Ossiarch Bonereapers, hideously overpowered?

[Sleboda]

I think one of the key aspects of the crawler that is not getting enough discussion is the shot to break up coherency and kill half a unit on one go.

That's going to be fun if you catch an opponent out.

[MKsmash]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

I think one of the key aspects of the crawler that is not getting enough discussion is the shot to break up coherency and kill half a unit on one go.

That's going to be fun if you catch an opponent out.

Be careful about heavy investing with OBR.

Remember Kharadron? When they first came out, they were broken. Then they were nerfed to infinity and they're garbage.

 

[Sleboda]

Yeah, totally could happen (sort of expect it, really), but I like their concept and models so much that I can live with it.

[tea_wild_owl]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I think one of the key aspects of the crawler that is not getting enough discussion is the shot to break up coherency and kill half a unit on one go.

That's going to be fun if you catch an opponent out.

to be fair, OBR are not the first army that can kill specific models, and if you know that they can do this, just adapt an set unit coherence in a way to mitigate the loss of one or two models. and small characters can be hidden behind terrain. and don't forget look out sir for -to hit and other artifacts you may can use.

After the first time I used reikenor for killing half a unit, my opponents never did the mistake again. don't only play your army but adapt to the opponent

and set up multiple banner/totems/musicians per unit to mitigate there losses, too. the only unique model may be a leader of the unit, but they are not that powerful most of the time

Edited November 3, 2019 by tea_wild_owl

[JackStreicher]

4 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Yawn. The same tired old complaining about complaining that wasn't clever the first time you posted about it.

At least the people voicing complaints made a point and did not simply waste Forum space and bytes like you did, Sir.

I have to admit that I am concerned about the catapults making games really unfun, every single time. Your heroes basically have a 50% chance to die to each shot - was such a rule necessary? No, is this fun for anyone? No, so why was it added again? If this thing would receive -2 to hit for single models it would be fine, but the 2+ was clearly designed to Bypass „look out sir“ and stop you from bringing any hero with less than 10 Wounds.

 

we will need a lot of wall-spells and a hell lot of sight blocking terrain people...what is this? 40k?

Edited November 3, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Kramer]

9 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

 

we will need a lot of wall-spells and a hell lot of sight blocking terrain people...what is this? 40k

You already need a lot of line of sight and movement blocking terrain. At least I feel there should be a lot more. Just makes the games better 💁‍♀️

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, Kramer said:

You already need a lot of line of sight and movement blocking terrain. At least I feel there should be a lot more. Just makes the games better 💁‍♀️

I never felt that it was necessary for AoS until now.

[Panzer]

On 11/2/2019 at 6:09 PM, Volkhov said:

I have it first hand from one of the rules design team that they intend the Kavalos charge to be stackable, and if it end up too strong they’ll go back and limit it later 

(x) doubt

 

15 hours ago, Kugane said:

I feel like katakros would be amazing in 3k or 4k battles though. The army as a whole feels like its a prelude to something armageddon-like in AOS XD

To be honest, with my current list building I only plan Katakros for >2k games anyway. I'm not about to min-max my lists but I feel like I have to leave too many things at home to add him to my lists at 2k or less.

[gronnelg]

So... Katakros denying half of the opponents CP. That's pretty big right?
I friend of mine is getting into OBR. *shivers uncontrollably*

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I never felt that it was necessary for AoS until now.

Oh you sold the game short then. It improves so much of the game. Not only shooting and other ranged abilities. But also space being limited. It really makes pile ins, positioning so much more tactical. You don’t even need the terrain rules to have terrain make an impact. 

[ledha]

People freak out about the Mortek Guard being 3+/3+ reroll but seems to forget it only apply in melee.  Sequitors easily reach a 2+/2+ and get absolutely trashed on by gunlines for the exact same reason.

Also, it work only in the combat phase, meaning out-of-phase activation (such as anvils of heldenhammer or khorne blood tithe) will absolutely slaughter them.

