AoS 2 - Slaves to Darkness 2 Discussion

[Myrdin]

Spoiler

  

On 12/14/2019 at 10:50 PM, CJPT said:

Earlier today I posted a comparison of the old and new chaos warrior sculpts in the previous thread. I've since painted both of those models and I figured people might be curious to see how the two sculpts look next to each other. The main change I made, as I wrote previously, was to use one of the new spare heads on the old model - the old helmets are much bigger than the new ones, which makes the proportions look pretty inconsistent. Otherwise, they're about the same size.

@CJPT

Just wanted to say > Thats a fantastic paintjob! Really, really nice looking  

Edited January 14, 2020 by Myrdin

[Petroos]

I think that the hate on this army has gotten a little out of control. They are not S tier but they are much more functional than they were before and the book introduces some neat concepts that can make for a fun play experience. Like most tomes, there are some good abilities and there are some duds. There are a lot of redundant options but it's not like you are forced to take all of those options in your list. I can see being salty if you already had an army and the new rules don't allow your models to synergize in a way you like, but that's always going to be the case when new rules come about. Let's not forget that the point of these refreshes is to keep us buying models and chasing the meta. 

At the end of the day, if you are someone who only plays AoS for tourney play then I think it's safe to say that this isn't going to be the army for you. That doesn't automatically mean the book is a failure or that the other 90% of AoS players won't have fun with it. 

[Hamartia]

LVO is in roughly 2 weeks so it will interesting to see how well the book performs and if it makes any difference to the discussion.

[whispersofblood]

30 minutes ago, Petroos said:

I think that the hate on this army has gotten a little out of control. They are not S tier but they are much more functional than they were before and the book introduces some neat concepts that can make for a fun play experience. Like most tomes, there are some good abilities and there are some duds. There are a lot of redundant options but it's not like you are forced to take all of those options in your list. I can see being salty if you already had an army and the new rules don't allow your models to synergize in a way you like, but that's always going to be the case when new rules come about. Let's not forget that the point of these refreshes is to keep us buying models and chasing the meta. 

At the end of the day, if you are someone who only plays AoS for tourney play then I think it's safe to say that this isn't going to be the army for you. That doesn't automatically mean the book is a failure or that the other 90% of AoS players won't have fun with it. 

The real test of a book is how it functions in the midtables. This book clearly isn't up to scratch competitively that is obvious. But I very seriously doubt it is even fun to play at the midtable level. 

The key to being a good hobby book is the amount of expression available. The book fails at this as trying to play the most basic concept. Ie; a mortal army dedicated to a single god. Or the high level the person army of the grand marshal of chaos. The basic rules straight jacket you on the board into doing things that you otherwise wouldn't do.

It's not just that all the buffs and synergies produce similar material buffs. It's that all these buffs are built into the faction and you can't escape them. 

I said at launch the best army in the book is probably khorne. That is because it can pull in heroes that provide unique buffs and still proc the auras. 

Otherwise the book is going to get chopped up and the useful parts imported into the god armies, like a car with a faulty transmission.

[Bloodmoon]

I think you're going a bit far with that. You can't really say the army isn't fun to play, because thats completely subjective. I personally have plenty of fun with the army, and I also don't think its bad competitively at all. Its not spikey in terms of damage, and its not flashy or as overwhelmingly good as PE, but it is very consistent with full rerolls, low to hit/wound, and decent rend. 

 

I can say with full confidence it can compete with good players with good lists, as I was fortunate enough to go against a very good IDK player, and managed to beat him by top of 5, with an army you're saying cant even win mid-tables. I think you're overreacting to a set of nerfs to a specific way of playing the army. I think some things are almost needed (Be'lakor being the thing that won me the aformentioned game, can't see myself ever not taking him) as well as warshrines/maruaders/sorcs, but there certainly is good, competitive options in the book. Is it perfect? No. But its on the same level as most of the books in the game, and thats fine by me. 

[Petroos]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

The real test of a book is how it functions in the midtables. This book clearly isn't up to scratch competitively that is obvious. But I very seriously doubt it is even fun to play at the midtable level. 

The key to being a good hobby book is the amount of expression available. The book fails at this as trying to play the most basic concept. Ie; a mortal army dedicated to a single god. Or the high level the person army of the grand marshal of chaos. The basic rules straight jacket you on the board into doing things that you otherwise wouldn't do.

It's not just that all the buffs and synergies produce similar material buffs. It's that all these buffs are built into the faction and you can't escape them. 

