Jump to content

AoS 2 - Slaves to Darkness 2 Discussion


Overread

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of a way to convert a chaos warshrine and realized the warshrine chasis is about the same size as the new chaos lord's karkadrak mount. Ive got a new start collecting box and im so tempted to try it, but i hate to chop up such a nice model for a conversion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Midjithero said:

Curious to your uses on Blue Scribes?

i saw someone else post BS in their list....but their list was Be’lakor and 2 Slaanesh marked Karkadraks with BS? I forgot to comment and ask why it was there :)

I think BS would be great in a Tzeentch Cabal list, but other than that don’t really see a use? Enlighten me please :) 

They can Cast on 2+ and cannot be dispelled... i can image a lot of (endless) spells to go with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ccconner777 said:

I was thinking of a way to convert a chaos warshrine and realized the warshrine chasis is about the same size as the new chaos lord's karkadrak mount. Ive got a new start collecting box and im so tempted to try it, but i hate to chop up such a nice model for a conversion...

I think the Karkadrak is significantly smaller, I can check for you tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ccconner777 said:

I was thinking of a way to convert a chaos warshrine and realized the warshrine chasis is about the same size as the new chaos lord's karkadrak mount. Ive got a new start collecting box and im so tempted to try it, but i hate to chop up such a nice model for a conversion...

I'm pretty sure the Karkadrak is way smaller than the Warshrine's "chasis." Also, the Chaos Lord on Karkadrak has a smaller base, too (90mm overall vs the 120x92mm of the warshrine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ccconner777 said:

I was thinking of a way to convert a chaos warshrine and realized the warshrine chasis is about the same size as the new chaos lord's karkadrak mount. Ive got a new start collecting box and im so tempted to try it, but i hate to chop up such a nice model for a conversion...

This was my warshrine. I used thundertusk, chaos chariot and darkoat chieftain with marader bits.

received_2238379852912582.jpeg

Edited by Nordrim
  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gistradagis said:

I'm pretty sure the Karkadrak is way smaller than the Warshrine's "chasis." Also, the Chaos Lord on Karkadrak has a smaller base, too (90mm overall vs the 120x92mm of the warshrine).

I measured it. The chassis doesnt actually take up the whole 120mm base. It is almost exactly 90mm long. The karkadrak model is only slightly shorter than the 90mm base it goes on. Still, the warshine does look quite heavy, so id have to dry fit them to get a better idea of if the proportions look right. Definitely a possibility that the karkadrak will look a bit small

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ccconner777 said:

I measured it. The chassis doesnt actually take up the whole 120mm base. It is almost exactly 90mm long. The karkadrak model is only slightly shorter than the 90mm base it goes on. Still, the warshine does look quite heavy, so id have to dry fit them to get a better idea of if the proportions look right. Definitely a possibility that the karkadrak will look a bit small

Covering the base is actually the least important part. If you want a legal conversion, the new model needs to maintain a similar physical outline/profile for stuff such as LoS. That's the part you need to be particularly certain of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an awesome (Stonehorn + Warshrine) Warshrine Conversion that I plan on totally, shamelessly, copying.  I don't really like the derpy mutants on the stock warshrine.

Note that the image below is actually a video of the shrine rotating so, if you like it, I recommend you click on it for a better look.
 

 

Edited by begleysm
  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ccconner777 said:

I was thinking of a way to convert a chaos warshrine and realized the warshrine chasis is about the same size as the new chaos lord's karkadrak mount. Ive got a new start collecting box and im so tempted to try it, but i hate to chop up such a nice model for a conversion...

I had that idea when I first saw the box, but having both models I decided it‘d look too „meh“ and would not be worth the effort.

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gistradagis said:

Covering the base is actually the least important part. If you want a legal conversion, the new model needs to maintain a similar physical outline/profile for stuff such as LoS. That's the part you need to be particularly certain of.