Edited November 4, 2019 by ledha

[Overread]

Old World fantasy (rank and file) worked with very little terrain spaced out so that you could wheel and turn the rank and file blocks. Dense terrain just didn't really work as well. AoS IS like 40K and it has free moving models. As a result denser terrain becomes far more important in blocking line of sight; in breaking up units so that they can't just charge 40 models forward and all engage at once etc... If you fail to use terrain (and lets be fair to GW they are really encouraging you to use terrain even if a lot of GW's terrain isn't the best for line of sight blocking at times) then you are setting the game up to make it easier for big infantry blocks to work and for ranged models and armies to have a much easier time of shooting. The trebuchet is powerful, but at the same time it doesn't have indirect fire. It has to "see" its target which means it in turn in vulnerable. You can't hide it in a corner behind a big wall and just let it lob out shots. 

[Panzer]

8 hours ago, Overread said:

Old World fantasy (rank and file) worked with very little terrain spaced out so that you could wheel and turn the rank and file blocks. Dense terrain just didn't really work as well. AoS IS like 40K and it has free moving models. As a result denser terrain becomes far more important in blocking line of sight; in breaking up units so that they can't just charge 40 models forward and all engage at once etc... If you fail to use terrain (and lets be fair to GW they are really encouraging you to use terrain even if a lot of GW's terrain isn't the best for line of sight blocking at times) then you are setting the game up to make it easier for big infantry blocks to work and for ranged models and armies to have a much easier time of shooting. The trebuchet is powerful, but at the same time it doesn't have indirect fire. It has to "see" its target which means it in turn in vulnerable. You can't hide it in a corner behind a big wall and just let it lob out shots. 

Definitely.
In WHFB a big chunk of woods or impassable terrain on one flank basically meant that this flank was unplayable by default except for some of the fastest units (those in loose formations and such). The deployment and movement phase decide how most games went back then since you won most fights by getting into the opponents flank (denied the opponent passive bonuses from ranks and stuff and gave you additional bonuses which together with the casualties caused iirc decided who won the fight). Without being able to quickly surround impassable terrain or to quickly move through forests (which halved movement of most units) doing that was almost impossible.
In AoS you barely care for woods or when there are two buildings super close to eachother unless the opponent actively exploits the terrain to put you in a disadvantageous situation ... which honestly is a great thing being able to do in games hence why it's a shame if there's barely any terrain on the board. Even the boards on the WarhammerTV stream usually lack terrain imo (then again I rarely watch those streams since the top down view they use 90% of the time is horrible).

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Panzer said:

In AoS you barely care for woods or when there are two buildings super close to eachother unless the opponent actively exploits the terrain to put you in a disadvantageous situation ... which honestly is a great thing being able to do in games hence why it's a shame if there's barely any terrain on the board. Even the boards on the WarhammerTV stream usually lack terrain imo (then again I rarely watch those streams since the top down view they use 90% of the time is horrible).

110% with you on this. The game feels (subjective of course) to be designed to be played with lots of terrain. From the impact of shooting in combination with a double turn, to boxing opponents in by utilising space and lack thereof. 

[Eldarain]

15 hours ago, gronnelg said:

So... Katakros denying half of the opponents CP. That's pretty big right?
I friend of mine is getting into OBR. *shivers uncontrollably*

It's once per turn so very good but not half of all the ways to generate extra (Gobbos Hammerhal, Skaven etc)

Edited November 5, 2019 by Eldarain

[Zappgrot]

13 hours ago, Overread said:

Old World fantasy (rank and file) worked with very little terrain spaced out so that you could wheel and turn the rank and file blocks. Dense terrain just didn't really work as well. AoS IS like 40K and it has free moving models. As a result denser terrain becomes far more important in blocking line of sight; in breaking up units so that they can't just charge 40 models forward and all engage at once etc... If you fail to use terrain (and lets be fair to GW they are really encouraging you to use terrain even if a lot of GW's terrain isn't the best for line of sight blocking at times) then you are setting the game up to make it easier for big infantry blocks to work and for ranged models and armies to have a much easier time of shooting. The trebuchet is powerful, but at the same time it doesn't have indirect fire. It has to "see" its target which means it in turn in vulnerable. You can't hide it in a corner behind a big wall and just let it lob out shots. 

You do realise that, that is all niece and all but will reduce the number of armies that actualy function by a lot.  IF  large units are undesiarble because they can't maneuver it's just going to end up whit a all bigg stuff armies again. 