I said at launch the best army in the book is probably khorne. That is because it can pull in heroes that provide unique buffs and still proc the auras. 

Otherwise the book is going to get chopped up and the useful parts imported into the god armies, like a car with a faulty transmission.

Ok so what I'm hearing is that you don't enjoy a core mechanic of the book (the buff auras) and you feel that it hampers the play style that you want to play, which is totally understandable. That being said, I don't think that it makes the army itself bad - it makes them bad at what YOU want them to do. GW has obviously gone a different direction with the fluff to emphasize the "Undivided" side of chaos here. They want you to think of and play these guys as small bands led by an aspiring champion that sometimes group together for a larger battle, thus the emphasis on leaders babysitting units and the interchangeable auras and associated buffs. If you want to play an army of mortals that are devoted to a specific god, I think that's possible with this book but definitely not optimal and I agree with your assessment that you'd be better off porting the units into the book of whatever god you like instead.  But here's the thing, with the Mark of Chaos rule GW has made that extremely easy to do! 

So I guess in summary, I am pushing back on your assessment a bit because I think that you are basing too much of your opinion on how the book measures up to your idea of what their play-style should be rather than a more objective assessment of what GW provided. The book is not a failure. The book can be competitive and fun. But for those statements to be true you need to approach it with a new lens and build around the mechanics that GW decided to emphasize. Some players are ok with that and some aren't, but those that aren't should recognize that bias rather than saying the book as a product is a failure. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Petroos

[Bloodmoon]

agreed @Petroos, I can see someone not liking the way the book plays, but I think plenty of people will. 

[ColsBols]

So the Gorechosen Chariot and the Ruinbringer Warband bonus both give D3 damage on a 2+ on the charge, would these abilities proc seperately for 2D3 damage on two 2+s? Or just once?

[Rod]

Just now, ColsBols said:

So the Gorechosen Chariot and the Ruinbringer Warband bonus both give D3 damage on a 2+ on the charge, would these abilities proc seperately for 2D3 damage on two 2+s? Or just once?

one roll for each ability, chariots should proc twice, two rolls

[ColsBols]

1 minute ago, Rod said:

one roll for each ability, chariots should proc twice, two rolls

that seems good

[whispersofblood]

34 minutes ago, Petroos said:

Ok so what I'm hearing is that you don't enjoy a core mechanic of the book (the buff auras) and you feel that it hampers the play style that you want to play, which is totally understandable. That being said, I don't think that it makes the army itself bad - it makes them bad at what YOU want them to do. GW has obviously gone a different direction with the fluff to emphasize the "Undivided" side of chaos here. They want you to think of and play these guys as small bands led by an aspiring champion that sometimes group together for a larger battle, thus the emphasis on leaders babysitting units and the interchangeable auras and associated buffs. If you want to play an army of mortals that are devoted to a specific god, I think that's possible with this book but definitely not optimal and I agree with your assessment that you'd be better off porting the units into the book of whatever god you like instead.  But here's the thing, with the Mark of Chaos rule GW has made that extremely easy to do! 

So I guess in summary, I am pushing back on your assessment a bit because I think that you are basing too much of your opinion on how the book measures up to your idea of what their play-style should be rather than a more objective assessment of what GW provided. The book is not a failure. The book can be competitive and fun. But for those statements to be true you need to approach it with a new lens and build around the mechanics that GW decided to emphasize. Some players are ok with that and some aren't, but those that aren't should recognize that bias rather than saying the book as a product is a failure. 

The immediate issue is that those "new mechanics" don't synergize with the game at all. That is the ultimate measuring stick not what the author set out to emphasize. Think about it, if Apple decided new iphones should emphasis streaming and they sacrificed text and voice messaging to get it done. Is the phone a success or a failure, at being well a phone?

I've played these games for a long time, many besides, and primarily professionally spend my time taking apart legislation, and doing data analysis. There are certain things you can't help but see, the first was the lack of damage. And swarmofseals early on confirmed the lack of upgrade in regards to doing wounds throughout the book.

