The Winter Rules Update

[Freejack02]

15 hours ago, vinnyt said:

Imperator
Relictor with translocation

5 Protectors
2x5 Retributors 

6 Grandhammer Annihilators
6 Raptors

list is a 1 drop 

So in a list where the purpose is to utilize Paladins, you stick in a 6-block of Annhilators and a 6-block of Raptors... which will do 90% of the heavy lifting for the entire force. I think it's possible you unintentionally stumbled upon what SCE players aren't too crazy about.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Freejack02

[Jaskier]

3 hours ago, Zeblasky said:

While I don't want to go on about proving that Blisbarbs are better or the same as Irondrakes as they are quite different units with different roles... But if we're talking about those 2 things, well...

 

It really sucks to rely on Soulscream bridge because of the fact that you need it to be casted and not unbound or especially auto unbound. And when you have 800-900 points in your army all based around that bridge going off and teleporting you buffed Irondrakes and it just does not go off or gets auto denied... It is kinda game ending in a lot of cases. And in Living City Irondrakes are kinda bad. You can't really buff them from deep strike, and their range limits them by a lot. That's why I use Sisters of the Watch there instead, as they were secretly very good in Living City for a loooong time. Not as broken as Fulminators of course, just good.

I also use Sisters of the Watch in my Living City, but the Drakes are still very much a valid option there I've found; their output is quite similar (accounting for the torpedo) when both units are unbuffed, so even on the drop unbuffed it's not terrible. The main reason to use them over Sisters is the save boost, as otherwise the extra 4" threat range (and extra 2" with StFA) and free Unleash Hell work out better. 

The Bridge limitation is very matchup dependent, but generally the odds of running into the kind of list that auto stops it isn't too high. Like, outside of those matchups, it's extremely reliable thanks to the plethora of casting bonuses Cities can get. That is a big part of why those lists do consistently go 4-1. 

Just to reiterate, I'm poking fun at a post that was very deliberately focusing on the Drakes lack of mobility and unbuffed damage, ignoring the fact that buffed Drakes have a much, much higher output than Blissbarbs could ever potentially reach given their comparative lack of potential buffs, and that Cities have multiple ways of addressing the mobility issue. It's poking fun at an argument very clearly being made in bad faith because, as someone who has experience with both - especially the Blissbarbs - and as you attest, they fill different roles entirely; Irondrakes murder things, Blissbarbs poke for Depravity points. Note that I haven't remarked their points should have gone up or anything - it validates my choice to use Sisters - but the comparisons being made were just disingenuous. 

The irony of the person (not you!) using those bad faith comparisons calling me a troll is just absurd. The "it hasn't gone 5-0!" argument (not yours, theirs) is also silly and reductive. First, we've got a numerical lack of tournament data due to COVID compared to pre-COVID. Second, there's plenty of armies that go 4-1 consistently but don't podium/go 5-0 because they get drawn against their "one" bad matchup (this is why I very commonly see Sons of Behemat go 4-1 locally.) Third, a unit's worth often outshines the allegiance they are in. If you took the Stormdrake Guard warscroll at their old points cost and chucked them into Beasts of Chaos, the Stormdrake Guard warscroll itself would still be overpowered, it would just be surrounded by weaker units and allegiance rules; it would still require adjustment, though not necessarily as much of course. The idea of course is that the weaker units get brought up, but seems like we'll have to wait for the GHB for a bigger revamp. The argument that a unit can't possibly be overpowered if they aren't in a 5-0 list is just silly and completely ignores the player, dice and matchup aspects of each individual game. 

Also, for the last time (again, not addressed to you that I quoted 😅) the Amulet of Destiny change IS a nerf to Sons of Behemat, and it's arguably a bigger nerf for them than any other army, as they had the most 'valuable' model to put it on and their entire shtick is they're a damage check army. A core rule change that directly negatively impacts an army is still a nerf to that army, especially when that army reaped greater comparable benefit from that rule than other armies.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Jaskier

[stratigo]

16 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Purely personal feeling but I think this is actually correct, in the sense that they want to shorten the duration of a game of Age of Sigmar to better compete with new and faster miniature games (Marvel Crisis Protocol, A Song of Ice and Fire...) -of course they also introduced rules which slow it down, like out of turn actions and coherency rules, but that's another story). If you can start killing each other in t1 a) there's less stuff around in further turns and b) maybe one day you can play a game over 4 rounds

Both of which accomplish this by being smaller.

