Stormcast and Orruk Warclans Battletomes - First Impressions

[jhamslam]

4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Anyone playing it that you can move after translocation is kidding themselves. There's just no possible chance that is anything other than bad editing. If they were going to throw out one of the fundamental rules of not only this game but 40k too - that you can't move after teleports - they would have made it very clear that's what they're doing, not done it in this weird, roundabout, unannounced way. It's obviously just a sloppy oversight, the same way that Celestine being technically immune to damage 1 weapons in 40k was an oversight. 

Fundamental rules? oh you mean like Piling in that LRL ignore?

Bruh power is expressed in the game by breaking or bending fundamental rules

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

As for a possible reason for this to be intentional: the interaction with Redeploy means that, if the opponent has a CP, a charge after translocate+move will only succeed if "movement (capped at 6") + 1d6" is equal or greater than 9", so it's basically 5+ roll for paladins, 4+ for 5" move units, 3+ for the others (since you can't finish your move closer than 3"). Much less certain than a gav bomb (gone but not forgotten).

Good catch!

Do we know if there is another ability with the same mechanic? An ability that allows to move after teleporting/set-up?
I think that Kruleboyz can do something like that, once per game, using a Command Trait/CV 6 Spell and a  Mount trait, but I'm not sure if it's in the same league as Translocation.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Beliman

[Zappgrot]

On 9/15/2021 at 7:38 AM, Beliman said:

There are a lot of answers for that question. Chose your poison:

• Change on philosophy for new edition.
• Different teams with diferent frameworks to work.
• Different dates of delivery.
• New edition with a big shakeup.
• Covid destroying all pipelines.
• Different lead designers working in the same products.
• Etc... [You get the point]

 

That's nice and all. But i have to run my oruks vs my friends LRL.  The extreem diffrance in options and interactions is crushing. 

[Beliman]

33 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

 

That's nice and all. But i have to run my oruks vs my friends LRL.  The extreem diffrance in options and interactions is crushing. 

I don't know if you play ScE or Orruks, but I think that they are not far behind Lumineth. And if that's the case, you could talk to your friend to build a list without 30 Sentinels and this kind of stuff.

Btw, I think that SCE new book can beat Lumineth and can table 90% of armies that don't have enough chaff.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Beliman

[Zappgrot]

35 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I don't know if you play ScE or Orruks, but I think that they are not far behind Lumineth. And if that's the case, you could talk to your friend to build a list without 30 Sentinels and this kind of stuff.

Btw, I think that SCE new book can beat Lumineth and can table 90% of armies that don't have enough chaff.

Well orruks obviusly. And while i can talk to my friend. It really isn't our job to ballance the game.  Sure if we want closer game we can do that. But we kind of spend money on gw's product whit the expectation of them doing that.    And yes SCE dragon spamm is going to be an competative stapple cause they are badly designed  ( as in they do everything ) and undercosted at the moment.

[Zappgrot]

5 hours ago, Marcvs said:

That's always good advice

As for a possible reason for this to be intentional: the interaction with Redeploy means that, if the opponent has a CP, a charge after translocate+move will only succeed if "movement (capped at 6") + 1d6" is equal or greater than 9", so it's basically 5+ roll for paladins, 4+ for 5" move units, 3+ for the others (since you can't finish your move closer than 3"). Much less certain than a gav bomb (gone but not forgotten).

Wut?

Isn't it 9-M+1d6 

since they redeploy afther you move.

So palladins 5+1d6 (bad)

redemers 4=+1d6 (decent)

the rest 3+1d6 (good) 

So as long as the opponent has a cp and space chargeing a specific unit will still be kind of hard. 

However you can easily threathen a large part of the opponents force when you teleport and they can only redeploy one unit

[Marcvs]

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

Good catch!

Do we know if there is another ability with the same mechanic? An ability that allows to move after teleporting/set-up?
I think that Kruleboyz can do something like that, once per game, using a Command Trait/CV 6 Spell and a  Mount trait, but I'm not sure if it's in the same league as Translocation.

maybe the barak zilfin once per game hero phase move / the interaction of the core battalion with fly high?

