Leaderboard

May White Dwarf I think her name is Lauka Val, Mother of Nightmares

It’s a new model, no doubt

Ok I don’t want to make this into an endless discussion about something we probably will never agree uppon. I will not convince you, just like you will never convince me from the opposite. So better not waste too much of our time on it Only thing I want to say about it further, is that this is not about not being allowed to critizise just because it is free. What I try to say is that if there is something not working as it should, or could be done better, it would be far more constructive, even helpfull to report this in a respectfull manner at the place on this board that is meant for it, and not by repeatedly posting complaints all over the board about how bad everything is. Not sure what you are trying to achieve here. apart from that, not jumping to the first unread post, isn’t something I would call unusable or unacceptable... sorry if you don’t like what I am saying, but thats how I feel about it.

New dynasty detected Upper half a vampire, bottom half a two-leg dragon!

It's our terrifying new Korsagi unit armed with f3ck off massive glaives. Obvs.

Knocking out more of the backlog, did some Hunters, a Knight-Zephyros, and a Knight-Questor Knight-Incantor and Lord-Arcanum next

This is a repost of leaks that were first posted around the time Cursed City dropped Based on that White Dwarf page and Grave Guard apparently sticking around, they look to be the most accurate SBGL leaks we have

Probably just worth saying this. Having spoken to various members over the years, the AoS devs are very aware that competitive gaming only accounts for a small portion of all games played. Although it may feel like it on occasion, competitive players don't have a special line to GW and playtesters don't ignore combos so that they can leap into a tournament with a broken army.

Dear GW, I have been an active member of both the 40k and Warhammer Fantasy community for over 14 years. I love the hobby, as the universes of 40k and AoS are my favorite science fiction and fantasy settings respectfully. Since 2016, Age of Sigmar has been a significant passion of mine to which I've dedicated many hours. As a Khorne Bloodbound and Slaanesh player, I have undergone narrative campaigns, casual nights, and have also participated in a few local tournaments; many great memories have come from these events. I have had my fair share of experiences, and am enjoying the direction that the game is heading. The new Hedonites release from February had me very excited, for the mortal sculpts are some of the best I've seen come from the design studio. Yet, having played against them a few times and observing several other games, I and some prominent figures in the community (Goonhammer, The Honest Wargamer, Miniwargaming, Age of Sigmar List Lab , etc.) have noticed that the point values for the mortal and many Daemon units are excessively high. To express my opinion, I have recently taken a survey which has been passed throughout the AoS community online and has received over 300 responses. Linked is the survey and the results: Survey Survey Results In the coming months, I and others in the community feel that a point decrease to the mortal units mentioned, potentially to some Daemons, and a change to the Slaangor warscroll would bring the army more into alignment/balance with other armies. I hope you consider the feedback that I have suggested for future updates or changes to the army, as well as the data within the recent survey, and I look forward to the coming years of content! Best regards and thank you, - AngryPanda Edit: This is the email I sent to GW that can also be used as a general template; I took some time drafting to ensure that it was well worded and polite, but also gets the main points across. The important content to include is: your opinion, the survey and the results, the mentioning of prominent figures, and your suggestions based on the data and feedback from the community. Other then this, you can modify the email as you see fit.

Couple of reasons I've heard. The playtesting cycle involves quite a few rounds of testing & changes going back and forth. On a few occasions a last minute change results in something going in that's not been tested (yay to deadlines) and causes something broken to get included. The other thing (that I encounter during my work) is that you can try to think of all the broken combinations you can dream up, but once that book hits the public you can be sure that they'll spot something you've missed - it's the same as somebody looking over your shoulder and working out the answer to a crossword clue! I know GW have been advertising for additional staff recently, so hopefully a bit more resource will help them nail it a bit more regularly.

I've always said drops should be ripped from battalions. It's the most boring and sadly most important part of them at the moment. Unique ability and a bonus artifact is interesting enough.

I heard a rumour that the AoS 3.0 rumour is BS...