The next was a general lack of agency, which was partially addressed by Dark Prophecy, though that has changed.  With limited range dmg, and a general lack of mobility, the ability of the army to dictate the direction of a game is severally lacking. If you go through this thread and read the reports from the field, or on the facebook pages people experience the same issue repeatedly. Its just that not everyone sees it for what it is, that they are constantly fighting on their opponent's terms, even when the S2D player is successful in a combat it is because their opponent charged when they need not have, or chose a unit that was an improper tool. AoS at a reasonable level of game play is generally decided at the top of turn 3. A great player can usually minimize a lose, or two players playing very cagey can drag it out, but generally most games are decided at that point. Mostly because mechanically the good armies can put out about 80 unsaved wounds by that point, most factions secondary economy (CP, Waagh points, Tides, etc) are fully functional by that point, certain missions require a turn 3 victory, but also because concentration levels drop after about an hour.  So it is imperative that you have agency early in the game because AoS2 is mostly a race against time. 

S2D has to drag around a point heavy, or foot speed hero, doesn't have a secondary economy, and doesn't really generate addition cp. Think about it this way, in reality it would be better to just take 5 more warriors than to take a sorcerer to buff them, but we can't because without the hero we might as well play Grand Allegiance Chaos. Which means in an objective game since your allegiance forces you to take fewer models you have to push to either kill or models or lose so few models that you can grind out your opponent. But, since you are a foot speed faction and you only have 3 turns at best in which to decide the game, don't really have the time to grind. So you really have to find ways to kill models, which if you look at the lists most people are trying to do. The question is how successful is the tome at letting players do this?

I'm saying it isn't at all. You suggest that it is I'm curious to see your analysis. 

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, Bloodmoon said:

I think you're going a bit far with that. You can't really say the army isn't fun to play, because thats completely subjective. I personally have plenty of fun with the army, and I also don't think its bad competitively at all. Its not spikey in terms of damage, and its not flashy or as overwhelmingly good as PE, but it is very consistent with full rerolls, low to hit/wound, and decent rend. 

 

I can say with full confidence it can compete with good players with good lists, as I was fortunate enough to go against a very good IDK player, and managed to beat him by top of 5, with an army you're saying cant even win mid-tables. I think you're overreacting to a set of nerfs to a specific way of playing the army. I think some things are almost needed (Be'lakor being the thing that won me the aformentioned game, can't see myself ever not taking him) as well as warshrines/maruaders/sorcs, but there certainly is good, competitive options in the book. Is it perfect? No. But its on the same level as most of the books in the game, and thats fine by me. 

As an IDK and a long time Chaos  player I would be very interested in hearing more about this match. Batteplan, general army lists etc? 

I agree Be'lakor is very good, he was one of my first picks in dispoilers build before becoming frustrated with the lack of synergy with battalions, marks, and heroes. Unless you are supposing that it is better to just play undivided mark which I haven't fully considered I will admit.

[Zplash]

15 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

The immediate issue is that those "new mechanics" don't synergize with the game at all. That is the ultimate measuring stick not what the author set out to emphasize. Think about it, if Apple decided new iphones should emphasis streaming and they sacrificed text and voice messaging to get it done. Is the phone a success or a failure, at being well a phone?

I've played these games for a long time, many besides, and primarily professionally spend my time taking apart legislation, and doing data analysis. There are certain things you can't help but see, the first was the lack of damage. And swarmofseals early on confirmed the lack of upgrade in regards to doing wounds throughout the book.

The next was a general lack of agency, which was partially addressed by Dark Prophecy, though that has changed.  With limited range dmg, and a general lack of mobility, the ability of the army to dictate the direction of a game is severally lacking. If you go through this thread and read the reports from the field, or on the facebook pages people experience the same issue repeatedly. Its just that not everyone sees it for what it is, that they are constantly fighting on their opponent's terms, even when the S2D player is successful in a combat it is because their opponent charged when they need not have, or chose a unit that was an improper tool. AoS at a reasonable level of game play is generally decided at the top of turn 3. A great player can usually minimize a lose, or two players playing very cagey can drag it out, but generally most games are decided at that point. Mostly because mechanically the good armies can put out about 80 unsaved wounds by that point, most factions secondary economy (CP, Waagh points, Tides, etc) are fully functional by that point, certain missions require a turn 3 victory, but also because concentration levels drop after about an hour.  So it is imperative that you have agency early in the game because AoS2 is mostly a race against time. 

S2D has to drag around a point heavy, or foot speed hero, doesn't have a secondary economy, and doesn't really generate addition cp. Think about it this way, in reality it would be better to just take 5 more warriors than to take a sorcerer to buff them, but we can't because without the hero we might as well play Grand Allegiance Chaos. Which means in an objective game since your allegiance forces you to take fewer models you have to push to either kill or models or lose so few models that you can grind out your opponent. But, since you are a foot speed faction and you only have 3 turns at best in which to decide the game, don't really have the time to grind. So you really have to find ways to kill models, which if you look at the lists most people are trying to do. The question is how successful is the tome at letting players do this?

