AoS 2 - Beasts of Chaos Discussion

[SwampHeart]

3 hours ago, fiftyvolts said:

Interesting you go with all knowing eye vs. aetherquartz brooch. Any reason for that?

I've played with both - I prefer the option to generate a CP even if I haven't spent one is all it boils down to. The AQB needs you to spend 3 CP to get 1 where the Knowing Eye should net you 2 across the game. Basically I prefer the smoothing that TKE provides. 

 

6 hours ago, SirPug said:

Do you have much experience about bullgors? How do they fit the army as whole?

I unfortunately don't have much experience with them - there are a few reasons. First is a purely personal reason of having never liked the models or the concept (I like the Brayherd elements the most). Second a unit of 3 Bullgors seems less efficient than 10 Bestigors to me. I can't provide much consistent advice on their use so I'll have to let one of the Bullgor experts step in to talk more about their best applications.
 

5 hours ago, Myrdin said:

*Snip*

Not a bad thought process - I'm interested to see how it works out. You've hit the nail on the head as to why I personally won't be investing - them not being battleline is crippling for me. If they were a battleline I'd probably experiment with them more.  I have however had a great deal of play out of summoning them as excellent missile units for early game disruption. I actually think their base size is a benefit - its gamey but turning that thing sideways allows you to contact very large swathes of units if you need/want to. 

[Solaris]

4 hours ago, Myrdin said:

I tried that but the problem I saw with it is as described above. They dont have any damage output, but being only a single model units of 6 W, dont hold out either. Its very easy even for ranged units (even more so if those units are of the tough sort like Stormcast for example) to remove one of them in combat.

A unit of two however has plenty of durability to survive and tie the enemy unit long enough for your heavy hitters to get in.

I'm mainly looking at them from an ambushing perspective, so keep that in mind. For ambushing, I like several smaller units over a few larger ones so that I don't have to rely on any single charge roll. Needing a 7 on the charge (Cogs, which goes off reliably since I cast it with my potion-drinking Tzaangor Shaman), and ambushing 2-3 units each of the first two turns, I can reliably get one or two charges off. With the inherent rerolls of the chariots, that is especially the case. The more dice I roll, the more likely I am to get a few units into combat.

Now, what I want to do is charge one enemy unit simultaneously with two independent chariots. If I get both of them into combat, my opponent has to split his attacks between them. This increases the odds of at least one of them surviving.

Note that with a 15" movement (10" inherent + 3" from Great Bray Shaman + 2" from Cogs) you can pull this off deploying normally as well, you just have access to less angles of attack and are hindered more by screens.

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

I unfortunately don't have much experience with them - there are a few reasons. First is a purely personal reason of having never liked the models or the concept (I like the Brayherd elements the most). Second a unit of 3 Bullgors seems less efficient than 10 Bestigors to me. I can't provide much consistent advice on their use so I'll have to let one of the Bullgor experts step in to talk more about their best applications.

Totally agree on the Bullgors, they are unfortunately designed in such a way that they cannot fully exploit the strengths and synergies of our book, and are pointed too high. There is no reason to ever take Bullgors over Bestigors or Enlightened.

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

Not a bad thought process - I'm interested to see how it works out. You've hit the nail on the head as to why I personally won't be investing - them not being battleline is crippling for me. If they were a battleline I'd probably experiment with them more.  I have however had a great deal of play out of summoning them as excellent missile units for early game disruption. I actually think their base size is a benefit - its gamey but turning that thing sideways allows you to contact very large swathes of units if you need/want to. 

I also consider the large bases an advantage in this case. Roadblocks and screens are board control pieces, and larger bases generally means increased board presence. The only disadvantage I see to the base size is that it may be harder to find space to ambush them.

21 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

*I prefer Gors over Ungors for the role because I find the 4+ save more valuable than the 10 extra bodies. 