[Zappgrot]

On 11/3/2019 at 3:23 PM, whispersofblood said:

I never made a comment on the nature of balance... My point was whole contained in describing GWs bias towards 'feel' as opposed to a more contextual balance. 

Then I said I don't blame them, and point to IDK being a deeply unsatisfying army to play that points can't resolve because the feel is wrong. 

In a world of many options some will just be bad. From a math perspective, from a utility perspective or both. A warscroll that is poorly costed can always have it's points adjusted. But warscrolls get updated much less frequently so hitting the right feel is not a bad target to have. It's not like these tasks are mutual exclusive.

Yea ****** IDK.   But how bad do you have to be at your job to not realise you can't create something that is fast strong and tough all at the same time in a wargame. I mean come on. That overloaded ****** can never be fixed. It will always be either to expensive or to cheap. Cause it does everything.  

[Overread]

11 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

You do realise that, that is all niece and all but will reduce the number of armies that actualy function by a lot.  IF  large units are undesiarble because they can't maneuver it's just going to end up whit a all bigg stuff armies again. 

But of course, as I said in my post in the Old World you had to put less on so that armies could function with the wheeling turns. Just like in the current game you have to have room for large base models to move over the board. That doesn't mean you can't have buildings that still block the line of sight; or that there might be some avenues that large models cannot move through. 

It's a balancing act, sadly one that is not well taught not elaborated, however the Warcry sets are, I think, starting to push the idea of having denser terrain on the board for a miniatures game to many; plus they are making kits more affordable to buy into (for those who don't want to make their own) 

[Kramer]

11 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

You do realise that, that is all niece and all but will reduce the number of armies that actualy function by a lot.  IF  large units are undesiarble because they can't maneuver it's just going to end up whit a all bigg stuff armies again. 

Try it. To have so much terrain that for top army lists like Slaanesh, skaven, FEC not being able to perform you have to exaggerate to the argument to such an extent it’s going to be ridiculous.  Terrain that creates avenues, block sight, and impact the movement improve the game. Period. And all limitations in space go two ways. 
kind of feels like the conversation I had a couple of times when AoS was quit new. Yes it’s easy to break it. But in reality, or more accurately my personal experience, it never happened. Same with terrain.

[Zappgrot]

49 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Try it. To have so much terrain that for top army lists like Slaanesh, skaven, FEC not being able to perform you have to exaggerate to the argument to such an extent it’s going to be ridiculous.  Terrain that creates avenues, block sight, and impact the movement improve the game. Period. And all limitations in space go two ways. 
kind of feels like the conversation I had a couple of times when AoS was quit new. Yes it’s easy to break it. But in reality, or more accurately my personal experience, it never happened. Same with terrain.

They don't go both ways.  It really depends on what unit is good in a army. Keeper of secrets don't really care all that much. And FE even less (because they fly).  Skaven hordes are going to care a lot.  I have been playing wargames for a verry verry long time.  And in my perosnal experience that is exatly what happens. Not that the game becomes worse it's just that it does not impact every thing evenly.   But to be honest the terain rules of AOS are ******. And the game would be a lot better if terrain did more then just  grand cover or block LOS and movement. 

[Brandfas Machine]

While OBR reads to me as very likely to be extremely strong out of the gates, I agree that we'll have to spend some months seeing them in action before we can have anything beyond a theory. What I'd like to know, however, is what people think about the difference in apparent power level between Ogor Mawtribes and OBR, since they were released simultaneously.

It seems likely that on some level GW intentionally made OBR to be more powerful than average so that they could sell more models, and while Ogor Mawtribes is a good battletome, I would contend that it wasn't designed to match the capabilities of the OBR. It makes me wonder, 'Is that release strategy fair to the players of the 'less favored' factiosn?', and subsequently, 'Does it matter if it's fair?'

I know that GW is a miniature vendor first and foremost, but I have a fear that the mindset of placing a hand on the scale of power between armies as a tool to sell miniatures is - or has the potential to be - quite bad for the game in the long run. I don't mean to disparage GW or fearmonger, I just love this hobby and its community and want to see it flourish in a healthy way ❤️

[Forrix]

2 hours ago, Brandfas Machine said:

While OBR reads to me as very likely to be extremely strong out of the gates, I agree that we'll have to spend some months seeing them in action before we can have anything beyond a theory. What I'd like to know, however, is what people think about the difference in apparent power level between Ogor Mawtribes and OBR, since they were released simultaneously.