I'm saying it isn't at all. You suggest that it is I'm curious to see your analysis. 

Don't want to comment on everything in that wall. Just one small hint: you don't need over top or high damage output to win AOS games. 

(or any dmg at all... Greetings from a  nurgle tallyband player :))

 

[Rod]

Just now, Zplash said:

Don't want to comment on everything in that wall. Just one small hint: you don't need over top or high damage output to win AOS games. 

(or any dmg at all... Greetings from a  nurgle tallyband player :))

 

this, a normal game is played by objectives, we have great obj holders, those golem warriros from warcry,   normal chaos warriors (a bit overpriced)

we have high mobility , lots of cavalry options and they pack a punch

great spells, our wizards are crazy good.

 

[Nickf]

I have question re: Gaunt Summoner's summoning.

If I summon 10 pink horrors, should I use the new warscroll "Horrors of Tzeench".  If so, that means they split etc? 

[JackStreicher]

On 1/13/2020 at 4:17 PM, kore5022 said:

Nope that's how i read it as well, left wondering why anyone would ever pay points for this?

Duuuh! It was obviously designed to make a subpar unit even worse for more points! - Such good Game design has to be admired! 🤣😂

[JackStreicher]

41 minutes ago, Rod said:

this, a normal game is played by objectives, we have great obj holders, those golem warriros from warcry,   normal chaos warriors (a bit overpriced)

we have high mobility , lots of cavalry options and they pack a punch

great spells, our wizards are crazy good.

 

Our killing power (apart from marauders) is pretty bad though. We might be able to hold objectives, but not take them.

what‘s interesting: compare the S2D unit costs and profiles to Orruk Warclans, then compare the Allegiance abilities. Yes! Your eyes do not deceive you! They‘re better at pretty much everything while being cheaper and having stronger Allegiance Abilities 🤣😂

Edited January 14, 2020 by JackStreicher

[Rod]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

Our killing power (apart from marauders) is pretty bad though. We might be able to hold objectives, but not take them.

what‘s interesting: compare the S2D unit costs and profiles to Orruk Warclans, then compare the Allegiance abilities. Yes! Your eyes do not deceive you! They‘re better at pretty much everything while being cheaper and having stronger Allegiance Abilities 🤣😂

chaos knights with ensorcelled weapons are pretty killy, with slaneesh or khorne Allegiance .

 

[JackStreicher]

3 minutes ago, Rod said:

chaos knights with ensorcelled weapons are pretty killy, with slaneesh or khorne Allegiance .

 

The damage is good, but only okay for 180 points ^^

[ColsBols]

We can argue about whether the book is *good* or not all day but it's not gonna change anything, also remember there's a supplement coming out very soon that I assume will have new ****** for us to use so keep that in mind. 

Now I have some important questions.

Axes or flails for marauders, and Mark of Khorne or Slaanesh in units of 40 with Archaon?

Lances or Swords? I like lances aesthetically and took out an entire unit of evocators with the charge plus the D3 from karkadark charge with them last time but they are ****** poor off the charge. Is is dumb to screen with marauder horses? 

Do we think the Karkadark is worth the hefty price tag, esp with etheral amulet?

Honestly I kind of want to ditch Chaos Warriors entirely and just run knights, horsemen, and chariots with Archaon in an all cavalry list. Think this is viable in any way? 

[Blisterfeet]

I'm going to melt my models into a brick and then burn the codex to the chaos gods...after that I'm going to go sit at the bottom tables with my brick of plastic and ash from my old codex and I am going to tell everyone that flat 18 damage fell spears would of been good.

No I didn't play any actually games did you read the print pfff I value my time ......not that I'm overreacting from a FAQ or anything before you say it!

Or I might wait and see I haven't decided 🤷🏼‍♀️

🎣

[Rod]

Just now, ColsBols said:

We can argue about whether the book is *good* or not all day but it's not gonna change anything, also remember there's a supplement coming out very soon that I assume will have new ****** for us to use so keep that in mind. 

Now I have some important questions.

Axes or flails for marauders, and Mark of Khorne or Slaanesh in units of 40 with Archaon?