Just wanted to briefly comment on this, here is the effective wound count of 30 Gors and 40 Ungors, depending on the rend of attacks targetting them:

Rend -
Gors: 60, Ungors: 60

Rend -1
Gors: 45, Ungors: 48

Rend -2
Gors: 36, Ungors: 40

Rend -3 or better
Gors: 30, Ungors: 40

As you can see, 40 Ungors are consistently more durable than 30 Gors and cost 10 points less. The way I see it, Gors are in an unfortunate spot where they are worse than Ungors as screens and board control pieces, and worse than Bestigors as damage dealers. Unless required by a battalion, I would never bring them - they just have no niche in the army.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Solaris

[SwampHeart]

25 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Just wanted to briefly comment on this, here is the effective wound count of 30 Gors and 40 Ungors, depending on the rend of attacks targetting them:

Rend -
Gors: 45, Ungors: 53.3

Rend -1
Gors: 40, Ungors: 46.7

Rend -2
Gors: 35, Ungors: 40

Rend -3 or better
Gors: 30, Ungors: 40

As you can see, 40 Ungors are consistently more durable than 30 Gors and cost 10 points less. The way I see it, Gors are in an unfortunate spot where they are worse than Ungors as screens and board control pieces, and worse than Bestigors as damage dealers. Unless required by a battalion, I would never bring them - they just have no niche in the army.

Fair point and good math - the 25mm base is actually more helpful in alot of cases as well. I may go ahead and order some more and try them out. 

[Frozenbeast]

26 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Just wanted to briefly comment on this, here is the effective wound count of 30 Gors and 40 Ungors, depending on the rend of attacks targetting them:

Rend -
Gors: 45, Ungors: 53.3

Rend -1
Gors: 40, Ungors: 46.7

Rend -2
Gors: 35, Ungors: 40

Rend -3 or better
Gors: 30, Ungors: 40

As you can see, 40 Ungors are consistently more durable than 30 Gors and cost 10 points less. The way I see it, Gors are in an unfortunate spot where they are worse than Ungors as screens and board control pieces, and worse than Bestigors as damage dealers. Unless required by a battalion, I would never bring them - they just have no niche in the army.

 

Sorry if this might seem a silly question but what do those numbers refer to? I understand you are comparing a block or 30 gors with a block of 40 ungors and how they behave when they are attacked by attacks with different rend characteristic but those numbers are the result of which math calculation?

 

[Solaris]

16 minutes ago, Frozenbeast said:

Sorry if this might seem a silly question but what do those numbers refer to? I understand you are comparing a block or 30 gors with a block of 40 ungors and how they behave when they are attacked by attacks with different rend characteristic but those numbers are the result of which math calculation?

It's essentially the number of wounds an attacker has to deal to kill the entire unit. Take for example 30 Gors with a 4+ save. If you deal 30 wounds to them with no rend, they will save half and take 15 casualties. In order to kill all 30, you need to deal 60 wounds to them (note that there was an error in the calculation previously - updated numbers are found in the original post).

As for the math: if x is the number of wounds in the unit, y is the number of wounds required to annihilate the unit, and p is the probability of them failing their saves, y is found by solving:

x = p * y

--> y = x / p

In the above example, x=30 and p=0.5 (Gors vs no rend) yields y=60.

20 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Fair point and good math - the 25mm base is actually more helpful in alot of cases as well. I may go ahead and order some more and try them out. 

Yeah, I also think the 25 mm base is an advantage here. If you want to string them out, 40 models with 25 mm bases will reach further, and if you want to pack them as compact as possible (to be fully within 12" of a shaman, for example) they will still cover less area.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Solaris

[Frozenbeast]

21 minutes ago, Solaris said:

It's essentially the number of wounds an attacker has to deal to kill the entire unit. Take for example 30 Gors with a 4+ save. If you deal 30 wounds to them with no rend, they will save half and take 15 casualties. In order to kill all 30, you need to deal 60 wounds to them (note that there was an error in the calculation previously - updated numbers are found in the original post).

As for the math: if x is the number of wounds in the unit, y is the number of wounds required to annihilate the unit, and p is the probability of them failing their saves, y is found by solving:

x = p * y

--> y = x / p

In the above example, x=30 and p=0.5 (Gors vs no rend) yields y=60.

 

 

ok then, now it's clear, thanks man.