[Beliman]

17 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Well orruks obviusly. And while i can talk to my friend. It really isn't our job to ballance the game.  Sure if we want closer game we can do that. But we kind of spend money on gw's product whit the expectation of them doing that.    And yes SCE dragon spamm is going to be an competative stapple cause they are badly designed  ( as in they do everything ) and undercosted at the moment.

I wasn't talking about dragons. I was talking about dracoths, anihilators, retributors/protectors, translocation, vindictors, etc... Even if drakeguard are the new fotm, all this stuff use still really strong.

But I agree with you, playing between editons versus a top-list is not fan at all. But let's play a bit more games and see how it goes.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Beliman

[Marcvs]

2 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Wut?

Isn't it 9-M+1d6 

since they redeploy afther you move.

So palladins 5+1d6 (bad)

redemers 4=+1d6 (decent)

the rest 3+1d6 (good)

that's what I wrote?

if you want it in a clearer longer form here you go:

 

[whispersofblood]

26 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Well orruks obviusly. And while i can talk to my friend. It really isn't our job to ballance the game.  Sure if we want closer game we can do that. But we kind of spend money on gw's product whit the expectation of them doing that.    And yes SCE dragon spamm is going to be an competative stapple cause they are badly designed  ( as in they do everything ) and undercosted at the moment.

OW is a superior book to LRL when it comes to playing the game. LRL have a lot more flashing lights and tricks. I play both and there are a lot of IJ and BS lists I would dread fighting with even optimized LRL. KB I think are probably worst faction in the book, especially against LRL. 

Because of how Nations work the OW factions are actually significantly more flexible in their builds and the strategic approaches available. 

The problem with OW and SCE is that the sign posting isn't as extreme as it is in writing of something like LRL or the last tome. But, the lists really unfold once you start making choices.

With LRL you are really just reacting to the meta or what your opponent is bringing because you can't fit enough of your stuff to really dominate (short of 4 foxes). OW imo you set the tone of games and there is a lot of power in that, but also a lot of risk.

[NinthMusketeer]

Well finally was able to go through the whole book in-detail. Others have covered the a lot same criticisms I have of the mechanical design, though I want to particularly call out a couple things;

-The chart of once-per-game command abilities taken as enhancements is a poor replacement for losing warscroll command abilities entirely.

-While bloat has been addressed quite well in some places (see below), that was not extended to warscrolls. The three basic paladin units (retributors, protectors, devestators), the dracothian guard, and the annihilators just need to be one warscroll each with different weapon options. The options are well balanced with one another (credit to GW for this) and it would simply streamline things. Once a tome gets above 50 warscrolls or so having more is a BAD thing, not something to be proud of. And for that matter Neave, Astria, and Gavriel don't need their own warscrolls. Gavriel specifically would be fantastic as another weapon option for the Lord-Celestant on foot and GW would sell more that way.

-The Path to Glory content is a straight power upgrade where SCE get to be better because they got a battletome update. That isn't fun. It is hampering Crusade in 40k, it will be a drag on PtG. It also just dumps on the named stormhosts, with the build-your-own option being far superior unless one wants named characters.

 

That out of the way, on to things I like!

-While I miss the extra details for units covered in previous tomes, I understand the nature of needing to fit fluff for more units into a similar amount of space. And what has been included is good; it's well written and the traditional style of making an army seem super-potent shines because SCE actually are embodiments of that. I feel like all the major stormhosts were covered well and every unit got a brief on what it is and what it does. The extra emphasis on force organization with how different chambers and conclaves work is excellent, and the implementation of fluff for the new armour is just perfect. Great work and I loved it.

-There has been a lot of consolidation and bloat-cutting that I see as a good thing. Instead of wading through a half dozen inferior artifacts/traits for every one worth taking I can tell effort was made to just have a handful of options but make them all viable. Not always successful, but it is what it is. I would say this element was actually taken too far and inclusion of some more quirky, flavorful options would have been nice. In regards to warscrolls, I love the consolidation & standardization of weapon profiles; it just makes the game easier to play on a practical level.

-I initially recoiled at the slimmed-down subfactions, but having thought through I like it. Sub-factions were becoming too much where they were like entirely different armies within the army, where specific unit choices could be overpowered within one faction while being inferior everywhere else. It was a situation impossible to balance properly and we see that with only 1-3 subfactions per 2nd edition battletome being seen as viable on the tabletop. It would be nice to see each stormhost get it's own enhancement option, be it a command trait, artifact, etc. But overall I like the new implementation and I like the level of power the bonuses provide.

