AoS 3 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion

[Chumphammer]

As Chris Tomlin did with AOS 2.0

Here is the new thread for discussing Daughters of Khaine. With the imminent release of AoS 3.0 (and a lot of the info already being out there), now is the time for us to start afresh on TGA.

[Chumphammer]

So, I have actually been looking at thinking about the core Battalion mechanic and I actually think going Battle Regiment and Command Entourage is the way to go

Yes, We lose out on "1 extra CP at the start of one of your hero phases" but tbh to be 4 drops in a field where I a lot of people will be going to 5 drops because Warlord looks better at 1st glance gives us the option in many games of who goes 1st and being able to get our buffs up/alpha strike on

Edited June 21, 2021 by Chumphammer

[Sivyre]

2 hours ago, Chumphammer said:

So, I have actually been looking at thinking about the core Battalion mechanic and I actually think going Battle Regiment and Command Entourage is the way to go

Yes, We lose out on "1 extra CP at the start of one of your hero phases" but tbh to be 4 drops in a field where I a lot of people will be going to 5 drops because Warlord looks better at 1st glance gives us the option in many games of who goes 1st and being able to get our buffs up/alpha strike on

Depending on the list and the opponents army, it might be viable to do the warlord + battle regiment. It will be interesting as most armies are looking at battle regiment + dealers choice for their second core battalion.

Although like you, and the abundance of CP, entourage does look enticing. 
This also happens to be an advantage for DoK as morathi is a general in addition to your chosen general, which covers the need for 2 leaders (generals) - assuming this doesn’t change in the new book. Some armies simply don’t have access to 2 generals on the table so care needs to be used if those armies simply use the battle regiment core battalion.

First turns will be more up in the air, or so it seems.

List that do not field morathi-khaine are limited to vanguard + which ever core battalion that requires a leader (your general) if your looking to have 2 core battalions, otherwise likely to just use battle regiment for the 1 drop. Or an unlikely scenario no core battalions at all - and DoK can forego grand artillery as we don’t have those artillery pieces.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sivyre

[Fred1245]

41 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

Depending on the list and the opponents army, it might be viable to do the warlord + battle regiment. It will be interesting as most armies are looking at battle regiment + dealers choice for their second core battalion.

Although like you, and the abundance of CP, entourage does look enticing. 
This also happens to be an advantage for DoK as morathi is a general in addition to your chosen general, which covers the need for 2 leaders (generals) - assuming this doesn’t change in the new book. Some armies simply don’t have access to 2 generals on the table so care needs to be used if those armies simply use the battle regiment core battalion.

First turns will be more up in the air, or so it seems.

List that do not field morathi-khaine are limited to vanguard + which ever core battalion that requires a leader (your general) if your looking to have 2 core battalions, otherwise likely to just use battle regiment for the 1 drop. Or an unlikely scenario no core battalions at all - and DoK can forego grand artillery as we don’t have those artillery pieces.

Commanders don't have to be your general. They just have to have the leader battlefield role. 

You're conflating the two but Leader =/= general.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Fred1245

[Fyrm]

41 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

 and DoK can forego grand artillery as we don’t have those artillery pieces.

Someone else already pointed out that commanders don’t need to be your general, but I’ll add that we’re also locked out of Linebreaker as we have 1 monster, which is our unique hero. 
 

unless allied units can be put into core battalions? I’m still unsure on if that’s allowed. Then we could get both artillery and monsters for the battalions. 

[Fred1245]

3 minutes ago, Fyrm said:

Someone else already pointed out that commanders don’t need to be your general, but I’ll add that we’re also locked out of Linebreaker as we have 1 monster, which is our unique hero. 
 

unless allied units can be put into core battalions? I’m still unsure on if that’s allowed. Then we could get both artillery and monsters for the battalions. 

Doesn't have to be a monster, just has to be a non-leader behemoth. You can do it with 2-3 Avatars of Khaine.

 

[Sivyre]

1 hour ago, Fred1245 said:

Commanders don't have to be your general. They just have to have the leader battlefield role. 

You're conflating the two but Leader =/= general.

This topic has been discussed on several occasions and the consensus is that the ‘commander’ requirement is your general and not filled by any hero - hence why the sub commander wording exists.

There is only ever 1 commander just as there was only ever 1 general with the few exceptions.

Day 1 FAQ will rectify this.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sivyre

[Fred1245]

5 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

This topic has been discussed on several occasions and the consensus is that the ‘commander’ requirement is your general and not filled by any hero - hence why the sub commander wording exists.

 

It literally says Commander: Leader. The word 'General' isn't in there at all.

Commander isn't a thing that exists in current rules, Leader is already a defined battlefield role. The only reason the Commander tag exists at all is to differentiate it from sub commanders.