Having come from Historical Wargaming I’d note that the community there is often able to embrace a different dynamic. For lack of a better term I’d call it the “learning mindset”. Since they are recreating historical battles and in history the generals didn’t get together beforehand and exchange unit lists to make sure everything was balanced I often sat down to a game where I knew ahead of time I had a 90%+ chance of losing the battle in the traditional sense. Now the “solution” is usually to give the two historical armies different win conditions. This can work out two ways. In one context you could have both players “win” in both achieve their objectives (or alternately both fail...) as, for example, the understrength player outperforms history by identifying an alternative strategy (or the dice are in their favor) but the stronger army still secures its objectives. In these scenarios “learning” feels paramount as you are often struggling as much or more against the historical limitations (as incorporated into the game design) as your opponent. The alternate creates for the understrength player the opportunity to force their stronger opponent to “win the battle but lose the war”. These are often “fighting retreat” scenarios. If the understrength player can save sufficient units, or hold out in certain objectives long enough then even if by traditional measures they “lost” they still “win” the scenario. AoS players have so embraced the incredibly unrealistic points system of ensuring each army at least theoretically evenly matched (again, in real battles this is almost never the case) and uniform objectives in battleplans (again, in real battles this is almost never the case) that these game play opportunities are lost. Clearly this heightens concern re:balance. 9e 40k may have taken a step in the right direction with secondaries allowing two players to have to very different paths to a victory but too early to tell really. To be clear, I came to AoS burned out by the abstraction in the name of realism that can creep into historical and I continue to have very positive game experiences in AoS so this isn’t to argue historical de facto better. Just that there may be mindset takeaways AoS could benefit from in looking at historical.

https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/78439105/#78440409 https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/78439105/#78440504 https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/78439105/#78440699 https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/78439105/#78440729 I think I found the original posting. April 2nd.

All I know is that GW or the War Comm team is laughing their a$$ of reading these posts trying to guess what it is.

One thing I’ve found interesting is that when people are prepping for tournaments they still insist on even 2K games. When I played sports “overload” drills were a key to success. In (American) Football could the offensive line pass block when there was an extra rusher or two or on defense could we get to the QB if there were extra blockers? In basketball could we prevent a game winning shot with only 4 defenders or could we make one against 6? When I later coached soccer I would regularly send 4-5 attackers against 2 defenders and a keeper to force communication. In all cases these overload drills greatly helped player development. Yet the idea of an overload drill in AoS for tournament practice seems anathema for reasons I don’t fully understand. Which is a shame because it seems like such an obvious solution to a common complaint on both sides (both the “no one wants to play my tournament list” and the “I’m sick and tired of playing tournament lists I lose to in 2 turns...”). Especially since almost everyone has that cool piece they don’t get to play. So if you're rocking up to the table with your fine tuned Seraphon and really want to see how good it is why not tell your SCE to throw that Stardrake into the match? Or if your one drop Changehost is about to go for a practice run why not tell your Sylvaneth opponent to bring out Alarielle? If you can still compete on those terms aren’t you that much better prepared for a straight 2K? And if you lose you still learned something about your army that likely makes it better when you do take it to a tourney. To me that’s a win-win we as a community are just ignoring too often.

Allegiance abilities are unequal in general, as are subfactions, spell lores, army warscrolls, artifacts etc... There is inequality in literally every aspect of each armies' allegiance abilities, battalions aren't an outlier here. Maybe they think there are too many layers to balance at the moment, but these kinds of things are what make armies distinct. You can't have armies with different playstyles and identities without having inequalities, its inevitable, since the only way to eliminate the inequalities is to remove the source of the inequality, and then we end up with 1 army with many different coats of paint. I'm not sure why we're so offended by battalion inequity, but are willing to overlook the inequities from other sources. The strongest army in the game at the moment (Seraphon) often doesn't even bring battalions in their most competitive lists, so it's not like its a direct correlation to army strength. Plus there are some great battalions in weak armies (like BoC & Spiderfang gitz). As an analogy you can imagine an armies' allegiance abilities like a bunch of levers for different aspects (subfactions, battalions, spells, etc) removing a lever doesn't actually make things any more balanced, it just shakes things up as the armies with that lever turned up suffer, and the armies with that lever turned down are unaffected. Generic battalions are like setting a minimum on how low a lever can be across all armies. The fallout from this change will be that armies with strong battalions like: Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, BoC, Spiderfang, Jaws of Mork, Ironjawz, Mawtribes?(eurlbad and goremand?), KO, SCE, StD, Khorne, Bonesplitterz will all suffer, while armies with weaker battalions like Seraphon (in their best lists), Cities of Sigmar, Sons of Behemat (if they can even fit them in), and skaven will get stronger. There's probably some I've missed since I'm not familiar with every army, but there seem to be a lot more mid-low tier armies hurt by this change than helped. I'm sure they can correct the balance issues with time, but I don't like the direction this is pointing AoS into, especially if this becomes a trend.