 

ASOIF absolutely does not have a faster ruleset, jut less moveable piece, and rank and flank units move faster

[Marcvs]

20 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Both of which accomplish this by being smaller.

 

ASOIF absolutely does not have a faster ruleset, jut less moveable piece, and rank and flank units move faster

sure, but the question is not how they achieve it, it's just the result. I have 0 clue on consumers' preferences and so on, but I think Age of Sigmar developers/GW managers might believe that it's easier to sell a game you can play in under two hours than one which requires four to complete a match.

[Joseph Mackay]

On 12/23/2021 at 6:34 AM, PrimeElectrid said:

SCE did very well yes; but also have lost almost all their tools/ delivery mechanisms to get melee units into combat. Both can be true.

There is exactly one way of reliably boosting a charge in the Stormcast book: one thunderstrike unit per turn from  7” out of scions under 4w with an imperatant; assuming you aren’t playing Tooth and Nail. That’s it. No other sources of +x to charge exist. That’s a huge number of caveats. SCE start moving after teleport and GW nuked it to rapturous applause. 

Meanwhile that same GW hand out a 3d6 charge aura with just a 12” clause to every single destruction unit, every turn, in armies that can really abuse it way more, like it’s no big deal. So yeah a little salty.

m4 paladins: can you help us get into combat? GW: no, you move or roll a 9+ unaided

m4 ardboys: can you help us get into combat? Gw: sure here’s a teleport and a hero phase move and move again and a 3d6 charge and a musician 

With the exception of Ironjawz (apparently), Destruction as a whole is the weakest set of factions in the game, vs Stormcast who, arguably aren’t “great” (I disagree however) but always seem to have a few negative play experience tricks (Gavireals old command ability stacking to guarantee charges from deepstrike, Evocators and Sequitors being purposely undercosted to sell new models, to name a few). I main Bonesplitterz in AoS3, I have no sympathy for Stormcast and any nerfs they may receive or tricks they can’t do that others can

[Zeblasky]

9 hours ago, Jaskier said:

I also use Sisters of the Watch in my Living City, but the Drakes are still very much a valid option there I've found; their output is quite similar (accounting for the torpedo) when both units are unbuffed, so even on the drop unbuffed it's not terrible. The main reason to use them over Sisters is the save boost, as otherwise the extra 4" threat range (and extra 2" with StFA) and free Unleash Hell work out better. 

The Bridge limitation is very matchup dependent, but generally the odds of running into the kind of list that auto stops it isn't too high. Like, outside of those matchups, it's extremely reliable thanks to the plethora of casting bonuses Cities can get. That is a big part of why those lists do consistently go 4-1. 

Just to reiterate, I'm poking fun at a post that was very deliberately focusing on the Drakes lack of mobility and unbuffed damage, ignoring the fact that buffed Drakes have a much, much higher output than Blissbarbs could ever potentially reach given their comparative lack of potential buffs, and that Cities have multiple ways of addressing the mobility issue. It's poking fun at an argument very clearly being made in bad faith because, as someone who has experience with both - especially the Blissbarbs - and as you attest, they fill different roles entirely; Irondrakes murder things, Blissbarbs poke for Depravity points. Note that I haven't remarked their points should have gone up or anything - it validates my choice to use Sisters - but the comparisons being made were just disingenuous. 

The irony of the person (not you!) using those bad faith comparisons calling me a troll is just absurd. The "it hasn't gone 5-0!" argument (not yours, theirs) is also silly and reductive. First, we've got a numerical lack of tournament data due to COVID compared to pre-COVID. Second, there's plenty of armies that go 4-1 consistently but don't podium/go 5-0 because they get drawn against their "one" bad matchup (this is why I very commonly see Sons of Behemat go 4-1 locally.) Third, a unit's worth often outshines the allegiance they are in. If you took the Stormdrake Guard warscroll at their old points cost and chucked them into Beasts of Chaos, the Stormdrake Guard warscroll itself would still be overpowered, it would just be surrounded by weaker units and allegiance rules; it would still require adjustment, though not necessarily as much of course. The idea of course is that the weaker units get brought up, but seems like we'll have to wait for the GHB for a bigger revamp. The argument that a unit can't possibly be overpowered if they aren't in a 5-0 list is just silly and completely ignores the player, dice and matchup aspects of each individual game. 