Sub-Commander says: Leader with a wound characteristic less than 10. By your logic, sub commanders can only be General's with less than 10 wounds as the entries are EXACTLY THE SAME except for that clause. Reality is that it's just forcing you to make your high wound Leaders your Commander and you low wound leaders your Sub-Commanders.

Add to that the Monster unit Icon using the Behemouth battlefield role to define itself as part of the precedent and it's pretty obvious that all they're doing is stopping you from having 3 KoS as you battalion leaders.

So it's not true RAW and it's stupid RAI to make this whole mix and match battalion system that only a handful of armies can use. It would basically make battle regiment the default choice for EVERYONE.

I don't know who 'the consensus' is but their consensus doesn't make any sense RAW or RAI.

[Sivyre]

3 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

It literally says Commander: Leader. The word 'General' isn't in there at all.

Commander isn't a thing that exists in current rules, Leader is already a defined battlefield role. The only reason the Commander tag exists at all is to differentiate it from sub commanders.

Sub-Commander says: Leader with a wound characteristic less than 10. By your logic, sub commanders can only be General's with less than 10 wounds as the entries are EXACTLY THE SAME except for that clause. Reality is that it's just forcing you to make your high wound Leaders your Commander and you low wound leaders your Sub-Commanders.

Add to that the Monster unit Icon using the Behemouth battlefield role to define itself as part of the precedent and it's pretty obvious that all they're doing is stopping you from having 3 KoS as you battalion leaders.

So it's not true RAW and it's stupid RAI to make this whole mix and match battalion system that only a handful of armies can use. It would basically make battle regiment the default choice for EVERYONE.

I don't know who 'the consensus' is but their consensus doesn't make any sense RAW or RAI.

While we use general now in 2.0, it’s believed commander will take the new meaning of general. And the general wording will be obsolete just as ward will replace DPR/FNP and the likes.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sivyre

[Fred1245]

4 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

While we use general now in 2.0, it’s believed commander will take the new meaning of general. And the general wording will be obsolete just as ward will replace DPR/FNP and the likes.

We've already seen the the entire rules spoiled and that didn't happen.

All of the unit markers have been defined already.

Commander: Leader

Sub-Commander: Leader with less than 10 wounds.

[Sivyre]

1 minute ago, Fred1245 said:

We've already seen the the entire rules spoiled and that didn't happen.

All of the unit markers have been defined already.

Commander: Leader

Sub-Commander: Leader with less than 10 wounds.

Yes and in 2.0 we appoint a general and in 3.0 we will appoint a commander

[Chumphammer]

NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY!!!🤣

[Sivyre]

1 minute ago, Chumphammer said:

NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY!!!🤣

GW strikes again

[Fred1245]

1 minute ago, Sivyre said:

Yes and in 2.0 we appoint a general and in 3.0 we will appoint a commander

Except we won't because we still appoint a general, as was spoiled by command abilities stating they could be given within 18" of your GENERAL.

[Fred1245]

3 minutes ago, Chumphammer said:

NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY!!!🤣

Not when people are making up rules that do not and have not existed whole cloth.

We've known general's were still around for weeks.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Fred1245

[Sivyre]

8 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

Not when people are making up rules that do not and have not existed whole cloth.

We've known general's were still around for weeks.

Then enlighten us what exactly is the purpose of a commander? As it is we will just simply slide that ‘leader’ keyword where we please to fulfill core battalion requirements with no restrictions whatsoever meaning the whole commander and sub commander line needs not to exist as it will simply bare no restrictions by your logic.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sivyre

[Fred1245]

11 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

Then enlighten us what exactly is the purpose of a commander? As it is we will just simply slide that ‘leader’ keyword where we please to fulfill core battalion requirements with no restrictions whatsoever meaning the whole commander and sub commander line needs not to exist as it will simply bare no restrictions by your logic.

The ONLY reasons those distinctions exist is to limit how many high wound heroes you can take in 1 battalion and to force you to take small heroes. It means you can't have The Shadow Queen and a Cauldron in the same Battalion.

It is a 100% gameplay only distinction Also, it's not a Keyword, Leader is a battlefield role like battleline is.  Commander has no meaning beyond 'Leader you take in a battalion'. You can just cast a magic word spell and make a unit of Grots a commander because they lack the Leader battlefield role.

Also the Core rules say General like...100 times.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Fred1245

[Sivyre]

5 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

The ONLY reasons those distinctions exist is to limit how many high wound heroes you can take in 1 battalion and to force you to take small heroes. It means you can't have The Shadow Queen and a Cauldron in the same Battalion.

It is a 100% gameplay only distinction Also, it's not a Keyword, Leader is a battlefield role like battleline is.  Commander has no meaning beyond 'Leader you take in a battalion'. You can just cast a magic word spell and make a unit of Grots a commander because they lack the Leader battlefield role.