Lances or Swords? I like lances aesthetically and took out an entire unit of evocators with the charge plus the D3 from karkadark charge with them last time but they are ****** poor off the charge. Is is dumb to screen with marauder horses? 

Do we think the Karkadark is worth the hefty price tag, esp with etheral amulet?

Honestly I kind of want to ditch Chaos Warriors entirely and just run knights, horsemen, and chariots with Archaon in an all cavalry list. Think this is viable in any way? 

 

we can build around Ruinbringer Warband for sure

[Bloodmoon]

Quote

As an IDK and a long time Chaos  player I would be very interested in hearing more about this match. Batteplan, general army lists etc? 
 

Battleplan was Starstrike. The lists were as such: 

Allegiance: Slaves to Darkness
- Damned Legion: Host of the Everchosen (First Circle)

Leaders
Archaon the Everchosen (800)
- General
- Aura of Chaos: Khorne
- Spell: Binding Damnation
Be'Lakor (240)
- Spell: Mask of Darkness
Chaos Lord on Karkadrak (250)
- Artefact: Rune Blade
- Mark of Chaos: Khorne

Battleline
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
40 x Chaos Marauders (300)
- Axes & Darkwood Shields
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Cursed Lances

Total: 1970 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 0
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 112
 

vs

 

+Tidecaster -General -Born From Agony

+Soulrender -Cloud of Midnight

+Soulscryer

+Akhelian King -Ghyrstrike

+2x10 Thralls

+2x10 Reavers

2x6 Shock Eels

1x3 Kingsguard Eels

 

its gonna be a bit of a rough battle report because it was several weeks ago; apologies. 

 

I finished deploying first, focusing mostly on the left side of the board. Belakor and Archaon were screened on all sides by Marauders, while my knights set up to the right of them, still close to Archaon, with the Chaos Lord behind them. Chaos Warriors went even farther left, in front of the marauders. I marked one unit of Shock Eels with Be'lakor.

 

He set up almost diagonal to me, with one unit of reavers and one unit of thralls in the water with the soulscryer, shock eels, and king on the diagonal side, kingsguard eels opposite Archaon, along with the tidecaster and soulrender behind them. 

 

I gave him first turn and he ran his eels to the right, hiding behind a big piece of terrain, along with his king. He moved his two heroes on the left slightly forward, and got the reavers into range of my CW, shooting and killing one and wounding another, which was super unlucky for me. That was it for his turn, so it went over to me. 

I used By My Will(mistake here, I should have waited until I knew Mask of Darkness went off to use it) on the Marauders, then used Dark Prophecy and got the 4+. I tried to cast Mask of Darkness to teleport the marauders, but failed. I ran the Marauders up the right side, along with the knights and the chaos lord. Be'lakor followed behind them, while the chaos warriors and Archaon went left(this ended up working out, but it was a mistake in hindsight I think, it meant a lot of my stuff was without their buffs) 

 

I revealed Dark Prophecy and took the double turn, using By My Will again, along with The Knights of Chaos on my knights. I didn't even try to cast Mask of Darkness here, which was really stupid because if I did I would have killed a whole Eel unit. As it was, I moved them up to get a guaranteed charge because of their charge ability, while the knights ran into the unit of Eels I didn't mark. Archaon moved to engage the two characters, and the CWs charged the reavers. The Obj ended up in the center, and I held it with Be'lakor. 

 

It was High tide so he got to swing first, which combined with some luck hurt me really bad here.  He swung with the unmarked shock eels unit, and killed all my knights with the help of his once-per-game MW effect. It was really painful to have that happen, because I was relying on that damage on the eel unit to help me later in the game. As it was I just had to deal, and the rest of his swings didnt really do much. He killed some Marauders, but I got an eel and a bit in return, so that was ok. He popped his artefact so I couldn't target his soulrender, and his other character bounced off Archaon. I got to swing after that, oblitorated the tidecaster, and got another eel with my Marauders. They were really strung out because of prior positioning, so it was only a few swinging at a time, which is why it was a big mistake to not try to teleport - with more of them getting in, the eel unit would have been dead. The CWs and reavers flailed at each other, I killed a fair few but the soulrender brought them back later. 

 

he took his turn and I thought I was ******. My Chaos lord was almost certainly dead if he commited a unit of eels to it, and that was a good half of my army deleted in the second turn. However, I think he made a mistake here, or rather,  underestimated the chaos lord. He only sent his King to deal with him, and sent the second unit of eels to free up the marked unit from Marauders. He kept his soulrender in combat, which was a big mistake because I got a free kill out of it, and kept his reavers in. 