Also, for the last time (again, not addressed to you that I quoted 😅) the Amulet of Destiny change IS a nerf to Sons of Behemat, and it's arguably a bigger nerf for them than any other army, as they had the most 'valuable' model to put it on and their entire shtick is they're a damage check army. A core rule change that directly negatively impacts an army is still a nerf to that army, especially when that army reaped greater comparable benefit from that rule than other armies.

Math wise Drakes were slightly better and more reliable with their shots out of the box, but after recent points nerf Sisters once again took the lead. And while Sisters are quite more swingy (20 of them can do anywhere between 2 and 12 mortals in my experience), a simple all out attack or Nomad aura can make them quite more effective. Add to that Sisters better mobility, free Unleash hell and especially the fact that they, unlike Irondrakes, ignore save stacking, and the choice is obvious. But then there is the range... and oh man, the amount of times that extra 2 range on Sisters helped me to hit things I wanted to hit right from the deepstrike... I just can't imaging how frustrating it would have been if I deepstriked Irondrakes instead. So teleport is kinda a must have for them.

Sure, Hurricanum with mage can cast the Bridge with +2, buuuut I'd say chances of running into Teclis, Stormcasts with auto unbind or Nagash were pretty high before. And even then, if you mage is in range of unbind, it's a bit too much of RNG.

Here however I would have to kinda disagree. Cities have only one real way of making Irondrakes work well, and that is Bridge. Not bad, but not very reliable either. Sure, if you take them in Tempest Eye with all the proper support, buff them and teleport them at the right target, they will wreck almost everything, but for Blissbarbs, you don't need all that. Just run them to targets, may be throw in Curse in the mix, shoot, and that's it. Blissbarbs won't do too much damage, but they can operate on their own (they are also great at depravity points generation, can't forget about that). Irondrakes can destroy armies, but need a lot of support and synergies for that, basically taking half of your army points to work. Which is better in their respected rosters? Honestly, hard to say. But I have to say that at the very least, Bissbarbs are definetly not as bad some would like to claim. They are nothing special, just easy to use and can do a good damage and generate Depravity with great mobility, while leaving the rest of your army to to their things.

Btw, Amulet nerf was quite needed, but I'm quite sad that my Dreadlord is quite more squishy now because of that x)

[Jaskier]

53 minutes ago, Zeblasky said:

Math wise Drakes were slightly better and more reliable with their shots out of the box, but after recent points nerf Sisters once again took the lead. And while Sisters are quite more swingy (20 of them can do anywhere between 2 and 12 mortals in my experience), a simple all out attack or Nomad aura can make them quite more effective. Add to that Sisters better mobility, free Unleash hell and especially the fact that they, unlike Irondrakes, ignore save stacking, and the choice is obvious. But then there is the range... and oh man, the amount of times that extra 2 range on Sisters helped me to hit things I wanted to hit right from the deepstrike... I just can't imaging how frustrating it would have been if I deepstriked Irondrakes instead. So teleport is kinda a must have for them.

Sure, Hurricanum with mage can cast the Bridge with +2, buuuut I'd say chances of running into Teclis, Stormcasts with auto unbind or Nagash were pretty high before. And even then, if you mage is in range of unbind, it's a bit too much of RNG.

Here however I would have to kinda disagree. Cities have only one real way of making Irondrakes work well, and that is Bridge. Not bad, but not very reliable either. Sure, if you take them in Tempest Eye with all the proper support, buff them and teleport them at the right target, they will wreck almost everything, but for Blissbarbs, you don't need all that. Just run them to targets, may be throw in Curse in the mix, shoot, and that's it. Blissbarbs won't do too much damage, but they can operate on their own (they are also great at depravity points generation, can't forget about that). Irondrakes can destroy armies, but need a lot of support and synergies for that, basically taking half of your army points to work. Which is better in their respected rosters? Honestly, hard to say. But I have to say that at the very least, Bissbarbs are definetly not as bad some would like to claim. They are nothing special, just easy to use and can do a good damage and generate Depravity with great mobility, while leaving the rest of your army to to their things.