Hahaha if someone is gonna get bent out of shape about a conversion having a slightly different silhouette than the original model that isnt someone i want to play with anyway. Im not a big competitive player but the handful of tournaments i have been to have had no issues with converted or proxied models as long as they are on the proper base and are identifiable as the model they count as. A warshine conversion being an inch shorter than the original is going to have 0 effect on games because 1: the warshrine totem will still make the model too tall to hide anyway and 2: i wouldnt be hiding my warshine behind terrain even if i could, itll be right up behind my marauders or warriors. My concern with the idea is purely asthetic (will the karkadrak look big enough to be carrying the shrine) and economical (do i want to hack up that nice model for a conversion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ccconner777 said:

Hahaha if someone is gonna get bent out of shape about a conversion having a slightly different silhouette than the original model that isnt someone i want to play with anyway. Im not a big competitive player but the handful of tournaments i have been to have had no issues with converted or proxied models as long as they are on the proper base and are identifiable as the model they count as. A warshine conversion being an inch shorter than the original is going to have 0 effect on games because 1: the warshrine totem will still make the model too tall to hide anyway and 2: i wouldnt be hiding my warshine behind terrain even if i could, itll be right up behind my marauders or warriors. My concern with the idea is purely asthetic (will the karkadrak look big enough to be carrying the shrine) and economical (do i want to hack up that nice model for a conversion).

That's why I talked about legal conversions. If you play casual games/tourneys, then you can do pretty much whatever you want. If you play anything GW-related, you have to follow their rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, begleysm said:

Here is an awesome (Stonehorn + Warshrine) Warshrine Conversion that I plan on totally, shamelessly, copying.  I don't really like the derpy mutants on the stock warshrine.

Note that the image below is actually a video of the shrine rotating so, if you like it, I recommend you click on it for a better look.
 

 

I‘ll steal this :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2020 at 4:48 PM, NJohansson said:

I don’t know what type of list you are playing - but I would  guess it is warrior heavy (from your feeling that the book is useless). Try Be’lake, 2-3 units of marauders, the Gaunt summoner, Khorne DP and the Sorcerer Lords (both varieties) and then add some allies (the blue scribe for example) and you should really start feeling that the army definitely can compete. I currently have loads of success with both Despoilers and Cabal, defiantly not overpowered but I have faced very competitive builds and don’t feel like it is game over from the beginning.

So, removing 90% of StD core units and replace them with units from other books  makes StD more competitive.

Yep, that will definitely do, reducing StD players hate of a horrible written book.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slaves was meant to be added to the other gods and vice versa.   Also the only thing he suggested was taking a single allied unit, everything else was straight from the StD book.    Problem is Slaves has a few expensive units and heroes, so on its own its hard to be truly competitive and many of those units tend to fair much much better when used under the single gods lists.  So while its a horrible book, on its own right, mostly because they simply added in all that warcry stuff that can't have marks and didn't really improve on some really old and ugly kits (chosen/mauraders on foot) or even just update the mauraders to Dark oath to go with the two new maurader characters that were added.   It's a book that felt more like a rushed stop gap to make use of older kits till they get around to making new ones.   That being said, I play Khorne and Tzneetch as well as StD army that I am working on.  I have used some StD units in my tzneetch army to shore up some weakness and have seen many Blades of Khorne lists adding in some units too.  Its just a perspective on things.   Also my gripe with the book is the crappy and limited artefacts/traits.   I hate how they added a limited amount and none are great or worth unit,  nor did they add a generic undivided list that can be used no matter which subfaction you roll with.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kurrilino said:

So, removing 90% of StD core units and replace them with units from other books  makes StD more competitive.

Yep, that will definitely do, reducing StD players hate of a horrible written book.

Herr we go again... why are we back on “this book sucks track”? The funny thing is that STD have been placing high (right before the Corona stop to tournament) but still “it sucks”. Lot of people come with various advice on builds - still it sucks. The only real reason that I am seeing is “I can’t play with knights and warriors competitively”. Here you probably are right - but few people say that Fleshcourt sucks because ghoul swarms are not viable, or that Slaanesh is not top tier just because you must use KoS. Heck - sometimes I like playing Tzeentch without casters, but I don’t get upset that that is far from an optimal build. Learn to accept and adapt. Or simply play another army (without any disrespect - there are other knights in shiny and oversized armor armies in AoS- some much more competitive if you want loads of such models).