It seems likely that on some level GW intentionally made OBR to be more powerful than average so that they could sell more models, and while Ogor Mawtribes is a good battletome, I would contend that it wasn't designed to match the capabilities of the OBR. It makes me wonder, 'Is that release strategy fair to the players of the 'less favored' factiosn?', and subsequently, 'Does it matter if it's fair?'

I know that GW is a miniature vendor first and foremost, but I have a fear that the mindset of placing a hand on the scale of power between armies as a tool to sell miniatures is - or has the potential to be - quite bad for the game in the long run. I don't mean to disparage GW or fearmonger, I just love this hobby and its community and want to see it flourish in a healthy way ❤️

I think part of the issue with Bonereapers is that GW wanted to make an attrition faction in a meta that has become extremely high damage. Coupled with the fact that it is a brand new army and they probably wanted to make sure it didn't fall flat lead to them  overshooting the mark.

Also, these books might have been released simultaneously but I doubt they were written simultaneously. Looking at how they streamlined the Mega-Boss on Maw-Crusha's warscroll in Orruk Warclans but didn't with the monsters in Mawtribes makes me suspect that Mawtribes was written before Warclans. Or it could be my other theory that there are multiple rules writers/teams for AoS that have different design philosophies and don't communicate with each other.

On the fairness of it, I don't really mind it too much as long as the "less favored faction" (for the record I think MawTribes has much better internal balance between its subfactions and no subfaction options than Bonereapers ) doesn't get forgotten about for years on end. Off the top of my head, Nurgle, Nighthaunt, Idoneth Deepkin, and Gloomspite are all 2.0 battletomes that are either noticeably behind the power curve or dependent on one or two builds. I don't want to have to wait for AoS 3.0 for these factions to get revisited or even another battletome.  Nurgle's allegiance abilities are fine, really just some warscroll and points adjustments could work wonders. On the flipside, Gloomspite seems fine warscroll wise but its allegiance ability seems not even factor into most of my games with them. Both of these could get handled in the Winter FAQ/GHB 2020 though it seems like GW has been very conservative with those lately.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Forrix

[smartazjb0y]

1 hour ago, Brandfas Machine said:

While OBR reads to me as very likely to be extremely strong out of the gates, I agree that we'll have to spend some months seeing them in action before we can have anything beyond a theory. What I'd like to know, however, is what people think about the difference in apparent power level between Ogor Mawtribes and OBR, since they were released simultaneously.

It seems likely that on some level GW intentionally made OBR to be more powerful than average so that they could sell more models, and while Ogor Mawtribes is a good battletome, I would contend that it wasn't designed to match the capabilities of the OBR. It makes me wonder, 'Is that release strategy fair to the players of the 'less favored' factiosn?', and subsequently, 'Does it matter if it's fair?'

I know that GW is a miniature vendor first and foremost, but I have a fear that the mindset of placing a hand on the scale of power between armies as a tool to sell miniatures is - or has the potential to be - quite bad for the game in the long run. I don't mean to disparage GW or fearmonger, I just love this hobby and its community and want to see it flourish in a healthy way ❤️

The whole "GW gives stronger/better rules to new armies to sell more models" doesn't reaaallly hold muster; Nighthaunt, for example, aren't exactly at the top of the competitive rankings despite being a brand new army from last year. Stormcast are a bit older but still generally new, they're the flagship of AoS, and they're not at the top of the heap competitively either. 

[JackStreicher]

14 minutes ago, smartazjb0y said:

Stormcast are a bit older but still generally new, they're the flagship of AoS, and they're not at the top of the heap competitively either. 

They actually are. But they‘re rarely played of I remember the last statistics correctly.

[Elmir]

13 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

They actually are. But they‘re rarely played of I remember the last statistics correctly.

It is actually the exact opposite... They are the most played faction by quite a large margin if you watch the LLV stats show, but they don't claim many top spots at all.