-The new version of stormkeeps is great in both theme and design. I feel it is well-balanced with its counterpart so that players can go either route without concern of handicapping themselves. It is an extra layer of customization that I will certainly enjoy.

[Ganigumo]

I haven't looked at the stormcast book, but the orruk warclans one doesn't impress me for a bunch of reasons, all of which ironjawz seem to have avoided (good for them!)

• Each army gets 3 subfactions (for a total of 9) one each of the bonesplitterz and kruleboyz is just awful (bonegrinz and skulbugz) and one each is a situational anti meta pick (Grinnin' Blades and Drakkfoot), with the third one of each not only being stronger than the others in all but the most favorable situations but being objectively strong abilities even outside of the book.
• Its incredible just how much stronger big yellers is than the other two, not only does it have a very strong ability in rerolling one hit per boltboy/ballista unit (which is a BIG deal on the ballistas) but it also opens up the book in a big way by turning on boltboy battleline which are a whole 60 points cheaper than the only other battleline option. As icing their ranged units get a small amount of extra range.
• Icebone is in a similar situation, they got a better ability, and are the only subfaction to get boarboy battleline, which is the only unit that didn't get nerfed.
• Wasn't the point of having less rules tied to a subfaction to make it easier to balance? Instead these are not only poorly balanced, but do a much worse job of actually representing themselves on the table and guiding listbuilding.
• Bonesplitterz seem to have gotten their wounds taxed hard, as the army didn't get significantly stronger outside of the icebone subfaction. This might also be the case for gutrippaz, who feel really expensive when trying to build lists around.
• Bonesplitterz seemed to almost exclusively lose rules, with very little gained in exchange.
• Kruleboyz, while not seeming to be necessarily weak, have a bunch of unecessarily complex rules to follow to get their buffs, all of which are trivial for boltboyz to fulfill, which doesn't help with the internal balance issue of big yellers (both the shaman and the target of the poison/elixir need to be out of combat, AND within 3", AND wholly within 12", AND the shaman can't cast spells, AND in the hero phase)
• Gutrippaz scareshields are awful, if the enemy is within 12" AND this unit isn't within 3" of an enemy AND the target isn't a hero or monster, AND you roll higher than their bravery on a 2d6 AND you get to add 1 for every 5 models in this unit you get a buff that countless units get for basically free.
• Swampcalla shaman's poison is better than any of the spells they can cast 90% of the time, so the army will rarely cast spells. Lack of bonuses to cast/unbind on Gobsprakk and his good unbind requiring a dice roll, even though its only once per game don't really make for an interesting pick.
• Maybe I'm crazy but Kruleboyz don't actually feel very kunning, I really think the army should have a command ability to retreat at the end of the combat phase. It would go a LONG way to making the army feel sneakier, and would let you do things like reapply scareshields and poisons at a cost.
• Loss of Command Abilities on warscrolls, this is an issue because it isn't going to last long. Before long nearly every non-wizard hero is still going to have a unique command ability, but these books won't because they wanted to start simpler or something (Ironjawz kind of dodge this with mighty destroyers)
• Consumable items everywhere. These are rarely good and nothing changed here with kruleboyz getting literally nothing but once per game artefacts. (The ironjawz one for +3 damage is still great though)
• Faction core battalions: They existed in white dwarf first, technically, but they shouldn't exist at all. At least the warclans ones are basically unplayably bad, but this won't be the case for every book. They even printed unique battalion effects in the GHB so its only a matter of time until we get the next changehost. At this point why did they even bother getting rid of warscroll battalions, why couldn't they have just given less stuff for free and printed some warscroll battalions any army could use. Warscroll battalions were arguably easier to balance since they had points attached.

I don't hate the book, but they made decisions here that I guarantee won't last the edition, and might not even be followed in the next battletome which will lead to some serious first book syndrome.

[yukishiro1]

The Orruk book is an odd mix of bland nerfs that look like the work of a company planning on discontinuing the line (pretty much all of Bonesplitterz), weirdly finnicky stuff with very questionable internal balance (KB), and just raw power that I'm not sure was fully thought out (e.x. IJ being able to use command abilities on 3 units for a single CP). I have a hard time saying it's a good book when the internal balance and just effort that seems to have gone into the various subfactions is so wildly different, but if you're just looking for something powerful, the book does seem to deliver on that front with the IJ part. 