Btw, Amulet nerf was quite needed, but I'm quite sad that my Dreadlord is quite more squishy now because of that x)

Well that's the thing, there's nothing stopping you giving Irondrakes +1 to-hit from All Out Attack either. Math wise it's close enough against most targets that it's not a major consideration, especially if the target is a monster. For a Living City drop it realistically comes down to whether you want the extra tankiness or the free Unleash Hell + higher mobility + higher potential splash with the mortal wound RNG. As I've said, I prefer Sisters, but I would disagree with the assertion that Irondrakes are bad in Living City, just not quite as optimal as the Sisters - and obviously they shine much more in the other Cities. 340 points for 20 Irondrakes even in Living City isn't going to be a bad investment in my experience is all I'm saying, especially given the ambush has the great low cost of free. 

It can very easily get much, much higher than that with casting bonuses. The bonus D6 from the Hallowheart command, potentially a +2 if a Sorceress casts it after shanking someone, I believe there's a few others you can get fairly easily too - and a common choice for the Command Trait in that type of list is Master of Magic to ensure you get a high casting roll (though obviously it won't be a Sorceress or Hurricanum casting it then, as Bridge-drakes always come in 30s, requiring a Duardin general.) The most common Bridge lists I see are Hallowheart for that exact reason, as it's super easy to stack so many casting bonuses that short of an auto-unbind you're almost certainly getting it off - even against a Nagash. Knight-Incantors and Teclis are the big worries, though anecdotally I'm seeing the former a bit less now as I'm seeing Stormcast armies' points gobbled up by Stormdrakes/Fulminators/Annihilators/Raptors and the characters that synergise best with them. It's still a consideration, but really, outside of maybe a handful of matchups, that Bridge is going off far more often than not if you lean into it - and in Hallowheart especially, the stuff that boosts your casting up is the stuff you'll be taking anyway. 

On rate, the Irondrakes are roughly on par with the Sisters of the Watch unbuffed - by maths alone, that's not a bad investment if you want to run them that way. As we've discussed, the Sisters are better once you need to move; I find the extra 2" range isn't that big of a hindrance on the drop, it's more the potential 4" less movement if you use StFA. It's not the best way to use them, but if I want to fit a scary ranged unit into my Living City and need to shave 20 points so I can fit in a bigger unit (which is anecdotally a big consideration for me given the list I'm building literally goes from having to settle for something like a Dreadlord on Black Dragon to something like a Lord Arcanum on Tauralon or a Hurricanum with Battlemage - a big improvement) the Irondrakes are still very much valid, especially as they are much harder to kill than the Sisters which I've found can be quite relevant if the opponent has any half decent shooting. Of course, if you really lean into Irondrakes to get the most out of them, their damage is much, much better, and Bridge lists are built around guaranteeing the Bridge goes off - if you're casting it with a minimum +2 (and potentially +7) with a re-roll in Hallowheart (there's other bonuses you can access too, but those are the common ones) or increasing to a whopping +4 (and potentially +9) if a Sorceress does it, I would rate that as pretty reliable against most armies in the game (as unbind bonuses are not that common.) 

