Satyrical Sophist
-
Posts
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Satyrical Sophist
-
-
2 hours ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I feel like at this point, if you have more than like, 30 units and don't need a full-on refresh, you shouldn't be getting much new for at least a bit (Warcry and Underworlds excluded, although the S2D could take a break on the first for a while and several armies could stand to go a while without an Underworlds band but that's neither here nor there) until most other factions have caught up (Excluding SoB because Hyper-Elites don't play by the same rules as everyone else and will always be smaller). You should be getting your old stuff replaced, but beyond that, you have enough stuff to go a bit without a major overhaul or another wave.
SCE are a little bit stuck as one of the starter factions. I think they want one of the factions to be an easy beginner option hobbywise. I’d argue that overall SCE are actually pretty medium to paint WELL, but petty easy to get painted acceptable. Back in the day, just basecoating ret gold and doing a wash of flesh shade for all the gold, then some simple block colours makes a playable paint job. I think there is a real risk when starter sets don’t have an easy paint/play option. My understanding is that isle of blood (which I own and am painting now) was a really lovely looking set containing two popular factions that underperformed at least in part due to both of them being hard to paint and not the most beginner friendly.
i feel if you don’t have SCE as one of the starter options you might want to have something similar, like slaves to darkness, or iron jaws.
-
1
-
-
One thing with the double turn that I’d be interested in seeing/testing resolving would everything coming down to one dice roll, and one that isn’t really interacted with.
I wonder whether it would make a difference if it was like warcry. Short summary is that in warcry you roll 6 dice, and separate out singles, doubles, triples and quadruples. The doubles, trips and quads can be spent on abilities. The player with the most singles gets to choose priority. You also get a wild dice each turn to either save or modify your roll. So you could add a single to try and get priority, or turn a single into a double to get an ability (but be less likely to go first).
I really think something like this would feel better, and it also opens up design space for you to interact with it. For example, a hero could add a wild dice, or count as an additional single for example. If you wanted to have an in game representation you could even have stuff like “unit wiped out, add a single to the next priority roll “ or something like that, to represent losses forcing a general to react to stuff.
What bonuses you would give for doubles, trips etc would need to be decided.
i don’t know if this would help, but I feel it might? It feels more significant than “well, this single dice had a huge impact”.
-
6
-
-
27 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The double turn can be pretty contentious at times, but we should not lose sight of the actual mechanic everyone truly hates: Mysterious terrain.
The one mechanic in AoS that everyone just always ignores without discussion and coordination, even though it's right there in the core rules.
I was playing a game last week where my opponent asked me about if I cared about terrain and was surprised when I said yes. I was then surprised when he started rolling for mysterious terrain because I had straight up forgotten it was a thing. I meant terrain placement in general. I was playing nurgle and my grand strat was blessed desecration which cares about whether terrain is fully in enemy deployment.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:
You know some of the statements being made by ardent double turn defenders really read like the people making them have never played any game aside from Sigmar.
I’ve played a fair number of games in my life thanks, in warhammer I’ve played warhammer fantasy back in the day, and I’ve played 40K 3rd to 5th, then 8th and 9th (not played any 10th yet) Mordheim, Warcry, Blood Bowl etc. Outside of GW stuff I’ve played a lot of board games over the years, and played a ton of magic the gathering, mainly legacy. I haven’t really played much in the way of historical war games, or warmahordes but I’d say I have a reasonable spread of games.
30 minutes ago, Mayple said:To counter the "Don't like doubleturn? Just git gud" (paraphrased, ofc) point I saw earlier:
Competitive player here. Win most of my games, absolutely loathe the double turn. Feels bad winning with it, feels bad losing to it. Pretty much been my only real critique of AoS as a whole since forever. Those that remember me will know I've been pretty consistent about that 😅
That being said, I do like their attempts at trying to make it work, if only because their solutions keep accidentally pushing them into "the other player gets to react" kinda territory. Curious to see how they'll try to solve it this time.
Immediate concern: as it seems priority roll still involves the winner picks who takes the turn, I sure hope that double-turn penalty system only applies if you yourself decide to take a double-turn, and not if it is decided for you. If not, it's gonna be a lot worse, just reversed.
Time will tell! Feel like its an obvious flaw, so suuurely they've taken it into account 😎
The article said “choose” to take the double, which would imply that you only lose the battle tactic if you win the roll and take the double, not have it given to you. It is WarCom though, and they can be a bit slapdash.
I do like the double, and I think the game needs the uncertainty. I think the game would be worse without it. Are there potentially better ways of doing it? Sure, but mostly they would require some fairly substantial rewrites. Honestly I think it would be interesting if they tested some of those ways in variant game modes, maybe that’s something that will be easier to do in the module based system.
It’s not my intent to tell people to “git gud” but I can defend liking the way the double turn plays.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Mmmh one faction in particularly seem to be missing
I think they mention that they only included results if there were at least some number of them. Bonesplitters just aren’t played in large numbers.
-
1 minute ago, Gutsu17 said:
Maybe instead of hating the game, try to analyse why they tabled you? talk throuh the game through with your opponent after the fact, telling what and why you did something, if you are playing starcraft, or dota, you can always either blame the opponent that they play an unbalanced faction, or that rng is not on your side, or you could go and watch your replays
There absolutely can be some truly atrocious march ups. Unfortunately it’s the price of having a bunch of varied factions, even if they are overall balanced apparently for example Hedonites of Slaanesh somehow have an 11% win rate vs Kharadrons in woehammers latest stats thingie. KO seem to have a fair amount of skewed results.
-
1 minute ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
I hate the double turn ever since an IDK player traumatised me with a turn 2 into turn 3 double turn. Tabled me before I could do anything about it.
It feels like something bad happening to you once probably shouldn’t put you off a whole mechanic. I got absolutely smashed by night haunt in a game in 2nd where they got off like 80% double fights (the whole 10+ charge gets a bonus fight) in a game. Didn’t stop me playing night haunt.
5 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:The smaller games thing is a very valid point, maybe add rules to limit lethality for games under 1500? Only X models from a unit can attack at a time or something like that
I do agree that it can be an issue in smaller games. Spearhead having set contents may well be helpful for that, since lists won’t be as focused.
-
8 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
This whole "if you take a double turn you can't score a battle tactic" will only be impactful if battle tactics are relevant, which remains to be seen.
Also : “I often ask competitive players, playtesters, and influencers the same questions,” says Matt. “What they’d add to the game, what they’d change about it, and what they’d remove from it. By far, the number one answer to the last question is this: ‘not the double turn!’ Our players are fiercely loyal to this concept, to the point it’s become a bit of a rallying call!”
And these people who "like the double turn", are they in the room with us now ?
I get that some people don’t like the double turn, but others do. It might be annoying to get told why something you don’t like isn’t bad, but you know what else is annoying? Being told that you don’t exist, because how could someone like something that you don’t like?
Given a number of players (myself included) on the forum have clearly said why we like the double turn it feels pretty rude.
The double turn is contentious, but I feel a fair chunk of the “haters” are people who DO NOT PLAY AoS, and just dislike it for not being a feature of other games.Another group I feel are playing like it doesn’t exist, then being brutally punished for it. If you play like a rule isn’t there then get hit hard due to that, it’s kind of on you. I played against foot ogor once, and positioned myself so that their charge would be out of range of most charges. I didn’t realise that their musicians gave +1 to charge, and they very much spiked their charge rolls that turn. That was unlucky, but a mistake I made.
If you are going first in a turn, then you need to be more careful and respect the double turn, keep the ironclad further away, don’t expose Allarielle to too much incoming damage. If you are going second in a turn you can be bolder. Some games you may indeed have to risk stuff more than you’d like and may be stuck in that situation, but it’s well worth thinking on if you could do more to not get into those dire straits.
I too would like less of a dip feed of information, but we are still quite a way away from release, with another dawn bringer book to come, along with what feels like quite a few other releases for other systems.If they are reworking war scrolls substantially then I can see them wanting to not show specific ones for awhile. Imagine they show off a unit and it seems like a big nerf because people are comparing it to current units, which is irrelevant because the new unit will never play against old units.
People are bad at doing comparisons. In 40K plague marines had a 5++ ward and only one wound for a long time. When marines got their second wound people were super excited for plague marines with 2 wounds and 5++ and got disappointed that the new rule was 2 wounds and minus 1 damage. They were unhappy that it was worse than the hypothetical thing that it could have been if two different rule sets combine.
-
6
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I generally don't keep harping on it, but @Whitefang back me up, who we can now definitely confirm has inside knowledge of 4th ed, literally said that Beasts will soon no longer be playable in AoS. And Whitefang did indeed back them up (through reactions).
IMO, the evidence is against Beasts staying, as sad as it is.
What did Whitefang back me up do to get confirmation? I lost track.
-
48 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:
It looks like pile ins might be getting removed too. I.e. you have to finish a charge within three inches with every model in order for it to be eligible to fight.
I don’t read that as pile in getting removed, just not having to spend ages arranging your models to get as many within 1 as possible. Without pile in then the unit that doesn’t charge would just get messed up really bad. You could have all your stuff in range and leave the opponent with only a few
Sahrial, if people have the forum on dark mode then the background colour is set to a dark grey and the text to white by default. If you manually change the text colour from the default it keeps it on the colour you choose, but still flips the background colour, so if you switch text to black then dark mode people get black text on super dark grey.
29 minutes ago, Sahrial said:That’s so weird, mine looks like this
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, HCMistborn said:
You make a great point about the Spearhead box, as presumably those models will be perfect for the new spearhead game mode!
That box is really solid I have to say. I'd definitely have picked it up if I didn't have at least one of everything but the cannon. Rules wise, currently, the cannon isn't amazing, but its pretty alright and the model is great. Who knows next edition? I'd like to get the spear head ready myself, just need to decide whether it makes more sense to grab a cannon separately or if any lists I'm looking at would want two marshals.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
My simple advice on picking an army: imagine that the whole of Age of Sigmar is a movie or telly show. Who would be your favourite character? That's where your allegiances should be.
And for gods' sake don't worry about whether your army of choice will win you more games. That way only mediocrity lies.
About the only thing I’d add to this is to think of a sort of high level army play style. Rules can change a lot edition to edition, or even just battle scroll to battle scroll, but the top view often remains the same. If you like super aggressive brawler lists, but also the look of say Tzeentch, then you might want to be careful. You can always play atypical builds, but there is much more likely to be a pain point if you are going against the grain.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
What predictions?
I never gave up after loosing a double turn I just haven’t seen anybody not take the double turn.
as for the discussion I had with my opponent.
he thought the same way telling me that there is a strategic reason one shouldn’t take the double turn. Only admitting afterwards that if he took it the game would have ended turn 2 anyways
That may be a prediction but that was the discussion I had with an opponent, not my own prediction
although prediction might be to far fetched considering its what he believed the outcome to have been, if he chose not to show me the supposedly strategic genius behind the “not taking the double turn idea”
considering that we weren’t looking into
The future but rather into the result of a possible outcome, if we would have chosen to take the other path
I have had the option to take the double turn and not taken it fairly regularly. Why would you do this? There are a couple of fairly regular reasons.
You look at the board state and your opponent cannot capitalise on the double turn easily. This one can happen early on a fair bit, and feels more common when you are up against a slow army, or a fast army. The slow army can’t reach you reliably, the fast army already has and is as engaged as they are likely to be anyway. It can also be that YOU cannot properly benefit from the double right now, you’d need to move closer, but couldn’t guarantee making the charge etc. passing it to the opponent means that you get to go immediately after them, rather than risking taking an ineffective turn, giving them an effective turn and potentially getting doubled back and hit hard.
The enemy is fully buffed up, potentially with once per game buffs, potentially just hard to cast spells and the like. Taking the double would mean engaging the enemy with their “until the next hero phase” buffs intact. You’d rather they had to recast ****** frost and give you another chance to dispel it. Alternatively, YOU are all fully buffed up and are perfectly happy to have enough turn like that.Some of the battle plans really care about who goes second, letting them choose where the geomantic pulse starts. You shouldn’t rely on it, but its a benefit.
These scenarios do not always apply, but they are very real reasons to give up the double. Sometimes there is going to be an obvious choice, and you can crush them with a double. It feels like it happens less if you are playing defensively, and aware of the double potential. Conversely, if you are playing very aggressively and hoping desperately not to be doubled then I think the double is more likely to be a crushing one.
One exception to this is that I very rarely want to give up the double vs a ranged army, since they can almost always capitalise on it, and often are vulnerable to it in turn.
If they can add more stuff to incentivise not taking the double? Sounds interesting to me. All games have issues establishing who goes first, it’s a recurring problem through so many types of games. I think the double is an interesting way of doing it. Stable turn orders can lead to their own problems. I don’t have a citation on this, but apparently one of the reasons world eaters got adjusted despite a 50% win rate was that they won 65%+ of their games where they went first and won less than 35% of the time they went second.
A final rambling point is that I am often surprised by how close games can be. Ice sworn that I was going to lose games and gone on to win, and been surprised by the enemies comeback in turn. Deciding you have lost (due to double, bad luck Etc) very much is self fulfilling.
-
3
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:
The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.
You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.
A few comments up I list a few things I think would go terribly wrong without the double turn. I’m curious as to your thoughts on them.
-
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:
that part is subjective. To me it is just annoying and nonsense. To me it makes AoS an inferior game.
In simple logical terms: The person getting a double turn always has some kind of advantage for being able to move twice. Let's assume the other person doesn't get a double turn, or is even double turned twice:
So how the game better if one person gets an unfair advantage?
While one person might have fun with the double turn another person doesn't - the trade off isn't worth it. Games should keep both players engaged for the whole time.Getting double turned twice has relatively few ways to happen. Most possible double turns would be each player getting two double turns. It’s possible for one player to get two double turns and another only one, but I don’t think it’s possible for one player to get 2 double turns and another to get no double turns. I’ve also typed double so many times it no longer looks like a word.
The big problem with removing the double turn for me is that I don’t think the game functions without it. Without the double turn it’s much easier to work out threat ranges.
That hammer unit that can’t run and charge? If your unit is more than M+12 away you know that they cannot get into combat with you before you get another chance to move and shoot yourself. The screen you have in front of you will definitely give you enough time to reposition or move another screening unit into its place before the enemy can do anything about it.
Picture something like seraphon throwing skink screens, or KO knowing that they can safely drop a bus load of shooting down having carefully measured that you will not be able to reach them, and they get a turn to move afterwards, no matter what.Any of the death armies would be guaranteed to have a hero phase to heal up loses before being hit again.
Now, I know 40K doesn’t have the double turn, but what it does have is a lot more shooting, which means a lot more ranged interaction to counter some of this stuff.
-
51 minutes ago, GrimDork said:
This topic made me think about proximity of GW stores to me.
I have 6 within 1 hours drive!!
3 of those within about 30mins.Kind of shocked me when I stopped and counted. In the UK
The funny thing is, the only time I go to one is to pickup a store anniversary model (or ten😉). Probably won’t bother this year as I’m not fussed on Tau or the Fyreslayer.
Yeah, never really thought about it but there must be at least 10 about an hour away from me. You tend to get used to the status quo for you and not really think about it. I only tend to go into one when it’s for something like battleforces, or when all the OW books were sold out
-
10 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The rules for the Saviors of Cinderfall are here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pFO1pSeBSGlPxsGR.pdf
First impressions:
- Offense: Melee is solid for both, ranged is OK for Callis and Toll. Callis and Toll are actually quite fighty. They get double damage against WIZARDS and DEMONS, and Toll can auto-kill stuff by rolling 2d6 above wound characteristic at the end of combat. WIZARDS should definitely be scared. I don't think there are many WIZARDS that would live through a counter-charge from them.
- Defense: Callis and Toll: 10 wounds, 4+ save, 5+ ward. Companions: 11 wounds, 4+ non-lowerable save. HUMAN keyword for Command Corps healing. Seems solid.
- Movement: 5" move, so slow. But can use Advance in Formation and can deep strike onto terrain. Seems workable.
- Support: Verentia from the Companions gains you command points if the opponent uses commands around the unit. It's an OK upside.
- Locked to Hammerhal Aqsha, although that barely matter.
- Two hero units, but only one LEADERS slot. So two Orders, which they can fully self-benefit from.
The units cost 350 points together.
I think these units have a role: Grabbing and defending an objective early. They look interesting, because they present the opponent with a problem they need to deal with, likely out somewhere hard to get to.