[Gailon]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

-The Path to Glory content is a straight power upgrade where SCE get to be better because they got a battletome update. That isn't fun. It is hampering Crusade in 40k, it will be a drag on PtG. It also just dumps on the named stormhosts, with the build-your-own option being far superior unless one wants named characters.

This was particularly inexplicable to me. The entire Path to Glory section was a major disappointment honestly. It would have been fine, except they seemed to really lean heavy into PtG with this new edition, and talked up how great it was and how they really expanded it. But they haven't really made anything interesting here. Nothing special. 

Instead of making anything special, they made these super overpowered Stormhosts for no reason? Why do I suddenly get two abilities that are each stronger than a regular Stormhost ability? And I get to choose the ones I want? 

My current guess is that they drafted up these tables to choose abilities as an initial draft for how Stormhosts could work, but realized they were overpowered and impossible to balance so they scrapped them from the main rules, but rather than tossing them entirely, they thought they were fun and just said 'throw them in PtG.' 

Personally, we are about to start a PtG campaign with my group and I am going to play with a regular Stormhost.

[Beliman]

45 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Faction core battalions: They existed in white dwarf first, technically, but they shouldn't exist at all. At least the warclans ones are basically unplayably bad, but this won't be the case for every book. They even printed unique battalion effects in the GHB so its only a matter of time until we get the next changehost. At this point why did they even bother getting rid of warscroll battalions, why couldn't they have just given less stuff for free and printed some warscroll battalions any army could use. Warscroll battalions were arguably easier to balance since they had points attached.

You should be happy.

The first two books don't have any new effect. In other words, all Battalions bonus are still the same for all armies and that's your main complain.

Btw, that's not true 100% true because (ex.: there are armies that don't have Artillery) and need allies to fullfil some Core Battalions. I suppose that it will be fix'd with their unique core battalions.

 

[Ganigumo]

24 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The Orruk book is an odd mix of bland nerfs that look like the work of a company planning on discontinuing the line (pretty much all of Bonesplitterz), weirdly finnicky stuff with very questionable internal balance (KB), and just raw power that I'm not sure was fully thought out (e.x. IJ being able to use command abilities on 3 units for a single CP). I have a hard time saying it's a good book when the internal balance and just effort that seems to have gone into the various subfactions is so wildly different, but if you're just looking for something powerful, the book does seem to deliver on that front with the IJ part. 

targetting multiple things with one command ability is pretty powerful, but in practice it just means ironjawz play mostly like they did in 2nd edition (battalion & purchased CPs + ironfist), although I would agree this is a bit better since you might have some spare cp now)

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

You should be happy.

The first two books don't have any new effect. In other words, all Battalions bonus are still the same for all armies and that's your main complain.

Btw, that's not true 100% true because (ex.: there are armies that don't have Artillery) and need allies to fullfil some Core Battalions. I suppose that it will be fix'd with their unique core battalions.

 

The new books don't have new effects, but they've shown themselves willing to print them (see GHB). They've also been willing to print faction specific core battalions. I don't trust GW to not combine the two (as its a super obvious design space) and you don't need unique effects to create imbalance in the core battalion system (just look at the gargant ones for a good example, for every other army enhancements are taxed behind 3 heroes and taking an extra one will lock you to 4+ drops at the least. Gargants get to just spam their best units and get 2 of them if they want, or 3 drop and get an extra one, both of which are better than any other army has access too).

The entire point of core battalions was to address the inequities in warscroll battalions. By introducing faction specific ones we're going to basically be back where we started. Obviously some armies can't use some core battalions, and some core battalions are bad in some armies, but that was the problem with the entire core battalion system in the first place. you can't clothe the world by giving everyone a small t-shirt, but giving everyone a shirt that fits them would be inequitable.

The very existence of faction specific core battalions destroys the inequity that the system was supposed to eliminate, and completely invalidates the entire argument for getting rid of warscroll battalions unless every single faction specific core battalion is unplayably bad.