And artefacts!! miss the customization that you had playing other GW games...

I don’t mind the idea of generic battalions, as long as it is in addition to the existing ones. I love the way they allow for army themed special rules. For example the KO battalion rules are great and fluffy. Focused fire (start of shooting, pick an enemy unit, reroll 1’s to hit) captures well the idea of coordinated target priority in a shooty force. Iron sky command gives battle shock immunity bubble around ironclad. I don’t see how generic battalions will give the same level of flavour in rules. By all means have some generic choices that everyone can use (especially for those armies whose battalions are less worth it), but I hope they don’t take away the current ones completely.

Generic battalions... Hope this is just a rumour. It kills diversity. Everything generic is the opposite of what we should want for AoS. It's the diversity in rules, models, playstyles that makes this game interesting. Just as with other rules, some need to be balanced. There is a lot of useless ones used only to lower drops and many that seem op like reroll all hit rolls. That they are not balanced isn't the fault of them being specific for every faction but the battletome writers. It's like removing allegiance abilities because some are better than others.

I think the right place for any feedback is here: Feedback - The Grand Alliance Community (tga.community) I think however, if you do, you may not want to make it sound like you paid a lot for something dead on arrival. This site is for free (contributers aside) and people are putting their free time and effort in it, and maybe even money. That is something we should respect in my opinion. Just my 1.5 cents

You just saw a half dragon vamp didn’t you?

Unfortunately, that still showed that people didn't want it, like if I've seen anything constantly shown among gamers, especially in Warhammer, it's that the illusion of balance is better than admitting there is none. For example, you will happily see someone play a 2k list that can summon enough to be 3k and claim it's balanced because they are playing a 2k point game. But that same person would scoff and balk at an asymmetrical scenario with 3k vs. 2k (even if it was them with the 3k) literally because the points are different; the fact that in the 2k vs. 2k game it still ends up being 3k vs. 2k doesn't mean anything because it's a "2k game". However I do think a big issue with v1 AOS was you had people bitter over WHFB who would go in on purpose to break the game to "show" it was stupid and childish (and the joke rules didn't help either). like I heard horror stories of people purposely going in with 6 wizards and summoning in a hundred models because the rules let them, or take like a few canons, pick an easy sudden death condition and win the game in 15 minutes. All to "prove" that AOS was a stupid system that nobody should play because it's so easy to break. The sad reality is v1 showed that the modern player for the most part does not want a system they have to police themselves and is incapable of doing it. The fact you still find so many people who will argue vehemently how Matched Play is balanced because it uses points and that means Open/Narrative play can't be balanced speaks volumes. What it really says, to me anyway, is that people want to fall back on the crutch of "it's a legal army" to defend themselves. Think about it: If you had no points, you would have nothing to fall back on if you're called out for being "that guy" who brings 3 keepers or whatever the cheese du jour is. It would be blatantly obvious that you only care about winning, and not if your opponent has fun. But if you're playing a points based game and you can legally take 3 keepers, well you're playing within the rules right? Surely you can't be faulted for building a legal army in the framework provided.. you see where I'm going? It puts all the blame on the rules/army book/designers rather than keeping some blame on the person who looks at the list and says "You know what, nothing stops me from taking all of these super powerful things so I'm gonna do it. I don't care if Bob has fun or not" since they can shrug and say it's a legal army.

I know right!? All of April I looked forward to Mondays and it seems to continue into May!! Also this model is already looking ****** incredible. I love love love that each new Faction is getting centrepiece models. The mind boggles to see what could be for Warclans, Mawtribes and Gloomspite for 3.0.

I think maybe, just maybe... its time to let Abhorash go. x

Will the person or persons who said centerpiece model please claim your prize

Monday: Remainder of the Soulblight. Kragnos + anything else that's meant to be in BR: Kragnos we've not seen. Tuesday: Remainder of the Sisters releases/codex, most if not all of the Beast Snaggas. Wednesday: At least another Siege of Terra reveal, more Warhammer Crime, assorted titles otherwise. Thursday: Idoneth for Underworlds, Delaque for Necromunda, Traitor Legios for Titanicus, team for Blood Bowl, maybe another Warcry warband? Friday: Another campaign book, another Primaris'ed character, Eldar and Genestealer blister and their codex covers. Saturday: Bretonnian vs Tomb King starter 3.0 starter set/Indomitus-style box reveal but almost nothing ruleswise that hasn't already been leaked.