Slaanesh don't really have any good priests to get close and Curse stuff unfortunately; Cities have an easier time of it, incidentally, especially as one of the sources is a hero that you'd always take with Irondrakes anyway. The other problem is that there's very few Slaanesh buffs that directly affect Blissbarbs; you can get re-roll 1s to-hit from Acquiescence, +1 to-hit from All Out Attack and...that's about it, really. Like, they have an innate +1, but that's boosting a 4+ to a 3+, whereas the same buff for Irondrakes boosts them from a 3+ to a 2+ (ditto any hit roll boost) so before accounting for the other boosts, those stat buffs are already a lot more valuable on the Irondrakes. As you pointed out, the reality is they fill different roles - Irondrakes murder things, Blissbarbs poke things for Depravity. I've talked about it in the Slaanesh thread before, but basically, Blissbarbs are one of the most difficult units to price in the book (and maybe the game) because more than any other unit in Slaanesh, if you make them too cheap it completely borks the summoning mechanic and will see Slaanesh armies mixing numerous highly independent, mobile Battleline screens with overwhelming spread chip damage to farm one big summon per turn before even accounting for the opponents turn. I've never seen them as a bad unit; even at 180, they were still easily one of our best Battleline units simply because they are a screening Battleline unit that pops an easy 2 Depravity Points a turn. Of course, a lot of that unfortunately ties into most of our units being horrifically overpriced and the summoning mechanic being way too easily farmed with ranged units, but...it's gonna be another half year until any of that gets fixed at this rate  

The thing is, I don't think we're even really disagreeing with each other, are we? You've got to remember that the posts I've been replying to (not yours) were trying to make a bad faith comparison between unbuffed Irondrakes and Blissbarb Archers to try to bemoan the former after both units saw changes which is just an unrealistic way to look at things, as in actual games the former unit is usually going to be buffed to the stratosphere and teleporting around doing far, far more damage than the latter unit could ever hope to simply because the two units fill different roles and one has way more available synergies than the other. Like, if someone's making the implication Irondrakes aren't great because of how they compare (when not buffed) to Blissbarbs, that person has a fundamental misunderstanding of how both units operate and are commonly used. Ask any Cities player that runs the Bridge list if they think Irondrakes are worth investing those extra points in; I have a very strong feeling their answer is usually going to be "abso-damn-lutely." Like, you can easily find lots of reports online about Bridge-drakes completely dominating games on their lonesome, whereas you're simply not going to read that about Blissbarbs, because they're doing entirely different things. Both units are great in their own right for entirely different reasons. Ergo, that original post (not yours!) I was replying to was making a bad faith comparison, and that's really the crux of this. 

Also, I feel your pain. I bought and painted up a Stardrake this past week for my Living City list for a GT in late January, and the Amulet change has completely borked that idea  

Also also, Merry Christmas from down under  

Edited December 24, 2021 by Jaskier

[Jaskier]

2 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

With the exception of Ironjawz (apparently), Destruction as a whole is the weakest set of factions in the game, vs Stormcast who, arguably aren’t “great” (I disagree however) but always seem to have a few negative play experience tricks (Gavireals old command ability stacking to guarantee charges from deepstrike, Evocators and Sequitors being purposely undercosted to sell new models, to name a few). I main Bonesplitterz in AoS3, I have no sympathy for Stormcast and any nerfs they may receive or tricks they can’t do that others can

Sons of Behemat would like a word  I haven't been monitoring Beastclaw Raiders much since 3.0 dropped but they're still doing fine too, aren't they? I dunno, I think Destruction is doing alright overall. 

I also think the competitive fortunes of a lot of Destruction armies probably just got improved by the Kragnos warscroll rewrite. The potential of that 3D6 charge/18" range for declaring charges in that many different armies is insane, not to even mention how much stronger Kragnos himself is now (he functions like a Mega-Gargant that doesn't need to be in Sons of Behemat allegiance to score like a Mega-Gargant, which is crazy.) 

[stratigo]

7 hours ago, Marcvs said:

sure, but the question is not how they achieve it, it's just the result. I have 0 clue on consumers' preferences and so on, but I think Age of Sigmar developers/GW managers might believe that it's easier to sell a game you can play in under two hours than one which requires four to complete a match.

They aren't wrong, but they seem to be under the impression that the way to do this is to add more rules.

[yukishiro1]

GW doesn't want to lower model counts because selling models is how they make their money. They'd rather have a game where you have to buy 100 models and you remove 50 of them T1 than a game where you only need 50 models but you get to use them for more than a turn or two. I'm not convinced there's actually that much of a relationship, but I'm sure that's part of why they resist actually lowering model counts. Every edition in pretty much every one of their games they "raise points costs to lower the size of armies" to much fanfare and then quietly revert points costs over the first year or two, to the point where they're back to where they used to be. 