For reference my preference was to keep warscroll battalions, and possibly introduce a few generic warscroll battalions, in part because I knew a system like this wouldn't actually fix the balance, just shift things around and because I didn't trust them to not print faction specific core battalions anyways (its an obvious design space)

[Ferban]

I agree with some of the above in that I think faction specific core battalions (and Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics) aren't a great idea.  It's too easy to fall into the trap of creating BTs that are essentially "auto-complete" and battalions that will be overpowered.  And because they aren't available to all armies, the ones with the good battalions/GSs/BTs will have that much of an advantage.  (Although, to be perfectly fair, some armies have way easier grand strategies than others due to how they are set up - Tzeentch is basically guaranteed to do Prized Sorcery moreso than many other armies will be with any of the other GSs)

That said, I would actually like faction-specific stuff if they were highly situational and focused on flavor.  That way, they would be unlikely to have a significant impact on competitive play, while also providing additional "fun" tools for either narrative or casual play.  I think the SoB faction specific stuff has already shown that they aren't following this design philosophy, but I don't hate the idea intrinsically.  Just as applied. 

[Beliman]

9 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

The new books don't have new effects, but they've shown themselves willing to print them (see GHB). They've also been willing to print faction specific core battalions. I don't trust GW to not combine the two (as its a super obvious design space) and you don't need unique effects to create imbalance in the core battalion system (just look at the gargant ones for a good example, for every other army enhancements are taxed behind 3 heroes and taking an extra one will lock you to 4+ drops at the least. Gargants get to just spam their best units and get 2 of them if they want, or 3 drop and get an extra one, both of which are better than any other army has access too).

The entire point of core battalions was to address the inequities in warscroll battalions. By introducing faction specific ones we're going to basically be back where we started. Obviously some armies can't use some core battalions, and some core battalions are bad in some armies, but that was the problem with the entire core battalion system in the first place. you can't clothe the world by giving everyone a small t-shirt, but giving everyone a shirt that fits them would be inequitable.

The very existence of faction specific core battalions destroys the inequity that the system was supposed to eliminate, and completely invalidates the entire argument for getting rid of warscroll battalions unless every single faction specific core battalion is unplayably bad.

For reference my preference was to keep warscroll battalions, and possibly introduce a few generic warscroll battalions, in part because I knew a system like this wouldn't actually fix the balance, just shift things around and because I didn't trust them to not print faction specific core battalions anyways (its an obvious design space)

I suppose we agree to disagree.

I understand that Core Battalions started as the same ground for everyone, but that was fake. Some armies don't have Behemots or Artillery, so it was flawed since the begining.

Unique Core Battalions will not be equally good for everyone, that's something that I expect, but that's in another league of the main problem from Warscroll Battalions: organization chart was really important but a reward like [+1CP/+1Artefact/1-drop/+powerful ability] was a big deal too.

With Core Battalions, we have the same rewards for "everyone" (not true, but you get the point), that's a big step forward.

With Unique Core Battalions we still have the same rewards but it seems that you will not need any allies. And that's another step forward in my book. Not perfect, but good enough for me.

About abilities from GHB21, I don't have a problem if they are not printed as rewards from Unique Core Battalions. Don't get me wrong, you can complain as much as you want, I'm just poiting out that it did not happen yet.

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Beliman

[Ganigumo]

7 hours ago, Beliman said:

I suppose we agree to disagree.

I understand that Core Battalions started as the same ground for everyone, but that was fake. Some armies don't have Behemots or Artillery, so it was flawed since the begining.

Unique Core Battalions will not be equally good for everyone, that's something that I expect, but that's in another league of the main problem from Warscroll Battalions: organization chart was really important but a reward like [+1CP/+1Artefact/1-drop/+powerful ability] was a big deal too.

With Core Battalions, we have the same rewards for "everyone" (not true, but you get the point), that's a big step forward.

With Unique Core Battalions we still have the same rewards but it seems that you will not need any allies. And that's another step forward in my book. Not perfect, but good enough for me.

About abilities from GHB21, I don't have a problem if they are not printed as rewards from Unique Core Battalions. Don't get me wrong, you can complain as much as you want, I'm just poiting out that it did not happen yet.