Yeah, I am a bit disapointed too on  the treatment gors received with the new book. They are very underwhelming compared to all the units you can compare them with (Ungors, Bestigors, Chariots, you name it...). They are such an iconic unit for Beasmen that I feel ungors cannot fulfill. But this is of course coming from somebody that likes a lot the fluff-y side of this game too and for the same reason I am one of those that is not gonna use enlightened but Bullgors; first of all because I do not like the tzeentchian theme in BoC as the dominant one (if you need the one drop and you play enlightened you MUST go FoF) and....also because I don't own the models?! Also I don't like the GW decision to not give to the other Chaos Gods their Bestigors counterpart (Khornegors, Pestigors and let's hope for Slaangors as they will fit perfectly the Slaanesh theme in my opinion). They used to have them and now only Tzeentch has them....so sad?......

[kenshin620]

I think the Gor issue can also be traced to the overall Base Size issue. 32mm is a bizarre size for "Horde-y" units since most of them will  still only have 1" range weapons. Usually a 25mm base unit will be preferable as a screen unless there are far more benefits to the 32mm unit (like bloodreavers over marauders).

 

40 minutes ago, Frozenbeast said:

Also I don't like the GW decision to not give to the other Chaos Gods their Bestigors counterpart (Khornegors, Pestigors and let's hope for Slaangors as they will fit perfectly the Slaanesh theme in my opinion). They used to have them and now only Tzeentch has them....so sad?......

Well to be fair Tzaangors were really meant for the Tzeentch update. They're really here by association.

The BoC book technically introduced no new units (unless you count endless spells and herdstone), and imo is an "experiment" with combined old hammer books that aren't important to the Plot of AoS (unlike Legion of Nagash, which is very important and also serves as a GA Death 2.0).

[ShaneHobbes]

Just now, kenshin620 said:

Well to be fair Tzaangors were really meant for the Tzeentch update. They're really here by association.

The BoC book technically introduced no new units (unless you count endless spells and herdstone), and imo is an "experiment" with combined old hammer books that aren't important to the Plot of AoS (unlike Legion of Nagash, which is very important and also serves as a GA Death 2.0).

Being a fan of Tzeetch I wish Ogroid Thaumaturges carried over to BoC.

[Frozenbeast]

 

2 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Well to be fair Tzaangors were really meant for the Tzeentch update. They're really here by association.

The BoC book technically introduced no new units (unless you count endless spells and herdstone), and imo is an "experiment" with combined old hammer books that aren't important to the Plot of AoS (unlike Legion of Nagash, which is very important and also serves as a GA Death 2.0).

 

Well yeah, my comment is really on the general side. With Khorne having a book and Nurgle having a book, considering Tzeentch has has their Bestigor unit and considering all Bestigor God units were represented back in the days, I was expecting Khorne and Nurgle to receive a Bestigor unit too. This is though from the beginning of time not for the BoC release. Mine is a general consideration not linked to the release of BoC.

 

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, Frozenbeast said:

 

Sorry if this might seem a silly question but what do those numbers refer to? I understand you are comparing a block or 30 gors with a block of 40 ungors and how they behave when they are attacked by attacks with different rend characteristic but those numbers are the result of which math calculation?

 

Take gors instead of ungors for the fluff or for the greater good as meatshields.??

and at least 10ungors for summoning (herdstone execution)

 

 

[Solaris]

1 hour ago, ShaneHobbes said:

Being a fan of Tzeetch I wish Ogroid Thaumaturges carried over to BoC.

So much this, I love the model and was endlessly disappointed when I realized it wasn't in the book.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

The BoC book technically introduced no new units (unless you count endless spells and herdstone), and imo is an "experiment" with combined old hammer books that aren't important to the Plot of AoS (unlike Legion of Nagash, which is very important and also serves as a GA Death 2.0).

And 2years later a new campaign will determine the whole fate of the universe.

the grand beasts of chaos invasion.

the thing nobody will expect.

and after the stormcast have barley defeated them.

they get kill-stabbed by ratman.

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Skreech Verminking

[kenshin620]

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

So much this, I love the model and was endlessly disappointed when I realized it wasn't in the book.

"So we have this big guy with horns on his head and hoofed feet, what keyword do we give him?"

"Mortal?"

"Correct!"

 

??

[Satyrical Sophist]

2 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

"So we have this big guy with horns on his head and hoofed feet, what keyword do we give him?"

"Mortal?"

"Correct!"

 

??

I quite like it for just how WTF the OT is. We don't know what the deal is with them at all, even the name is a vague description. Seriously, its Ogor- looking, Mage who is good with fire. It doesn't look a ALL like anything else, it doesn't have the Ogor keyword, and is a very different shape to all the beastmen stuff. Its pretty inexplicable. It's types being weird is part of that.