 

[nuttyknatty]

15 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

GW doesn't want to lower model counts because selling models is how they make their money. They'd rather have a game where you have to buy 100 models and you remove 50 of them T1 than a game where you only need 50 models but you get to use them for more than a turn or two. I'm not convinced there's actually that much of a relationship, but I'm sure that's part of why they resist actually lowering model counts. Every edition in pretty much every one of their games they "raise points costs to lower the size of armies" to much fanfare and then quietly revert points costs over the first year or two, to the point where they're back to where they used to be. 

 

This is factually incorrect. Model count is much lower on average than in previous years and editions. 

[novakai]

Yeah it clear they are lowering model count just by the recent point hikes overall, why nerf hordes and put a big focus and force multiplier  on single big models in the game. I am guessing they known they make consistent money on large model more then people going past min battleline options

 

[yukishiro1]

But points cost (which is how they price kits, roughly speaking) is roughly the same. That's the point. The current meta happens to be anti-horde and pro elite, but they have not significantly resized the game. You can still take your 200 model horde army if you want, and it costs essentially the same as it did in 2.0 (some minor increases here and there, but they're already being undone and if GW follows its usual pattern that will continue), it's just very bad with the current game mechanics. What I was getting at is that the army scale hasn't changed appreciably. 

If you look at competing games one of the big takeaways is that they are on a smaller scale and that is a big part of the reason they play more quickly. A SW: Legion army is like 1/2 to 1/3 the size of an AOS one, and that seems about average in terms of modern game scale. 

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[novakai]

5 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

But points cost (which is how they price kits) is roughly the same. That's the point. The current meta happens to be anti-horde and pro elite, but they have not significantly resized the game. You can still take your 200 model horde army if you want, and it costs essentially the same as it did in 2.0 (some minor increases here and there, but they're already being undone and if GW follows its usual pattern that will continue), it's just very bad with the current game mechanics. What I was getting at is that the army scale hasn't changed appreciably. 

If you look at competing games one of the big takeaways is that they are on a smaller scale and that is a big part of the reason they play more quickly. 

 

Only certain army allow you do it under their 2.0 rules set, it not guarantee that their 3.0 update happens that there will be further hard to get too that number.

not to mention that a lot of these strong power pieces are more points now and can easily take over a half or a third of your Amy for 1 or 2 individual models

[yukishiro1]

I think we're talking past one another. That's not a fundamental resizing of the game, it's just a shift in the meta. You're not paying appreciably more than you were before for stuff of the same value, you're just being pushed to reject the cheap options in favor of the expensive ones. It's not like they cut the size of armies across the board by 1/3 or 1/2 or something like that, which is what they'd need to do to get down to the size of more recent games. And if you did that, games would definitely be a lot shorter. 

There was a lot of fanfare about how 3.0 points were going to go up across the board, but the actual increases were quite modest, and the winter update is already undoing some of those increases, in the typical GW pattern. The game scale is about the same as it always has been; maybe like 5-10% smaller at most. 

I'm not saying the current scale of the game is necessarily bad. Just that it is going to lead to games that are naturally going to be longer than in game systems with a smaller scale. AOS has always toed the line between being a skirmish game and an army game, never quite sure which it wanted to be, and that hasn't changed in 3.0. I suppose it could if all the horde factions are reworked so even their cheapest models are much more expensive, but it hasn't happened yet. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Dogmantra]

I think it's also worth mentioning on the scale conversation that AoS uses a larger table size than the majority of competing non-historical minis games, where the standard is overwhelmingly 3'x3'. I can only really think of historicals and maybe one or two other games that use anything larger than that, and that is going to inherently make games longer and have more models.

I don't think that's a bad thing either, I quite like the larger table size and it makes huge centrepiece models a bit more viable to actually produce and put on the table, when a 160mmx100mm based model doesn't crowd out way too much space.

[NauticalSoup]

2 hours ago, nuttyknatty said:

This is factually incorrect. Model count is much lower on average than in previous years and editions. 

That depends on the year & edition don't it? And how you're averaging, and how you're sampling. And if you're counting relevant stuff like how in 40k everyone used to play 1850, not 2000 points.