As to criticizing the advice to use a 120 points model as an ally in a 2000 point game... priceless comment. I regularly use Gaunt summoners on discs in Tzeentch as well as Be’lakor due to them being fantastic models - By said logic DoT must really be a worthless army.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NJohansson said:

Herr we go again... why are we back on “this book sucks track”? The funny thing is that STD have been placing high (right before the Corona stop to tournament) but still “it sucks”. Lot of people come with various advice on builds - still it sucks. The only real reason that I am seeing is “I can’t play with knights and warriors competitively”. Here you probably are right - but few people say that Fleshcourt sucks because ghoul swarms are not viable, or that Slaanesh is not top tier just because you must use KoS. Heck - sometimes I like playing Tzeentch without casters, but I don’t get upset that that is far from an optimal build. Learn to accept and adapt. Or simply play another army (without any disrespect - there are other knights in shiny and oversized armor armies in AoS- some much more competitive if you want loads of such models).

As to criticizing the advice to use a 120 points model as an ally in a 2000 point game... priceless comment. I regularly use Gaunt summoners on discs in Tzeentch as well as Be’lakor due to them being fantastic models - By said logic DoT must really be a worthless army.
 

Well, StD are supposed to be that heavy armored forces.

If i like bunch of naked guys i play Khorne, if i want strong magic, i play Tzeench. So yes, people want to play warriors, knights and chariots.

It's like telling a Tzeench player, your army is stronger without magic and treachery and if you don't like it play another army.

This is you guys only and ever repeating argument. Go play another army.

But you know what? People play the warriors since 10+ years and don't want to play another army, they want their gaming experience, they had since forever.

 

So please spare me this, go play another army. If i want to ignore facts and look away if something is wrong, i would join a church.

But i want to play warhammer like i used to the last 10+ years. And yes, this book sucks epic, doesn't matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kurrilino said:

So please spare me this, go play another army. If i want to ignore facts and look away if something is wrong, i would join a church.

But i want to play warhammer like i used to the last 10+ years. And yes, this book sucks epic, doesn't matter how you look at it.

We'll spare you the 'go play another army' bit if you spare us the constant complaints about the army. Get over it, please. The army has changed, just like every army changes when a new book drops. Warriors are not the best choice anymore. Complaining won't fix it. Ranting won't fix it. We might see a minor points adjustment in a GHB or errata in the future, but even that's not guaranteed. 

Figure out a way to make it work (which, by the way, if you look a couple pages back there was someone actually making a constructive post on how to run warriors) or give up, those are the only two ways you'll be happy. Otherwise be bitter and hate the book until the next one is released, but don't do it here and waste everyone's time. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kurrilino said:

But you know what? People play the warriors since 10+ years and don't want to play another army, they want their gaming experience, they had since forever.

So please spare me this, go play another army. If i want to ignore facts and look away if something is wrong, i would join a church.

But i want to play warhammer like i used to the last 10+ years. And yes, this book sucks epic, doesn't matter how you look at it.

But this is your main problem - it is not the same game as it was 10+ years ago. The world is new, the setting is new, the system is new - the fluff is vastly different. 

As to your criticism of the book - no one is looking away, people are simply pointing out that there are options if you want the book to be competitive. If you want to play a fluffy friendly game agains a similarly narrative “soft” opponent then the book provides you with plenty of options. If you want to have a really strong tournament build you better focus on the 25-30 percent of what is competitive. The thing is all armies are this way - some units are strong some are weak - not one army out there let’s you play competitively with anything you want. Here is IMHO your main error in assessing the book, you want your favorite units to be competitive - since they are not the book is “garbage”. 

On a related note - I started playing chaos in the nineties and I don’t recall warriors ever being on the competitive side of things. They have always been overpriced and underperforming.  Great lords, monsters, magic - but the big warrior units were seldom what dominated. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...