[kenshin620]

6 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

I quite like it for just how WTF the OT is. We don't know what the deal is with them at all, even the name is a vague description. Seriously, its Ogor- looking, Mage who is good with fire. It doesn't look a ALL like anything else, it doesn't have the Ogor keyword, and is a very different shape to all the beastmen stuff. Its pretty inexplicable. It's types being weird is part of that.

Perhaps but as far as we can tell though the Mortal Keyword implies Human origin for chaos (even chaos spawn has the mortal keyword for this reason since chaos spawn originally were just with slaves to darkness).

I suppose though it is for game play purposes, otherwise he would only be able to get tzeentch arcanite stuff instead of both arcanite and mortal stuff.

[Solaris]

13 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Perhaps but as far as we can tell though the Mortal Keyword implies Human origin for chaos (even chaos spawn has the mortal keyword for this reason since chaos spawn originally were just with slaves to darkness).

I suppose though it is for game play purposes, otherwise he would only be able to get tzeentch arcanite stuff instead of both arcanite and mortal stuff.

I don't really care about the reasons, I just lament the fact that one of the coolest miniatures released for AoS isn't included in the army =(

[SwampHeart]

To preface this - I really like our book. I think we got overall great treatment for GW and a book that can play competitively even if its maybe not at the tip top of the ladder but it certainly is in the mix and has the tools to win a major. That said I really wish our Battalions unlocked new allies for us - I love tinkering with allies and finding new and clever ways to use them, but that's really no fun when your only choice is StD. Granted this may change if StD ever get a book but currently its a small pool that doesn't bring much to the table.  And before someone reminds me we can take the god specific battalions in those respective books, I know, I want to run BoC though not DoT, MK, or BoK. 

[Myrdin]

As for the Gors - I mentioned this before but they are pretty much just naked Bestigors.

Giving them 2A base and keeping the big mob rule for one more if you run a beefy unit is all these guys need to jump from "below ungor" to "above ungor, below bestigor".

As for God touched Bestigors - I am all up for that. Khorngors could hit better + the keyword. Pestigors could either get better save or force a -1 to hit when being targeted by enemy + the keyword. And I really like the idea of Slaangors being M7 instead of M6, otherwise same stats, but get to Pile in 6" instead of 3. That one in particullar would be great for non MSU Slaangor units. + the keyword

And of course with that in mind each of the God battalions would have to reflect the unit.

Honestly I was just lamenting how bad the Greatfrays and most of the Battalions are. Every single one of the GreatFrays comes with some sort of stupid "debuff" that hurts you more than what you get.

Example: Allherd. Change the wording

-1 Battleshock. Sentence ends, no same turn BS

2 summoning points for 1 command point > make it be worht a damn gdamt
Friendly unit within 18" of General reroll charges. Sentence ends here, none of the 3" from enemy BS.

The weapon add -1 to rend. -2 if Enemy unit is 10+ models. Done. Now it actually comes into play in the MSU heavy, SCE oversaturated meta ! Shocking I know.

 

For the Battalions - none of them include any of the Monsters of Chaos, and this pisses me of. Why include the monsters just to completely exclude them from every single battalion ? As for the effects, drop the price if they are to be kept as they currently are. About 80 pts on avarage should do the trick for them to not be so overpriced for such little gain.

*Alternatively I though wrote down some ideas about each of the God battalions being slightly changed (other than Khorne, that one is actually well put togahter. Though I would add more 0-X units and monster to it), where each of them would grant one small bonus, and one stronger "once per battle" bonus just like the Khorne one does. I think that would be pretty neat. Dont have the time to write it down right now.

[Baron Wastelands]

On the subject of God specific battalions, I have a couple of questions regarding the change to allow them to be taken in relevant armies, which I don’t think have been addressed yet.

Firstly, suppose I take an army which consists of only a brass despoilers battalion. I can run this as a BoC army, or as a BoK army, right? If I choose to run it as a BoK army, with a doombull as my general, then:

a) can I use Bullgors as battleline?

b) where does my general get his command trait from?