 

he charged his king in and failed his d3 MWs roll, then charged in his eel unit. His king swung first, bringing my chaos lord down to 3 wounds remaining(I dont think the MW roll would have mattered here because the MWs statistically wouldn't have killed the chaos lord, but if he got really lucky it could have.) His charging eel unit swung and killed a lot of the marauders, leaving me with only slightly above 20 to keep my rend, and I pulled them in such a way to get his marked eel unit out of combat, while swinging at the two units and doing some plink damage. (again if Archaon had been on this side, i think I could have won the flank much easier than I ended up doing, which would have pretty much ended the game right there)

 

his soulrender bounced off, and his reavers didnt do much of value that I can remember. Archaon obliterated the soulrender, the CWs killed a few more reavers, and my Chaos Lord swung into the King, bringing him down to a handful of wounds remaining. 

 

We rolled off and I kept priority, the second OBJ coming down on Archaons side of the board(pure luck there), and the third coming down on the far right side. I failed all my casts, retreated my Marauders onto the center OBJ to screen Be'lakor, flew Archaon over to finish off the reavers and ensure I got the left obj, used By My Will again on the chaos lord, and stayed in combat with him. 

 

I swung with the chaos lord first and finished off the king, rolling on the eye of the gods table and clinching a 12. I set up my brand new demon prince while he goggled at me, and put the chamon blade on its malefic talons.  This here was the roll that made up for my positioning errors earlier in the game, and I don't know if I would have won without it. I think I would have, but it would have been very close indeed.  He swung with reavers and bounced, and Archaon cleaned them up. 

 

On his turn I revealed Be'lakors target, which put him in a terrible position. He had scored 0 points thus far, and I was ahead by a ton. The only thing he could capture the far right obj with was either his unmarked eel unit, or his units in the water. he elected to put his eels on the right side to get some points, and put his units from the water near my DP,  and marked my Marauders with his characters ability, making it a 6" charge to get to them. he moved his kingsguard up, a unit that I had ignored up until this point, and charged Archaon.

 

he got the charge off with his thralls and reavers, getting into both the tattered remains of my Marauders and Belkaor.

 

he took about 5 wounds off Archaon with the kingsguard, and I swung back and did horrible, I think the worst rolling I've ever done. I ended up doing 4 damage with the lashing tails of all things, mostly because of his ignoring rend and 3+ save, leaving me with a pretty big problem of my 800pt model unable to get anywhere unless he chewed through the unit. This was also a mistake because there was no reason to swing with Archaon here, instead I should have gone with Be'lakor.

 

He swung with thralls, getting a few into my Marauders and most into Be'lakor. most of the Marauders died to that, while Be'lakor was a complete disappointment, failed every single save and died.  He finished off the Marauders with reavers after they flailed with 4s/4s, and held two obj at the end of his turn. 

 

I won priority, and had to make some risky plays at this point to win. Archaon cast arcane bolt, doing 1 MW to the eels in combat with him, then used his Nurglesque head to deal 3 MWs and finish that one off, finally casting the Realm spell Transmutation and killing the last Eel with 2 5s. I used the DPs command ability to halve all charge and run rolls near me, and flew over to the thralls, while Archaon barreled in, finally leaving the left flank to actually do something with himself. The DP fought first and wiped the thralls, then Archaon picked up the reavers. I now controlled two obj, leaving me with a massive points lead. 

 

His turn he couldnt get his unmarked unit of eels anywhere, so moved the (now) free to act unit up to my DP, charging it. the DP swung at the start of the combat phase and killed two of the eels, but the remainder killed him in return. Archaons crown of domination lowered their bravery by 2, and they ran away. 

 

At that point we called it because even with one model to my name I had such a huge points lead even if he somehow tabled me I would win. 

 

This is a very rough report for aformentioned reasons, but I hope it shows what i'm saying. Mistakes on my part were propped up by good luck, which was somewhat countered in my mind by some atrocious rolls on my saves(looking at you be'lakor, should have lived) 

[Sinfullyvannila]

1 hour ago, Nickf said:

I have question re: Gaunt Summoner's summoning.

If I summon 10 pink horrors, should I use the new warscroll "Horrors of Tzeench".  If so, that means they split etc? 

Yes, absolutely.

[Nickf]

6 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks!