AoS 2 - Beasts of Chaos Discussion

[pforson]

I'm running Bullgors because they're big meaty awesome beasts (and the Mierce Minotaurs are brilliant models). As has been said, they are great against Monsters and large heroes and reasonable against hordes. They die to shooting.

My 1250 point 1 drop Brass Despoilers list : 

Doombull, Beastlord, 3x3 Bullgors, 2x5 Centigor, Ghorgon, Brass Despoilers.

I've been experimenting with various command traits / artifacts, but not settled on anything yet.

It's really straight forward to play (which I like). Basically take objectives / screen with the centigor and try to get the charge with the Bulls. Play/hope for the double turn to wreck face. They are certainly not Tier 1 and will lose against any top tournament list, but against similar melee focussed armies (khorne, Ironjawz) they can hold their own.

If I were to expand to 2000 then I would bulk up one of the units of Bullgors to 6 and then add as many Chimera as possible.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Tasman said:

Don't think it works like that. WoC and marauders as well, are kind of 'generic', if you will. Once given a mark, they are battle line.

HOWEVER, just because something is battleline for a specific alliance doesn't mean that it's BL for any other army. Take for example plague monks in a maggotkin list. Not BL, but don't count against ally points because of god mark.

So what Your saying is giving them the mark of khorne trough the battailon would mean that Gors would loose their generic chaos battleline role?

in a raw match up I would probably say  that because their isn’t anything saying that Gors can only be battleline if your army has this allegiance but rather it just says they are battleline would give us the option in using a fully Khorne beastmen army if wanted 

edit: this is at least how I understand it

Edited October 30, 2018 by Skreech Verminking

[Tasman]

12 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

So what Your saying is giving them the mark of khorne trough the battailon would mean that Gors would loose their generic chaos battleline role?

in a raw match up I would probably say  that because their isn’t anything saying that Gors can only be battleline if your army has this allegiance but rather it just says they are battleline would give us the option in using a fully Khorne beastmen army if wanted 

edit: this is at least how I understand it

They'll be battleline because of the fact that they are BoC. Plaguebearers don't become battleline in a pestilens list nor do p monks become battleline in a maggotkin list. Same for BoC builds, I would think. Blood reavers aren't going to be battleline in a BoC chorine list either.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Tasman

[Skreech Verminking]

17 minutes ago, Tasman said:

They'll be battleline because of the fact that they are BoC. Plaguebearers don't become battleline in a pestilens list nor do p monks become battleline in a maggotkin list. Same for BoC builds, I would think. Blood reavers aren't going to be battleline in a BoC chorine list either.

Well the only reason Plague monks don’t become battleline in a magotkinn List is because it is specifically said that they are only battleline in a Pestilence army.

plague monks in a magotkinn army are a part of a Nurgle army.

and plaguebearers firstly cannot be a part of a pestilence army and secondly if taken as allies, theyre battleline role will be lost (can be found in the ghb).

but still Gors have the battleline role.

there is nothing stating in their role that they only count as battleline when they are in a boc army.

Should it still be impossible in taking them as a battleline option in a khorne army when they are a part of the battailon then it would be the same for warriors of chaos for any of the marked allegiances as battleline.

after all they are a part of the slave to darkness allegiance.

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Skreech Verminking

[Skoll]

7 hours ago, Kramer said:

Yes and no, people are mathhammering  everything to death and claiming everything left right and centre is utter trash. 

1. Unless you want to go for the #1 spot in the most elite tournaments. Ignore all that. I’m convinced we’ll see enough lists  perform very well in the next few months. We’re just not a kill them all army. I’m my mind we’re an objectives army with great speed, cheap bodies, some relative hard hitting units, options for synergies and a whole lot of options in general. A mind shift needs to happen for some players because being an objective army  doesn’t really line up with the fluff 

2. Every time you read ‘sub optimal choice’ Or other cringe terms like that. It will be a perfectly fine unit for local play. You’ll Do better by improving your tactical choices rather than min maxing everything. Those lessons not only apply with Beast of Chaos but with every army you’ll ever Play. 

3. The saltiness is real... and everywhere. I collect several ( armies and in every single thread about those armies... people are b*tching that their favourite force isn’t strong enough. Or, in the case of Daughters of Khaine, that the army will be nerfed and GW is doing everything wrong  because  bla bla bla. 

Learn to read past peoples complaining or else it will hurt your excitement for your army. 

At least that’s what I’m trying to do, but it’s getting harder and harder on this forum. 

Dont get me wrong, I am sticking with bulls because I like them no matter how good they are, I've been using the minotaurs since fantasy days and I'll be damned if I take the little beasties instead of them now. 

However with the wealth of -1 to hit penalties going around I feel the bulls should have at least been 3+ to hit, or there should have been a way to give it to them inside the BoC book.  I played a game recently where my 6 man unit of great weapon bullgors charged Durthu , with +1 attack from gavespawn skill, +1 to wound and rerolls to wound from brass despoilers. He got his stomp off, and they absolutely bounced off of him, sure I rolled relatively poorly, but that was something that felt like it should have been a sure thing, specially on the turn they were basically blowing their load.

The spike potential of the bullgors is huge to be sure, but when compared to something like orruk brutes, who have huge damage potential as well , but are incredibly more consistent and yet somehow easier to procure buffs for, I get a little sad

[decker_cky]

Gors are battleline as long as they're not taken as allies.

[kenshin620]

The only exception to the Battleline rule...for some bizarre reason is Tzaangors.

They are Battleline for GA: Chaos (thus Battleline in Tzeentch), but NOT Battleline in BoC unless you take a Tzaangor Shaman general.

[decker_cky]

Tzaangors are a funny situation because they have two different, conflicting, matched play profiles, so needed an FAQ. For everything else, just read what's actually written for battleline.

[kenshin620]

2 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

Tzaangors are a funny situation because they have two different, conflicting, matched play profiles, so needed an FAQ. For everything else, just read what's actually written for battleline.

Their combat warscroll profile has nothing to do with their weird battleline thing imo. The back of the book (match play profiles) just kind of flies in the face of the typical Batteline rules.

Tzaangors clearly have in the "Battlefield Role: Battleline" BUT ALSO in the Notes have "Battleline in BoC army only if general is a Tzaangor Shaman". I don't think any other unit has both Battleline and also a "Battleline if" clause!

[SwampHeart]

9 hours ago, Kramer said:

1. Unless you want to go for the #1 spot in the most elite tournaments. Ignore all that. I’m convinced we’ll see enough lists  perform very well in the next few months. We’re just not a kill them all army. I’m my mind we’re an objectives army with great speed, cheap bodies, some relative hard hitting units, options for synergies and a whole lot of options in general. A mind shift needs to happen for some players because being an objective army  doesn’t really line up with the fluff 

This is a very valid point but one that doesn't really support Bullgors. I've argued in this thread our primary strength as an army is board control and scoring. Our best tools to do that are very effective walls with high speed which of course Bullgors are not. If the goal is to exert board control and use specific punch units to help maintain board control there are far better options in the form of Enlightened on Disc. I don't say this to be salty, just to point out that while I agree with your overall assessment I don't think its actually an argument for Bullgors. 

[Myrdin]

A question about allies.

 

Since we can ally ourselves only with Slave of Darkness, does that mean I cannot take anything other from the grand alliance Chaos / Monster of Chaos roster ?

I wanted to add some skin wolves to my beastmen, because I think they look very cool (I still dont understand how these things are not part of our roster, .... I know I know, same like with preyton, they are a FW release).

Since we have Monsters of Chaos in our army, does that mean I can bring some of the FW stuff ? Like Preytons and Skin wolves ?

Or is the ally system so ....*insert favorite cuss word*  that even if its a thing like Preyton which is literally a unit that fits our army like butter fits a toast, I cannot take it ?

**For friendly games I dont think people will care, since those two (Preyton and Skin wolves), are looking so much "Beast of Chaos" like that people would actually ask me why are they NOT part of our BoC faction than the opposite. But I just wanted to know if I can bring them legally. Seeing as Monsters of Chaos are part of our army and all.

*again - if the answer is no.... wtf GW, the person responsible for our Alliences, needs to be thrown to the boars or something... ?

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

This is a very valid point but one that doesn't really support Bullgors. I've argued in this thread our primary strength as an army is board control and scoring. Our best tools to do that are very effective walls with high speed which of course Bullgors are not. If the goal is to exert board control and use specific punch units to help maintain board control there are far better options in the form of Enlightened on Disc. I don't say this to be salty, just to point out that while I agree with your overall assessment I don't think its actually an argument for Bullgors. 

It wasn't an argument for Bullgors... it was an argument for not taking judging everything for the absolutely minuscule chance that you will suddenly be playing the final of a GT. Because that's the gist of most arguments while, like you said, Bullgors are just not sensible if you wanna play for board control... However that rarely get's mentioned, and as I know from personal experience, reading comments talking how bad some unit you want to make work is going to hurt your enthousiasme. Especially for a starting player, where it could very, very well be perfectly be reasonable to play a doombull and 6 bullgors backed up with other stuff for the board control. 
So it's an argument for a more positive vibe in the community which helps new players better than a thread full of arguments why another army has better options. 
But just my opinion and after this clarification i'll let it rest. 

3 hours ago, Skoll said:

Dont get me wrong, I am sticking with bulls because I like them no matter how good they are, I've been using the minotaurs since fantasy days and I'll be damned if I take the little beasties instead of them now. 

However with the wealth of -1 to hit penalties going around I feel the bulls should have at least been 3+ to hit, or there should have been a way to give it to them inside the BoC book.  I played a game recently where my 6 man unit of great weapon bullgors charged Durthu , with +1 attack from gavespawn skill, +1 to wound and rerolls to wound from brass despoilers. He got his stomp off, and they absolutely bounced off of him, sure I rolled relatively poorly, but that was something that felt like it should have been a sure thing, specially on the turn they were basically blowing their load.

The spike potential of the bullgors is huge to be sure, but when compared to something like orruk brutes, who have huge damage potential as well , but are incredibly more consistent and yet somehow easier to procure buffs for, I get a little sad

Good to hear! That's exactly the kind of follow up comment I feel is missing a lot of the time. And that's a 100% honest response from me. (before internet makes it come across as sarcastic)

But all the discussions about what it should be isn't helping any new players, nor established player get to that next level. So what's the point?
In addition to that: You can always find a comparison that's better. For example in your Orruk Brutes comparison: you don't mention the advantage of Speed or potentially ambushing or the mortal wounds which is hard to find. And most importantly... Age of Sigmar is played with different factions, so they need to specialise to be fun. I don't want Beastclaw to suddenly get ungors with ambushing. Way out of place and overpowered. Same for every faction, they should specialise in something and to compensate lacking something else. 

And @Dracothjay and @Myrdin thank you for the positive view. That way people looking for info can see the good and the bad. And judge for themselves

 

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

So it's an argument for a more positive vibe in the community which helps new players better than a thread full of arguments why another army has better options. 

I'm going to offer a counter point that the point of this thread is to discuss BoC options. I don't think its helpful to couch unit assessment in vaguely positive terms like 'it could work for you but'. I know I certainly wouldn't read or be involved in the thread if that was the overall gist. If the unit isn't a good unit then it deserves to be named as such - in part to help highlight those concerns and percolate good feedback up. Also there are people who come here to help make buying choices and I know I'd rather get honest advice if I'm deciding on how to spend my money. 

Ultimately I don't think its fair to label people 'salty' or say they make 'cringe worthy' statements when they're offering valid (and generally well founded) criticism of the book. As I've stated multiple times the book is overall a hit I think but I don't think Bullgors are a tremendously useful unit in that context. People are allowed (and should be encouraged) to have a variety of opinions on various units and I don't think should feel compelled to be silent or play to a falsely positive narrative if that doesn't fit their view point. 

 

3 hours ago, Myrdin said:

Since we can ally ourselves only with Slave of Darkness, does that mean I cannot take anything other from the grand alliance Chaos / Monster of Chaos roster ?