With respect to a), presumably there is no problem with me using gors as battleline in this instance, as they always are. But is the stipulation that Bullgors are battleline if I have a doombull general limited to BoC armies? And if so, how would I know that?

And with respect to b), surely this should be from the BoK command traits, and yet he lacks any of the relevant keywords (mortal, daemon, blood bound) which would allow him to choose. Similarly of course with artifacts.

Of course in reality I might want to use a bloodsecrator as well as the battalion, who could be my general and take at least one artifact. But what if I didn’t? I can gain the khorne summoning rules by running (only) the battalion as a BoK army, why can’t I access command traits/artifacts as well?

[kenshin620]

19 minutes ago, Baron Wastelands said:

a) can I use Bullgors as battleline?

b) where does my general get his command trait from?

 

In a Khorne army that uses Brass Despoilers

a. No. Bullgors are Battleline in a BoC army only with a Doombull General.

b. Technically none. God Battletomes only allow Daemon, Mortal, and [God Specific non daemon] keywords to be accounted for.

 

It'll be kind of like if I tried to make a Skaven Plague Furnace the General of a Nurgle army. He wouldn't be able to generate a trait or get any items.

[SwampHeart]

46 minutes ago, Myrdin said:

Honestly I was just lamenting how bad the Greatfrays

I must disagree as Gavespawn is pretty much all bonus - there isn't a bad option in it. If I have a complaint its that Gavespawn is so clearly better than the other 2 that it removes the option to choose (at least for competitive play). Its unreal that one of the 3 options just stands head and shoulders over the other two.  The only reason to not take Gavespawn is to have a Shaggoth general (aka the only set of decent command traits in the book).  I won't get back into the Battalion discussion - suffice to say I disagree with your assessment. 
 

22 minutes ago, Baron Wastelands said:

Firstly, suppose I take an army which consists of only a brass despoilers battalion. I can run this as a BoC army, or as a BoK army, right? If I choose to run it as a BoK army, with a doombull as my general, then:

a) can I use Bullgors as battleline?

b) where does my general get his command trait from?

Yes you may run it as BoC or BoK. If you choose to run it as BoK your Bullgors are not battleline (they're only battleline in a BoC army with a Doombull General). Your general would get his command trait from BoK. 

 

23 minutes ago, Baron Wastelands said:

With respect to a), presumably there is no problem with me using gors as battleline in this instance, as they always are. But is the stipulation that Bullgors are battleline if I have a doombull general limited to BoC armies? And if so, how would I know that?

You are fine to run Gors as your battleline because as you stated they are just a battleline choice. As to how you would know that? Its stated in the matched play points section of the BoC book (the exact language is 'Battleline in a Beasts of Chaos army if general is a Doombull). 

 

25 minutes ago, Baron Wastelands said:

And with respect to b), surely this should be from the BoK command traits, and yet he lacks any of the relevant keywords (mortal, daemon, blood bound) which would allow him to choose. Similarly of course with artifacts.

This is correct, effectively you wouldn't be able to legally select any of those options. If you want to play BoK you should run something besides pure BoC or else you miss opportunities. 

[kenshin620]

On the topic of Greatfrays, I was actually really thinking about this (wondering if I should make a full on General Discussion topic about it)

SHOULD "Subfactions" (Stormhosts, Temples, Greatfrays, Skyports, etc etc) be a Mandatory part of an Allegiance or not?

The problem is that currently GW has shown 2 philosophies, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 both with upsides and downsides.

 

1.0 Philosophy: Necessary part of the army with little to no downside. (occasionally a forced item or a forced trait but usually not both). The Downside is that they have to balance the army around these rules (for example if you're fighting DoK, you HAVE to be aware of how the Temple will affect your game plan)

1.0 philosophy is much like the current 40k "Chapter/Regiment/etc" rules.

2.0 Philosophy: Optional part of the army to represent particular subfactions. Big downside involving forced trait and forced item. Forced item can be offset by battalions (though stormcast is struggling with this), but the trait can make or break and army (cough Staunch Defender).

Big problem with 2.0 (so far, I mean we only got 2 books as reference.....3 if you count Tamurkhan) is the balancing act. Either the subfaction seems too weak because of the trait/item tax, or seems like a no brainer (despite being "optional"). And then theres the SCE special character problem....

