

Heck, I'm trying to make it work with three and having trouble.

[Sleboda]

56 minutes ago, Sneeto said:

For the flying daemon prince discussion....you can model it without wings you want and still let it fly. There are goblin models that fly that are represented by them jumping.

I think it’s easy to imagine a powerful daemon vaulting across the battlefield. Fly also has its dangers, so it’s not always a beneficial aspect to have. 

Fer sher, and I pointed that out in my initial post on the topic. Imagining various ways to fly isn't really a problem or any sort.

It's about them not indicating in the first part (description) what is on the model to give him the rule, and then realizing that the second part (the rule itself) is not actually the Fly rule, but a very specific Move increase instead.

So, yes, imagine he is bounding on powerful legs. I'm with you. Why is that "justification" in the description to say he's blessed with fight, and then why are we (with the rules) allowed to make to leap to giving him access to rules he is not shown to have?

[Battlefury]

"A Daemon Prince that can fly has a Move of 12" instead of 8". "

I would just assume that

A) it flies
B) in addition to flying, he has a 12" move

So flying rules apply, and his movement speed is better.

[Mikeymajq]

I'm loving all the attention the Daemon Prince is getting.

about the wording on his flying. The intent is pretty clear, I just think that his warscroll is pretty old. And that's more or less how they were written back then. 

 

Here's an old Wip of my DP, apperantly I haven't taken a picture of him finished (or at least didn't find one on my phone).

Edited April 18, 2019 by Mikeymajq

[Mikelomba]

Im gona try using archaon instead of 2 thirster.. he is mortal and demon and more tanky 

[Judicator]

Can i get your guys feed back on this list?  Ive played 3 games with it, beating gut busters and Lon then getting smashed by sylvaneth.

1950 points, 3 drops, 2 battalions, starting command points on turn 1 is 4

Bloodsecrator

(Darkfeast)

40man bloodreavers

10man bloodreavers

10 man blood reavers

Bloodstoker

Slaughterpriest

(Tyrants of blood)

Wok blood thirster

Skarbrand

Insensate rage bloodthirster

Tribe reapers of vengeance

From aquishy giving thermal rider cloak to bloodsecrator for plus 4 movement and fly

Crown artifact allowing wok thirster to let him use command ability for free once per combat phase

Then mandatory reapers artifact on insensate rage thirster

Prayer sacrifice one that gives blood tithe points.

 

Getting to 5 or six command points turn 2 then getting 3 thirsters stuck in combat spending 2 command points using wok command ability 3 times cuz once was free from Crown allowing all 3 to reroll all failed hits.  Then spending 3 more points for a total of 5 allowing all to fight twice on a row 1 after each other. This leaves 1 command point to spend on whatever seen fit........sometimes making sure 40 man screen avoids battleshock sometimes makingbsure screen moves 16 inch after being whipped to ge5 into position, sometimes rerolling a charge.....

I did 80 plus mortal wounds with it over the course of the game vs death........was simply amazing.  Though ibwas rolling 6s for days.

 

Anyway just wanted to hear your guys thoughts about the crazy glass cannon ive come up with.  Even if its not top tier.....it's a blast when all the combos work and its total carnage everywhere.  At least you know it makes khorne happy.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Judicator

[Roark]

59 minutes ago, Judicator said:

Even if its not top tier

Looks bloody clever to me man. All the single Bloodthirster lists I've been writing just seem so fragile, CP-hungry and prone to hamstringing from even moderately shooty armies. Congrats on your victories!

[n1ceguypaul]

So I need a little help guys. I haven't had much time lately to dive into the book all I know is that wrathmonger and skull cannons looked like a cool idea so I went and purchased a second skull cannon on the day of the faq.

So basically is there any way for me to have any of the fun that I would have had with the wrathmonger or am I sitting on 2 skull cannons now that are pretty pointless.

Cheers guys hope it's good news.

[Smooth criminal]

21 hours ago, Xasz said:

I feel like I'm writing without actually getting to the point and taking a nose dive into rambling but maybe the gist of it comes across.  

TLDR:

• don't pay points for things that are not used (defensive capabilities, offensive capabilities)
• consider the logistics of the table/battlefield
• remind yourself that models that tend to be not active are wasted points (considering units meant for fighting)
• exception to the previous point: units with low wound count or defensive capabilities that need additional models to reach combat in a meaningful size
• any unit needs to have a purpose and do "something" otherwise it's obsolete
• reevaluate units and try to identify "fat" in your list
• nothing is really set in stone but evaluation is always useful (with metrics and consideration of context)

Can't really disagree on anything here.

I think that:

1. Warriors in 10 man units are definitely correct precisely because of the fact that you want screen to be as long as possible.

2. Skullreaper unit size mostly depends on 5 being enough or not and it probably is enough. 10 do seem like overkill for anything that's not a maxed out blob itself, 2x10 definitely is an overkill. Probably makes sense to have 1 big unit and 1 small so you have different tools.

SCE often use 10 evocators, but evocators have it way easier because of how their ability does not care about positioning. Skullreapers and crushers suffer greatly in this regard.

Are wrathmongers worth it so far? Is aspiring worth it? It feels like in mortal army where nobody rerolls charges for free unlike demons he may be too CP hungry.