We cannot. The only allies you can take must have the 'Slaves to Darkness' keyword. We cannot ally with Skin Wolves or the Preytron - GW doesn't really design their ally system around FWs rules. I have a friend who plays LoA (and I have a small LoA collection myself) so it can be very frustrating. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by SwampHeart

[Skoll]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

It wasn't an argument for Bullgors... it was an argument for not taking judging everything for the absolutely minuscule chance that you will suddenly be playing the final of a GT. Because that's the gist of most arguments while, like you said, Bullgors are just not sensible if you wanna play for board control... However that rarely get's mentioned, and as I know from personal experience, reading comments talking how bad some unit you want to make work is going to hurt your enthousiasme. Especially for a starting player, where it could very, very well be perfectly be reasonable to play a doombull and 6 bullgors backed up with other stuff for the board control. 
So it's an argument for a more positive vibe in the community which helps new players better than a thread full of arguments why another army has better options. 
But just my opinion and after this clarification i'll let it rest. 

Good to hear! That's exactly the kind of follow up comment I feel is missing a lot of the time. And that's a 100% honest response from me. (before internet makes it come across as sarcastic)

But all the discussions about what it should be isn't helping any new players, nor established player get to that next level. So what's the point?
In addition to that: You can always find a comparison that's better. For example in your Orruk Brutes comparison: you don't mention the advantage of Speed or potentially ambushing or the mortal wounds which is hard to find. And most importantly... Age of Sigmar is played with different factions, so they need to specialise to be fun. I don't want Beastclaw to suddenly get ungors with ambushing. Way out of place and overpowered. Same for every faction, they should specialise in something and to compensate lacking something else. 

And @Dracothjay and @Myrdin thank you for the positive view. That way people looking for info can see the good and the bad. And judge for themselves

 

I understand what you are trying to say, however I agree with swamp heart in that we should voice our concerns and not engage in a circle of boundless positivity ,as only by voicing concerns can we expect to cause any modicum of change.

Further more sadly the bonuses the bullgors have are all in the utility department not in the area that would allow them to function as a hammer unit. Assuming all attacks hit, a bullgor unit would then cause an average of 2 mortal wounds (4 with the artefact on the doombull). But that's only if they hit with every attack, the reality is that a 3 man bullgor unit will cause a single mortal wound in a combat phase and find any debuff to hit absolutely crippling, so even their one offensive aspect is lackluster.

I've brought this up, because I am a less experienced aos player and want to see if it is a concern that can be addressed , because our book seems to not address it. However the replies seem to arrive at the same conclusion I found, which is the book wont fix it and our allies wont fix it, the unit is better served in a BoK army than in a BoC one.

I am also interested in skinwolves and who I have to harass for FW to print a viable monsters of chaos matrix

[kenshin620]

FW updates when FW updates sadly.

 

I mean for example no one can take Chaos Dwarf allies. Bit of an oversight methinks!

[Satyrical Sophist]

Just jumping in to the bullgor discussion, I suppose one advantage they get is better charge from ambush than enlightened. That said, enlightened seem just silly good. I'm tzeentch mainly (transfering over to BoC), but they have always just been brutal. The 16 inch move is kind of silly.

I'd be surprised if enlightened aren't getting a points increase. Kind of funny if they end up back at 160 and so do Skyfires ( who I'm pretty sure need help right now).

Speaking of the ogre class stuff, anyone tried dragon ogors? They are a curious one, being pretty darned tough, but not that damaging. 

[Skreech Verminking]

4 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Just jumping in to the bullgor discussion, I suppose one advantage they get is better charge from ambush than enlightened. That said, enlightened seem just silly good. I'm tzeentch mainly (transfering over to BoC), but they have always just been brutal. The 16 inch move is kind of silly.

I'd be surprised if enlightened aren't getting a points increase. Kind of funny if they end up back at 160 and so do Skyfires ( who I'm pretty sure need help right now).

Speaking of the ogre class stuff, anyone tried dragon ogors? They are a curious one, being pretty darned tough, but not that damaging. 

Not jet, just ordered them last week ago.

[Myrdin]

10 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Just jumping in to the bullgor discussion, I suppose one advantage they get is better charge from ambush than enlightened. That said, enlightened seem just silly good. I'm tzeentch mainly (transfering over to BoC), but they have always just been brutal. The 16 inch move is kind of silly.

I'd be surprised if enlightened aren't getting a points increase. Kind of funny if they end up back at 160 and so do Skyfires ( who I'm pretty sure need help right now).

Speaking of the ogre class stuff, anyone tried dragon ogors? They are a curious one, being pretty darned tough, but not that damaging. 