I flogged off all 120 old skeles, 40 great weapon grave guard and 140 zombies. Simply couldn't let go of my old metal grave guard with sword and board. Oddly they are pretty much same head height as new skelebobs in cursed city. It's just the SIZE of the head thats so off. Gonna keep them tho, cos they are charming and cost a smegging ton. That said, I am really hoping Gdub release some turbo bad ass hench af chad like grave guard.

I'm slowly getting back into painting after taking a break over the winter. I always find it hard to paint during that time, because there's so little day light and priming is difficult. Plus, this winter I had nobody to play any games with, which hurts my motivation. I did manage to grab a copy of Cursed City, though. I just painted up Glaurio ven Alten, pretty much in his official scheme. I am making an effort to get better at painting faces and eyes at the moment, and I think I was pretty successful with this model. The next thing on my table is a Hurricanum, which has a lot of fiddly bits on it. But I am excited to paint this somewhat excessive model.

If generic battalions are a real thing maybe they're just the major part of all battalions but not exclusive. I mean we could see battalions by sub-factions etc. We could even have a variation in a subfaction that alter a generic battalion. Hypothetic example: The generic battalion "Cavalry-charge-whatever" is composed of three cavalry units and give you a reroll for a charge at your phase. But if you take this battalion in a Stalliarch Lords allegiance, it also give you a reroll for mortal wounds inflicted on charge etc or can include a Archai instead of a cavalry unit.

My suspicion is that battalions will stay for narrative and open play and gw will continue to make new ones. The complaint is that in matched play they often have the effect of limiting match play rather than adding diversity. Rather than opening up list building options they dictate them. A lot of tzeentch or fyrselayer lists end up looking very similar due their very popular battalions. We also don't know how many generic battalions there are, what kind of abilities they offer, if they still affect drops, artefacts etc. I could imagine a world where we get 30 or 40 battalions for a variety of army compositions and buffs. Let's say there are 5 battalions that are 3 battleline and a hero. One buffs move, one buffs defense etc. It would let players double down on strengths or mitigate weaknesses. I don't think this would limit competitive army composition any more than battalions currently do.

I personally like almost all of the rumoured changes. However, I am being pretty cautious regarding this leak, not because of the possible voracity of the source, I would simply like to see the rules firsthand before making any real judgements. For example I think charge reactions tied to command points sounds like a really fun mechanic, but could become really unbalanced depending on how armies generate these points and which units can take advantage of specific reactions. I think that having smaller table sizes is a great thing for those of us with less space, personally I have been playing on smaller tables by virtue of living in an apartment. But even this could give strange new balancing issues although I do like it for my love of quicker pick up games. Finally I think the turn 3 objective removal sounds really weird and doesn't really take away any of the RNG that makes people upset about the turn roll off... but if the scenarios are designed around this mechanic it could honestly be great fun. I feel like I have been absent from the discourse of these rumours as real life has really gotten in the way of my hobby lately. But in truth, I doubt anyone was waiting with bated breath for the random musings of the Neverchosen on this! 😅 Either way, I am taking a wait and see approach on this rumour. I am more interested in these rumoured Bretonniancast Eternals.

That's a really interesting idea - you're not competing against the other player, but against "historical precedent". Regardless of whether your forces win or lose the battle, the measure of how well you've done is compared to how well Napoleon did in the same battle, or Katakros for that matter. Both players can win or lose independently of each other. This would be a good format for Narrative play, with uneven forces in unique scenarios, and would separate that mode of the game more cleanly from Matched play. Still, I think you'd really struggle to get that to become the "normal" mode of AoS. People are pretty attached to the idea of beating their opponent.

I think that the change that most people agree will happen because it makes more sense for GW to have both of their system on the same board size especially if they want to start selling boards in the future

Absolutely spot on. The other big things in historical gaming you don't hear whining and complaining about the armies having different objectives because that somehow not fair. Both armies having different objectives means you don't need to have balanced forces because your win condition is different. Yet in Warhammer people expect everything to be almost identical or as close as possible or it somehow cannot be balanced and cannot be enjoyable. Which is more funny when you think of the fact that points are not at all balanced they just give the illusion of balance and the point of list building as a skill is to make your 2000 points behave like 3,000 in which case you're not being balanced anyway.