 

While it seems obvious how much "better" (for the army in question) 1.0 subfactions are, then you kind of run into the problem of far more singular factions that cannot really have access to subfactions that feel left out. 40k rarely has this issue since most armies are galaxy spanning (and many specialty armies are essentially a "subfaction" book like Blood Angels), but AoS has more concentrated factions like Nighthaunt that don't, or armies that have "subfactions" in the form of "Mega Battalions" rather than army wide rules that aren't battalion dependent.

So theres 4 type of armies in AoS in reference to subfactions (not counting Grand Allegiances)

1. Subfaction Dependent (from 1.0)

2. Subfaction optional (2.0)

3. No subfaction

4. Mega Battalion Subfaction (usually very rare due to battalion costs, though some are actually affordable like Fangs of Sotek). Some of these MAY turn into actual subfactions, some maybe not (I'm unsure if God factions outside of Slaanesh would get subfactions....though Nurgle did technically get one)

[Myrdin]

41 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I must disagree as Gavespawn is pretty much all bonus - there isn't a bad option in it. If I have a complaint its that Gavespawn is so clearly better than the other 2 that it removes the option to choose (at least for competitive play). Its unreal that one of the 3 options just stands head and shoulders over the other two.  The only reason to not take Gavespawn is to have a Shaggoth general (aka the only set of decent command traits in the book).  I won't get back into the Battalion discussion - suffice to say I disagree with your assessment.

 

So you assume my assesment is incorrect because I didnt specify that 1 out of 3 is wortwhile while one is pure rubbish, and one is half rubbish half usefull.

Well.... fine, I mean feel free to disagree I suppose.  But since I have to, I´ll specify what I particullarly meant below. Considering I was speaking in general terms, and was addresing Allherd as the one in most need of adjusting, I dont think its reasonable to bundle all I said as wrong.

As far as Gavespawn goes I agree that its the only one without massive direct shorcomings. I would still say the Range of the Spawn ability should have been 16/18" if it is to be "fully within" (considering how slow Spawns are), and the "on roll of one you suffer a mortal Wound" thing on Gnarlblade REALLY doesnt need to be there. But still those are minor changes when compared to how worthless the Allheard is in general, and how both the item and ability of Darkwalkers is "Yai, a once per game item that goes off ony 50% of the time, and deals whole whopping D3 mortal wounds" and "+1 to run, while wholly within 12 of this general". Utter trash. The other two effects the Darkwalkers come with are somewhat good (from my perspective).

[SwampHeart]

4 minutes ago, Myrdin said:

So you assume my assesment is incorrect because I didnt specify that 1 out of 3 is wortwhile while one is pure rubbish, and one is half rubbish half usefull.

I was operating off your statement of 'lamenting how bad the Greatfrays are' - I apologize for the misunderstanding as it appeared to me that you were saying all of them. You did list specifically Allherd but I figured if your intent was to suggest that one is bad while others are better you'd have said something like 'how bad some are'. Again a misunderstanding of your words on my part - my bad. 
 

6 minutes ago, Myrdin said:

I would still say the Range of the Spawn ability should have been 16/18" if it is to be "fully within" (considering how slow Spawns are),  and the "on roll of one you suffer a mortal Wound" thing on Gnarlblade REALLY doesnt need to be there.

The trick is to summon them rather than try to pay for them and have them keep up (plus spawn don't fit in our battalions and hurt our 1 drop ability). If you summon then and plan for that you can pretty reliably have one in range for the turn it matters.  And honestly as much as people like to poo poo on the Beastlord - its clear he's the designed user of the Gnarlblade - he has built in re-roll 1s to hit. 

But I do agree with you regarding Allherd and Darkwalkers - both are very lacklustre to the point where I don't think they'll ever see a competitive table. Maybe Allherd at low point levels but even then I'm not sold. To the point Kenshin made - we've got 3 options and where SCE have more they deal with the same thing where clearly one or two of those options is hands down the best choice and it can be frustrating. 

[Kramer]

32 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

On the topic of Greatfrays, I was actually really thinking about this (wondering if I should make a full on General Discussion topic about it)

SHOULD "Subfactions" (Stormhosts, Temples, Greatfrays, Skyports, etc etc) be a Mandatory part of an Allegiance or not?