You could write a paper on this and I'm not sure you'd come up with a definite answer. I can compare space marine points to what they were 15 years ago and I'm not convinced they gulf is enough to suggest any deliberate move to reduce model counts.

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

I think it's also worth mentioning on the scale conversation that AoS uses a larger table size than the majority of competing non-historical minis games, where the standard is overwhelmingly 3'x3'. I can only really think of historicals and maybe one or two other games that use anything larger than that, and that is going to inherently make games longer and have more models.

SW: Legion plays on a 6x3 board, which is essentially the same size as AOS', just longer and skinnier. But army footprint is about 1/2 to 1/3 what it is in AOS; the highest model count army you can do in Legion is like maybe 70ish 28mm models, and the average is more like 25ish 28mm and 3-5 models on larger bases. Interestingly, unit count isn't all that different from Sigmar, though, with competitive lists typically having 9-11 units. 

The result is that Legion plays in about the same time as AOS, despite being AA, which typically takes longer than IGOUGO. If Sigmar had the same army footprints as Legion, games would probably play in 1.5-2 hours instead of the 2.5-3 hours they currently take. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Neffelo]

I have to say, I am very disappointed by the hedonite changes. I understand that summoning cost is baked into the units, but they still need quite a few more drops across the board and Slaangors really just need a new scroll. 

I don't see how in anyway, with the exception of Kragnos, this brings the bottom armies up.  The top armies got a love-tap in most cases (Archeon Tzeentch aside)

This overall felt like it was cranked out in a few hours and was not the result of some serious work evaluating the data that is available. 

[yukishiro1]

Salamander spam took a significant hit too, but yes, in general, the points adjustments very much have the feel of a "hey guys, find a couple units in each book to make some nominal changes in so it looks like we did something. Job's a good 'un!" 

 

 

[NauticalSoup]

1 minute ago, Neffelo said:

This overall felt like it was cranked out in a few hours and was not the result of some serious work evaluating the data that is available. 

I would bet a sizable amount this is close to the heart of it. At the end of the day, Sigmar isn't their flagship product and will never get the sort of attention we're coming to expect in 40k.

[The Red King]

13 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

I would bet a sizable amount this is close to the heart of it. At the end of the day, Sigmar isn't their flagship product and will never get the sort of attention we're coming to expect in 40k.

I love this hobby and the world it exists in but quitting an under served army (Eldar) in 40k only to play an ignored army (beasts) in an under served game is really disheartening. I mean we dont get an FAQ we werent in the starter guide, we werent in something else I cant remember.  Why do I always love what GW doesnt want me to love?

[NauticalSoup]

3 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I love this hobby and the world it exists in but quitting an under served army (Eldar) in 40k only to play an ignored army (beasts) in an under served game is really disheartening. I mean we dont get an FAQ we werent in the starter guide, we werent in something else I cant remember.  Why do I always love what GW doesnt want me to love?

Hey Eldar at least are about to get a new book that I'm sure will stomp everything else in the game for at least halfa  year in classical Eldar style!

[The Red King]

13 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

Hey Eldar at least are about to get a new book that I'm sure will stomp everything else in the game for at least halfa  year in classical Eldar style!

Oh good maybe that will translate to the lore and we'll use all that newfound power and success to resurrect another primarch or something because there's certainly nobody on our side who might be nice to have back.

 

That's not a jab at you, just the rules dont mean much to me. I quit dark eldar when they were the strongest theyd ever been because GW just shows time and again that everyone not in ultramarines blue is a side character which could be excused but this isn't an hour long movie, they're allowed to not have a "main character" in a galaxy spanning space epic and they are choosing to have one anyway.

[novakai]

I mean since this is the first battlescroll update I feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt until we get a clearer picture of how frequent they come out and if they steadily improve the quality of the update in the next one. They do seem however svery conservative on too much changes though and seem very hesitant to change warscroll too much(especially units stats and weapon profiles)

At least when compare 40K, AoS hasn’t really push many new tomes out yet and it just may be that they don’t want to make too much changes when they expect a lot new book to come out and make those changes for them.