I do agree a lot with what you are saying.
Enlightened should be min 120 on foot (so they are an equal alternative to Bestigors since the damage output of these two is comparable) and 160 on discs. They are very good, extremely versatile and straight up better than Bullgors or Dragon Ogers when all factors are considered.

120 pts on foot and 160 on discs is the sweet spot, to make them still a good choice, but more fairly priced. Seeing what happened with Skyfires, overpricing them way to much, would be a fools errand. Seeing as GW is extremely incompetent when it comes to balance issues, I hope the nerf hammer wont fall to strongly on them once we get a book update in who knows when. 

Skyfires need a MASSIVE price drop. Look at Blood Stalkers for DoK, those girls are 160 and they are a dead non pick in almost every single DoK list I`ve seen.  When talking about a good "monster infantry ranged unit" the best I`ve seen so far are the Ushabti Archers from the Tomb Kings Warscroll Compendium. IIRC: 4W 5+ save, 24" Bows 4+/3-1/D3, 120 pts 3 combat attacks. And against attacks that are only Dmg1 they add +2 to their Saves. You are not shooting them down unless you pour everything you have at them, and even if charged these guys can hold relatively well in combat against less armored units. Frankly 120 pts is the absolute steal for this sort of unit and the ideal points range for Stalkers and dismounted Skyfires. This unit is fantastic all around (plus I always liked the Ushabti miniatures). But I digress, enough fanboy-ism, back to the Skyfires

As such I would like to see the Skyfires drop back to 160, because right now they are trash tier. 3 Shots on 4+/+3+ are massively inadequate for a unit of this price tag (again same with Blood Stalkers and those are a lot cheaper in comparison). At those odds even that D3 dmg is not that impressive.

In regards to that I would like to see some consistency, and a "on foot" version for 120 pts introduced, just like the Enlightened.  At that point I would consider them as a viable option (3 shots for 120 is still quite rough of a sale especially since their passive moved over to the Shaman, but at least you are not drastically overpaying no more). Its a shame really as I do love the Skyfires visually (I do all tzaangors tbh. Its refreshing to see something not Goat/Bull like in the army).

TLDR: Bump Enlightened (discs/no discs) to 120/160 pts,  Drop Skyfires to 160 and introduce a 120 pts dismounted variant to go in line with the dismounted Enlightened. Bam, balance has been restored tot he universe. Now lets talk about how to make Cockatrice actually worth a damn  .... jk, it needs some love, but not gonna go into it here (just wanna say this: 50% chance for  1-6 dmg at 10" ? Nope. Improve the hit rate to a 2+ or make it D6+1 for every 5 models in that unit who are in range, then we talk. Its way to unreliable to be worth anything).

So: Dragon Ogors

I`have been using these guys in almost all my games and as such I believe I should be able to give somewhat reliable feedback.

First off I have always used a unit of 3 with Draconic cleavers. Why ? not enough models, and the Cleaver has -1 rend. It is the superior choice for a vanilla build. Can easily imagine running two units of 3.

From What I`ve seen, they are tough. For 140 pts you get 15W 4+ on a platform that can actually punch back a little against weaker units, unlike chariots who are comparable in function but have even less of a damage output. In my last game against Free People warscroll compendium (the old Empire, for those of us who remember). They soaked a round of shooting from a Hellblaster Volley Gun, and two round of shooting from a  10 man unit of Muskets, while locking a 20 man strong unit of swordsmen and a unit of Greatswords in combat with them, allowing my army to do other stuff. 140 points of pure "WORTH IT."

BTW: Empire as a whole is a very strong compendium. Chicken riders are weaker, then they used to be, but the army as a whole is very nice. If we continued he would wipe most of my stuff from the board, but I played strong on objectives and board control (learning from you guys, cheers  ) so there was no way for him to come back (it was some 15+ vs 5 for me at the end,  points wise).

The nice thing about Dragon Ogers is also their perceived threat - they feels scary. Most people subconsciosly have a certain amount of respect towards them even though they are not so killy. This playes into two parts, they either focus them hard > Great, fairly cheap, tough sacrifical unit, or they try to avoid them > again, great now you have them running free, doing whatever.