This post helped me fix the same issue:

I have to be honest. The last times I played Age of Sigmar, the game itself was a miserable experience. I mean, I had a blast because I was playing with my friends after more than a year of no playing tabletop related stuff for coronavirus, but the game itself? Nobody was barely paying any attention. (Archaon dying under the spears of 15 morterk guard and 9 of my 25 skullcrushers banishing to morale thanks to the morale lumineth lady were some of the most "xd" moments) I was hard in AoS pre Coronavirus but the state is into right now is as bad as 1.0 AoS with no points. I don't care about tournament results, whatever. The game is so imbalanced, that is just no fun. We have moved to play MESBG. At least there you can play with your army before being completely obliterated. I introduced 6-7 friends thanks to TTS to 40k and LOTR (I'm talking friends with no wargame previous experience). They all bought physical armies to play those games, are painting them, etc... but I could not with a clear mind recommend them AoS. We tried to play it. But the game is just so bad. And I'm gonna take a ton of hate, but tbh I don't care. I really liked this game and I have no problem playing it with my friends if they want, and if they fix it, I'll gladly play again by my own initiative. But anybody defending, right now, Age of Sigmar is in any way, shape or form, a "good" wargame, or even a servicable wargame, is deluding himself. Theres no fun in a game were even the weakest units in the game fighting each other delete themselves the moment they touch one another with help of one buff or power, and a mission design as boring as 40k competitive ones. If you are curious, I play heavy foot ogres and mortal/bloodbound khorne.

Is that... a squig with a gun on his shoulder?

Beast Snaggas for 40K Preview. Also what is that Shadow?

Good idea ! Here my humble contribution : Monday AoS : Final and complete reveal for Soulblight (maybe Kragnos mini and teaser for AoS 3rd/stormcast ?) Tuesday 40k : Full reveal for Adepta Sororitas (or Orks) Wenesday Black Library : absolutely no idea ^^ Thursday Boxed Games : Idoneth Deepkin warband for Underworlds and Delaque expansion for Necrumunda Friday 40k : Full reveal for Orks (or Adepta Sororitas) Saturday Mystery : Restart for Horus Heresy with new starter set, plastic kits, etc (or AoS 3rd announcement ? Pleaaaaase ) I hope so much for little tidbits for AoS 3rd but i think it's unfortunately too early (especially with some still unknown BR stuff). I cross fingers hard to be wrong !

Monday : last revelations for Soulblight with wolves and zombie Dragon. Tuesday : Last models unrevealed for Battle Sisters Wednesday : Books Thursday : BB, Necro and Stuff. Maybe some sketches from Old World Friday : All Orks models seen in last trailer Saturday : Trailer and boxes of AoS V3.0. Mongol orcs vs SCE and human Order of Azyr.

I'm gonna add a few points to speculate: - The short story "The Golden Son" tales how a two-headed serpent figure sends Glutos and Sigvald to Excelsis. - Kroak tells Gardus the future events are gonna happen in Excelsis, and when Gardus said to Kroak he must go to Excelsis Kroak said NO. - Games Workshop don't include the new Sylvaneth model in the Kragnos book at this moment. - The realms and subrealms (I bolded the scenarios with big events) touched by the previous Broken Realms are: Aqshy, Chamon, Ulgu, Hysh, Shysh, Ghyran, Ulg-Hysh, Eightpoints. My point is that the Broken Realms Kragnos are gonna tell us the events of Destruction with the interference of Kroak and Slaanesh, and the Sylvaneth events are gonna occur in the last Broken Realms book we don't know it.

I have a feeling, if these generic battalions are real, they won't come with abilities and will be more like detachments in 8th ed 40k - a way to get an extra command point and artefact with a lower drop rate (if that matters) by taking certain types of unit. I'm not basing this off any evidence, it's just a case of thinking that, if they want battalions to be less army-defining and considerably better for some armies over others, having no extra bonus is the way to go. Otherwise you would have special abilities that work on one unit better than the others; for example, a basic bonus is rerolling 1 to hit, but some units and armies get that inbuilt or at least very easily, whereas other armies don't have any internal access to rerolls to hit so it benefits them more. Same for rerolling charges, or +s to hit if the cap is implemented. While things like +1 attack would work, it's a bit strong so everyone would take it unless it was super expensive. Personally I prefer current battalions, and a half way approach of generic but with abilities that will help some more than others I can envision causing other issues. The biggest loss is thematic lists - while you can play them in narrative games, many don't play those rules against strangers. Things like squig lists from battalions or beastmen marked armies would be lost from most games because other armies had battalions that were too strong.