Also the Core rules say General like...100 times.

I see, makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. English is my 4th language and so understanding some things get by me and why I must edit a 100 times.

[Fred1245]

3 minutes ago, Sivyre said:

I see, makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. English is my 4th language and so understanding some things get by me and why I must edit a 100 times.

I can see why it would be confusing to people who expect there to be some sort of rationale behind things like this.

I mean, why come up with 'sub-commander' and 'commander' when it's as simple as 'small leader' and 'any leaders'? 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Fred1245

[Sivyre]

6 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

I can see why it would be confusing to people who expect there to be some sort of rationale behind things like this.

I mean, why come up with 'sub-commander' and 'commander' when it's as simple as 'small leader' and 'any leaders'? 

Goal may to further not create restrictions on which models can be a commander - wounds wise.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sivyre

[Fyrm]

17 hours ago, Fred1245 said:

Doesn't have to be a monster, just has to be a non-leader behemoth. You can do it with 2-3 Avatars of Khaine.

 

Oh cool! I do still wish we had some generic monsters though. Maybe a giant bat-winged snake? Please GW?

[KrispyXIV]

On 6/21/2021 at 12:04 PM, Chumphammer said:

So, I have actually been looking at thinking about the core Battalion mechanic and I actually think going Battle Regiment and Command Entourage is the way to go

Yes, We lose out on "1 extra CP at the start of one of your hero phases" but tbh to be 4 drops in a field where I a lot of people will be going to 5 drops because Warlord looks better at 1st glance gives us the option in many games of who goes 1st and being able to get our buffs up/alpha strike on

This feels really obvious after you say it, but I'd been super focused on taking a Warlord and then... something else to go with it.

Strategist is nice, but the second enhancement is what I was going Warlord for.  Command Entourage gets me that while still allowing for very low drops.  This setup fits the Leader/Hero Suite I've been plugging into a lot of my draft lists (Morathi/TSQ, Hag Queen Cauldron, Medusa General) very well.

[Chumphammer]

How do people feel about Bloodwrack Vyper in 3.0?

Its 95 points now, but can be controlled and act every turn. 

My concerns about it are:

1: its 95pts. that is a fair chunk now
2: its a 7+ to cast, and we dont have my options for increase to cast, plus there is a lot of dispelling potential out there 
3: Is it worth the value? Yes, we can roll higer than somethings wounds to kill it, but in a lot of games if you actually get it off it will be dispelled before it can run around and get its worth (unless you get it off vs that hero/expensive 5W units and roll well)

 

[KrispyXIV]

3 hours ago, Chumphammer said:

How do people feel about Bloodwrack Vyper in 3.0?

Its 95 points now, but can be controlled and act every turn. 

My concerns about it are:

1: its 95pts. that is a fair chunk now
2: its a 7+ to cast, and we dont have my options for increase to cast, plus there is a lot of dispelling potential out there 
3: Is it worth the value? Yes, we can roll higer than somethings wounds to kill it, but in a lot of games if you actually get it off it will be dispelled before it can run around and get its worth (unless you get it off vs that hero/expensive 5W units and roll well)

 

Its less of a liability now since it can't turn around and eat your own sneks, and it activates twice as often while active.

Thats not nothing... but its going to get priority dispels from absolutely everyone, meaning its gonna be essentially a slot-machine.  Get lucky?  Its going to be nightmarish for the opponent.  Fail to get it off or have it dispelled?  Its going to be an expensive waste... 

I'm going to try it a few more games before deciding, but for now I think its better than it was - but still expensive, and unreliable.  

[Fred1245]

16 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

Its less of a liability now since it can't turn around and eat your own sneks, and it activates twice as often while active.

Thats not nothing... but its going to get priority dispels from absolutely everyone, meaning its gonna be essentially a slot-machine.  Get lucky?  Its going to be nightmarish for the opponent.  Fail to get it off or have it dispelled?  Its going to be an expensive waste... 

I'm going to try it a few more games before deciding, but for now I think its better than it was - but still expensive, and unreliable.  

I personally thought the tournament players that brought it frequently(and it was included in a lot of 'competitive' lists) were overvaluing it by quite a bit. With how hard it is to get any spell off reliably, even WITH Morathi, I'm not a huge fan of endless spells in general.

On the flip side, if you DO want to leverage our spellcasting, we now have more competition in terms of spell slots. +1 to save makes Mystic Shield a lot more valuable(especially if you're like me and you're not too enthralled by cauldrons at the moment), I still really like Anzipal as a harrassment tool, you're obviously going to want your lore spell and both Shackles and Emerald LifeSwarm are much more attractive picks than they were.