Have not yet tried the Shaggoth, but as far as Dragon ogers are concerned a unit of 3 is easy to fit into many lists, and they bring enough value to not be  a dead weight.  Use them as anvil to tie stuff down or become a fairly tough roadblock, that can also retaliate somewhat. Dont expect them to outdamage the Enlightened  or pack more umpf then Bestigors. But if you want a  spiky log to throw under your opponents feet, Dragon Ogers are what you are looking for. (Always equip them with Draconinc Cleaver. The dual blades can work depending on the setup and enemies you face, but the Crusher is pure garbage weapon. No rend no increased range, and reduces you attacks to 3. Just dont)

EDIT: Just read this after myself - I forgot to mention. The Draconic Cleaver has range of 2" Thats just another reason why this option is soo much better than the other two. You can make good use of the Ungor screen, should you desire to do so.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Myrdin

[Kramer]

11 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

'm going to offer a counter point that the point of this thread is to discuss BoC options. I don't think its helpful to couch unit assessment in vaguely positive terms like 'it could work for you but'. I know I certainly wouldn't read or be involved in the thread if that was the overall gist.

 

10 hours ago, Skoll said:

I understand what you are trying to say, however I agree with swamp heart in that we should voice our concerns and not engage in a circle of boundless positivity ,as only by voicing concerns can we expect to cause any modicum of change.

Haha, damn wanted to let it rest because I do realise on the topic of how we talk about usability of models i'm salty as well (and in the news but this is probably not the forum for that  ) 

But in your statements above you are taking my comment into a black and white statement that I never intended (nor said in my mind). I never said 'nobody be critical and always be positive'. That's the same black and whiteness that I argue against. But a choice is always a pro's and con's thing. Just going ultra black or white isn't helping any form of discussion (and there is the news correlation).

For example:  Gors which we can all agree are in a weird spot. Ungors are cheaper as a screen bestigors better as an offensive unit. But if you have 20 points why not upgrade your 10 man ungor screen. A 5+ instead of 6+ against shooting can make your screen survive that incoming shooting. But for that same 20pts you can take the soulsnare shackles etc. 

Or you can say: ' Gors are utter trash and have no place in any list ever. GW really dropped the ball on that one. They should have at least have more attacks'. 

Which is more helpful? 

[SwampHeart]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

For example:  Gors which we can all agree are in a weird spot. Ungors are cheaper as a screen bestigors better as an offensive unit. But if you have 20 points why not upgrade your 10 man ungor screen. A 5+ instead of 6+ against shooting can make your screen survive that incoming shooting. But for that same 20pts you can take the soulsnare shackles etc. 

Or you can say: ' Gors are utter trash and have no place in any list ever. GW really dropped the ball on that one. They should have at least have more attacks'. 

Which is more helpful? 

That'd be great if that was your initial foray into this rather than saying people who think Bullgors aren't good are making 'cringe worthy' statements and that people should just make better decisions instead of analyzing lists. However those are what you lead with which is why I've kept at it because initially your general thought process seemed to be 'negative people kill people's enthusiasm for the army and are just whining' which isn't the case at all.  Various people present their opinions on units in a variety of ways. For example the number of people in this thread who think Enlightened are undercosted are basically expressing that they feel like that unit gets an A+ as far as efficacy goes. 

As to your question - the correct answer regarding a cheap screen is almost always Ungors - even with 20 pts left over. I myself have had success with the large Gor block but after talking with @Solaris (in a very direct and even argumentative way) I've realized his opinion regarding Gors (they're generally bad) vs. Ungors (they're generally better) is the correct opinion. I bring this up because its a perfect example of a 'non helpful' form of conversation that generated a meaningful change in opinion. 

I continue to belabor the point because this thread should be for OPEN opinions regarding our army - if someone thinks that Gors are trash and have no place in a list they should say so. Then other people can say well I disagree because (insert reasons). Statements generate discourse, the stronger the statement the stronger the discourse. I don't feel like anyone should be obligated to say 'Gors aren't great but maybe they could be OK if' if they just straight think Gors are trash.  This is a toy soldiers forum not a political one. One may make arguments regarding other venues of conversations regarding a more measured tone but its pretty OK to get passionate and vocal about your opinion on your army mans. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by SwampHeart

[Worm]

One question if enemy is within Heaetstone aura and the umit has more than one save, like +4 armor and with shilds special save on +6, how or what save is reduced by 1, both armor and special meanining only plus 5 armor remains or I choose which save is reduced by 1 or my oponent...?