That's my thinking on it, too. The 7th edition skeletons don't look bad, but the Cursed City skeletons are a noticable step up in quality. They just have a lot finer details and more delicate bones. I think you can definitely get away with using 7th ed and new skeletons for different narrative moods. The old skeletons look really shambly and hunched over, a lot more mindless than the new ones. I also have a few old Tomb Guard that I proxy as Grave Guard. The difference between those and the Cursed City skeletons is pretty stark. It's my headcanon that the ancient Nehekarans were just a lot taller and more beefy than today's people, otherwise the scale difference just does not make sense. Your comment made me check, and I just realized that LoN actually has a lot fewer kits than I remembered. They look like a huge faction, with their 30+ entries in the store, but that's the Mortarch kit three times, the Corpse Kart three times, the Mortis Engine three times and the Zombie Dragon four times. Plus, in the past, a bunch of assorted Vampire Lords. A full range refresh for Gravelords actually does not seem out of the question, given that. Warhammer Weekly recently had an interesting statistics-heavy episode about how much skill and faction strength influence tournament win rates in AoS. One take away was that faction strength does matter, but it matters the most for average players, less for top and bottom players. Part of the problem with Petrifex was, in my opinion, that it was just the brain-dead most obvious best choice, and a bit of a noob stomper at that. So average players disproportionally hit a wall when playing against it. I think that's still a legitimate reason to complain, though. After all, most players are average, so we should keep the average player in mind when balancing factions. Not saying it's impossible, but it would be weird for GW to tease and OBR unit in the Gravelords reveal video. I don't think they have done this kind of thing before.

My initial thoughts when I saw this rumour was that they could add new keywords to existing warscrolls, like infantry, cavalry, artillery, monstrous cavalry etc. That would make the generic battalions in the core book a bit more diverse (I.e. take two infantry, one cavalry and one artillery etc).

Especially Mega Gargants brings a smile to my face.

more and more difficult to argue this, for AoS but even more so for 40k, when they publish "Metawatch" articles which explicitly refer to tournaments and competitive playing

I get what you're saying, and you're 100% right that the SC player made a poor play due to not understanding the conflict and didn't seem to learn from it. But on the other hand, maybe the discussion of balance could also be framed as "regardless of player skill, is it okay for a unit to have a 2+rr/4++ save, strike first, with a double pile in, -2 rend and 2 damage?" Some would argue yes, because you can avoid and screen the unit. They're slow and can't fly, and the rune is only one round. Others would argue no, because while you can get around them, the fact that the only way to deal with the unit is by doing everything in your power to not engage the unit suggests there's an issue. If we take a ridiculous example of a model with 1000 attacks, 1/1/-6/100, a 1+ save and 2++ ward, costs 300 pts, but only 1" movement, no teleport, no fly, and no run and charge, we can look at this in a vacuum. I use this silly exaggeration as it very clearly shows the 'super powerful if left to have free reign but weak when dealt with correctly' in an inarguable form, and so there's no extras (like calling out a specific model that may have other rules I'm not aware of, or any feelings attached to it). In the case of this model, either the opponent will know how to deal with it and screen or zone the model into uselessness, killing tiny amounts of points in the game, or the opponent won't know how to deal with it and will lose a lot as soon as the model gets a charge off. Ignoring the terrible design, would you consider it balanced? It will beat anything in a fight, but nearly any opponent (sorry SoB) will be able to stop it charging so it'd be a waste of 300 pts against a good opponent. I think it's this sort of rocket tag that invokes discussions of balance. It's not that some units can't be played around, it's if they're not played around or a mistake is made, you take heavy losses and possibly lose the game if the mistake was big enough. On top of that, many armies don't have the capability to provide this threat in return, and so the opponent needs to be less defensive. In the case of SC vs FS, I can't imagine fully buffed Hearthgaurd have anything to fear from a SC unit and so for them the tactic is keeping within buffs and picking the best target.

Started painting my Unirontosaurian or Engine of the Gods kitbash, absolutely love how its turning out! I threw some gold on to see how the greens are turning out and I love how they look next to each other. Still some work to do on the greens but I am very happy with the progress thus far