 

My issue is they threw out an entire working system that could've easily been tuned to be more balanced, with a system that GW themselves claimed would be more equitable, only to immediately backtrack on it. They themselves pushed the idea that it was solving the balance issues of warscroll battalions (and the community was happy to jump on board and blame warscroll battalions for a lot the balance issues, despite evidence to the contrary).

The closer core battalions get to warscroll battalions, the less necessary it was to blanket ban them from matched play entirely, invalidating chunks of people's allegiances in the process. It wouldn't have been hard to remove the free benefits from warscroll battalions (artefact/cp/1drop) and create some universal warscroll battalions to cover those until the battletomes released (and as an added bonus it wouldn't have created the illusion that warscroll battalions were broken or they were making the system more equitable).

Basically my issue is mostly with GW throwing out warscroll battalions for what seems like no reason at this point. It would've been super easy to just remove the free cp/1drop/artefact from battalions and create a few universal ones to cover that, they could've just adjusted the rules instead of replacing it with something nearly identical.

I do think making core battalions more interesting is a good thing, but in the context of them getting rid of warscroll battalions its a baffling direction to go in.

[NinthMusketeer]

I think you both are making some really good points.

[yukishiro1]

They should have just made the core battalions flexible enough that everyone could fit into them - i.e. SoB get to count megas as either leaders or subleaders. Problem solved, no need for unique battalions. 

That said, they've all been bad enough so far that I don't think it really matters. I'm more disappointed about unique battle tactics and grand strategies. The GSes so far are terrible, but we're already seeing BTs giving the new factions an advantage because there is at least 1, and often 2 depending on your list in each book that you can add to the list of stuff you can pretty easily do, which makes it even harder to deny someone a BT even once per game (assuming they're playing smart and not making bad picks). The existence of unique ones also makes it much more difficult to shake things up in new GHBs, because you have to take into account all the unique ones you've doled out, too. 

They just never should have started down this path, there's no good that comes from it. Do whatever you want for narrative play, but matched play should have stayed with everyone using the same GS and BT tables. It's been a mess in 9th edition 40k, they should have learned from their mistake instead of doubling down on it in AOS too. 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Jymmy]

On 9/22/2021 at 12:15 PM, Beliman said:

Good catch!

Do we know if there is another ability with the same mechanic? An ability that allows to move after teleporting/set-up?
I think that Kruleboyz can do something like that, once per game, using a Command Trait/CV 6 Spell and a  Mount trait, but I'm not sure if it's in the same league as Translocation.

The city of Misthavn have a command ability which can be used to move a flanking unit which deploys near a hero.

[yukishiro1]

There's stuff that lets you move after a teleport/outflank by using a command ability, but never normally in the movement phase. E.g. you can use Mighty Destroyers to make a normal move in the hero phase after you teleport (though only if you teleport to somewhere more than 12" from enemies), or you can move after shooting in Living City after coming in from a board edge. But there's no other ability in the game that lets you make a normal movement phase move after a teleport. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

They should have just made the core battalions flexible enough that everyone could fit into them - i.e. SoB get to count megas as either leaders or subleaders. Problem solved, no need for unique battalions. 

That said, they've all been bad enough so far that I don't think it really matters. I'm more disappointed about unique battle tactics and grand strategies. The GSes so far are terrible, but we're already seeing BTs giving the new factions an advantage because there is at least 1, and often 2 depending on your list in each book that you can add to the list of stuff you can pretty easily do, which makes it even harder to deny someone a BT even once per game (assuming they're playing smart and not making bad picks). The existence of unique ones also makes it much more difficult to shake things up in new GHBs, because you have to take into account all the unique ones you've doled out, too. 

They just never should have started down this path, there's no good that comes from it. Do whatever you want for narrative play, but matched play should have stayed with everyone using the same GS and BT tables. It's been a mess in 9th edition 40k, they should have learned from their mistake instead of doubling down on it in AOS too. 

 

Yeah like giving the army where everything is a psyker a secondary objective for doing more damage in the psychic phase when most armies don't even half half the psychic denial/output they have...

Now imagine giving lumitheth or tzeentch a tactic for casting a spell on a 10+ or doing more damage in the hero phase...

Or bonereapers a tactic for reviving x wounds worth of models, idoneth for killing a battleline in turn 3.

A khorne grand strategy for getting every battleline friend or foe killed would be kinda fun tho as bad as it would be to try to do.