[Tasman]

Just now, Worm said:

One question if enemy is within Heaetstone aura and the umit has more than one save, like +4 armor and with shilds special save on +6, how or what save is reduced by 1, both armor and special meanining only plus 5 armor remains or I choose which save is reduced by 1 or my oponent...?

If I understand your question, it's -1 to SAVES, not "ward" saves which are only applied to damage.

[Kramer]

45 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

That'd be great if that was your initial foray into this rather than saying people who think Bullgors aren't good are making 'cringe worthy' statements and that people should just make better decisions instead of analyzing lists. However those are what you lead with which is why I've kept at it because initially your general thought process seemed to be 'negative people kill people's enthusiasm for the army and are just whining' which isn't the case at all.  . 

Nope not true, don’t twist my words. 1. I never said accused people of whining. Although the term did cross my mind, and hey, I decided not to use it as it’s not helpful to the conversation. 

2. I have no idea where you managed to read that. I freely admit that my explaination might not have conveyed my argument/opinion properly. But you make it seem like you are quoting me with ‘That'd be great if that was your initial foray into this rather than saying people who think Bullgors aren't good are making 'cringe worthy' statements and that people should just make better decisions instead of analyzing lists’

if you break that up: I never connected  people arguing against bullgors and using cringe worthy statements, I never said people should just make better decisions instead of analysing lists. And you sure as hell are not representing my intention with the introduction ‘that be great if that was you initial foray...’

I DID say I find terms like Utter trash cringe worthy. And I still do, and am closer to actually cringing when reading it than me posting lol and actually laughing out loud. 

I flat out never argued against analysing lists I’m arguing the way of talking about this analyses. 

Finally about my intention, I was responding to someone who came into the conversation after lurking (his/her words) and finding only negativity about a unit when there is plenty of positives to say about it. I argue that that is very skewed and doesn’t help a new player make a descision. 

So to sum up, my initial post might have been unclear but stop twisting and adding to the things I did say. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Kramer
Missed a very essential ‘not’ in first sentence of 2?

[kenshin620]

32 minutes ago, Tasman said:

If I understand your question, it's -1 to SAVES, not "ward" saves which are only applied to damage.

Yea I believe NOTHING affects "special saves". Unless I've missed something. It's not like WFB where you had modifiers (like tzeentch).

It's weird that "Ward Saves" aren't an actual term given how many of them there are (then again some ONLY affect Mortal Wounds so I guess thats one big issue to having a blanket term).

[SwampHeart]

On 10/30/2018 at 1:48 AM, Kramer said:

2. Every time you read ‘sub optimal choice’ Or other cringe terms like that. It will be a perfectly fine unit for local play. You’ll Do better by improving your tactical choices rather than min maxing everything. Those lessons not only apply with Beast of Chaos but with every army you’ll ever Play. 

3. The saltiness is real... and everywhere. I collect several ( armies and in every single thread about those armies... people are b*tching that their favourite force isn’t strong enough. Or, in the case of Daughters of Khaine, that the army will be nerfed and GW is doing everything wrong  because  bla bla bla. 

Learn to read past peoples complaining or else it will hurt your excitement for your army. 

Sorry I did misquote you - here is exactly what you said. You said 'sub optimal' was a cringe term and you didn't say whining you instead said 'b*tching' and then accused people of complaining. So yes I did misquote your exact words but clearly not your intent. Ultimately my point still stands - this thread is for discussing, honestly and clearly, Beasts of Chaos. Some of our units are objectively poor and its OK to say that. If someone wants to make the statement that they find a unit garbage that is their prerogative and a chance to discuss the opinion. Attack the opinion, not the language used to deliver it. Also Bullgors ARE a bad unit - from a competitive view point they under perform when compared to other similar units internal to the book. That is a statement of fact. 

That said I'm done. I made the point I intended to make. Back to more actual BoC discussion and less 'tone of the thread' discussion. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by SwampHeart