The problem is that currently GW has shown 2 philosophies, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 both with upsides and downsides.

 

1.0 Philosophy: Necessary part of the army with little to no downside. (occasionally a forced item or a forced trait but usually not both). The Downside is that they have to balance the army around these rules (for example if you're fighting DoK, you HAVE to be aware of how the Temple will affect your game plan)

1.0 philosophy is much like the current 40k "Chapter/Regiment/etc" rules.

2.0 Philosophy: Optional part of the army to represent particular subfactions. Big downside involving forced trait and forced item. Forced item can be offset by battalions (though stormcast is struggling with this), but the trait can make or break and army (cough Staunch Defender).

Big problem with 2.0 (so far, I mean we only got 2 books as reference.....3 if you count Tamurkhan) is the balancing act. Either the subfaction seems too weak because of the trait/item tax, or seems like a no brainer (despite being "optional"). And then theres the SCE special character problem....

 

While it seems obvious how much "better" (for the army in question) 1.0 subfactions are, then you kind of run into the problem of far more singular factions that cannot really have access to subfactions that feel left out. 40k rarely has this issue since most armies are galaxy spanning (and many specialty armies are essentially a "subfaction" book like Blood Angels), but AoS has more concentrated factions like Nighthaunt that don't, or armies that have "subfactions" in the form of "Mega Battalions" rather than army wide rules that aren't battalion dependent.

So theres 4 type of armies in AoS in reference to subfactions (not counting Grand Allegiances)

1. Subfaction Dependent (from 1.0)

2. Subfaction optional (2.0)

3. No subfaction

4. Mega Battalion Subfaction (usually very rare due to battalion costs, though some are actually affordable like Fangs of Sotek). Some of these MAY turn into actual subfactions, some maybe not (I'm unsure if God factions outside of Slaanesh would get subfactions....though Nurgle did technically get one)

 

33 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

On the topic of Greatfrays, I was actually really thinking about this (wondering if I should make a full on General Discussion topic about it)

SHOULD "Subfactions" (Stormhosts, Temples, Greatfrays, Skyports, etc etc) be a Mandatory part of an Allegiance or not?

The problem is that currently GW has shown 2 philosophies, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 both with upsides and downsides.

 

1.0 Philosophy: Necessary part of the army with little to no downside. (occasionally a forced item or a forced trait but usually not both). The Downside is that they have to balance the army around these rules (for example if you're fighting DoK, you HAVE to be aware of how the Temple will affect your game plan)

1.0 philosophy is much like the current 40k "Chapter/Regiment/etc" rules.

2.0 Philosophy: Optional part of the army to represent particular subfactions. Big downside involving forced trait and forced item. Forced item can be offset by battalions (though stormcast is struggling with this), but the trait can make or break and army (cough Staunch Defender).

Big problem with 2.0 (so far, I mean we only got 2 books as reference.....3 if you count Tamurkhan) is the balancing act. Either the subfaction seems too weak because of the trait/item tax, or seems like a no brainer (despite being "optional"). And then theres the SCE special character problem....

 

While it seems obvious how much "better" (for the army in question) 1.0 subfactions are, then you kind of run into the problem of far more singular factions that cannot really have access to subfactions that feel left out. 40k rarely has this issue since most armies are galaxy spanning (and many specialty armies are essentially a "subfaction" book like Blood Angels), but AoS has more concentrated factions like Nighthaunt that don't, or armies that have "subfactions" in the form of "Mega Battalions" rather than army wide rules that aren't battalion dependent.

So theres 4 type of armies in AoS in reference to subfactions (not counting Grand Allegiances)

1. Subfaction Dependent (from 1.0)

2. Subfaction optional (2.0)

3. No subfaction

4. Mega Battalion Subfaction (usually very rare due to battalion costs, though some are actually affordable like Fangs of Sotek). Some of these MAY turn into actual subfactions, some maybe not (I'm unsure if God factions outside of Slaanesh would get subfactions....though Nurgle did technically get one)

I think they got it right with the kahadron skyports. Make your own (is great additon fluff-wise) or choose one of the bigger ports with no flexibility. 

The sentence: ‘if you choose a different Greatfray, simply pick the greatfray that most closely matches the nature of their own’

such a buzzkill. ? it feels like that  Ford quote: any colour you want as long as it’s black.