If I remember correctly, the Regiment of Renown gives them +1 to saves and wards on objectives, which actually seems like a huge bonus. If you can give the Companions a ward (with Zenestra or Steelhelms), they become very hard to remove: Potential 3+ unrendable save, 5+ or 4+ ward, plus Command Corps healing.
They look fun. I'll proxy them sometime to see if they play well.
They look interesting. I think you have the wound count wrong on the companions. There are 4 of them (thief, stormcast, Bond villain and bird hound) and the stormcast has 5 wounds. I think they have 14 wounds. I’m doubting myself now though.
I don’t know how I’d look at splitting them up points wise, but attack profile wise Callis and Toll are the same as Galen Van D, which means if we are assuming a similar points then I’d assume C + T are about 160 points and the companions about 190. Which looks like it kind of works out. These seem somewhat like a command corps, but more about their own synergies than buffing others. Having easy access to a 3++ save with 14 wounds at 190 points seems interesting, particularly if you get to deploy them mid board.
One thing to note is that they are Hammerhal Firey one, which means no Misthäven or Lethis buff. Also same one as Thalia, and 4+ rally in combat on a 3++ unit is perhaps a warcrime
Side note, the black ark fleetmaster is weirdly fighty. I was checking to see what the normal CoS hero profile was and I keep forgetting the black ark fleetmaster is noticeably more fighty than other heroes alongside the warden king. I do really like the fleetmaster though, but I think I might like pirates too much.
-
25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I don't think anyone is surprised by the nerf, but given that the Castellite/Gunpowder units are a big draw in the new Cities range, it sucks that they are currently all kind of not worth seriously considering. I think it's valid to feel disappointed with GW for putting so little care into writing the Cities battletome that one of popular archetypes in it already had to be invalidated. It's also worth pointing out that the Fusilier nerf was not "they are more expensive now so their output might no longer be cost efficient" but "the interaction that made them good has been removed".
I agree with limiting the Alchemite spell to melee. I think overall that makes the book's design better. But ideally the version of the rule that made it apply to ranged weapons should have never even made it to print. We have known since Sentinels at least that ranged mortals on the hit roll are problematic. Right now we are in the bad situations that people have built and painted lists that just no longer work, and that situation could have been avoided.
Oh its absolutely a foul up by GW on that front.
Looking again at the ranged options for CoS you REALLY need to be working the command trait into Fusiliers to be worth it. I'm going to be normalising points for comparison here, so when I compare Fusiliers to Iron Drakes I'm assuming a theoretical 100 points of each.
Fusiliers shooting without moving and no buffs is fractionally worse than MOVING Irondrakes.
They are also outperformed by grape shooting Cannons at all points, Scourge Runner Chariots at all points. Outperformed by overloading steam tank commanders and about the same as overloading steam tanks (Better against high armour saves, worse against lower).
Letting them have the command trait boosts output by 78% though. In contrast without the command trait AoA is boosting them by 33%.
Scourge Runners are the only thing that gets an equivalent boost, getting an average of 75% or so boost from an all out attack from a fleet master.
With the command trait (assuming all out attack command on both) then Fusiliers outperform moving Irondrakes (still significantly behind stationary iron drakes), ahead of the cannon (though only slightly if the cannon gets the command trait on its grapeshot), a little bit ahead of non fleet master boosted chariots and a bit ahead of both steam tanks.
On a side note, for the cannon. With no buffs, you are best shooting the armour piercing shell at anything with a 3+ or better. At 4+ if grapeshot is in range, that becomes the best option if its in range, otherwise still the shell. For anything 5+ or worse you are best firing grapeshot or cannon if not in range for grapeshot. For all out attack, Shell until armour 5+ then grapeshot /cannon (grapeshot for preference). If you happen to have the command trait, grapeshot is better against 4+ as well.
I think you currently need some pretty significant reasons to build into fusiliers. I own 20, and I'll get them painted but I do really think they need help. At the moment I feel like another shooting option is often going to be better. For human synergies I feel like steam tank commanders are still very tempting. The wording on overload is actually until your next hero phase, so returning fire with them is still boosted, and though its not super efficient, they should have a reasonable chance of forcing suppression if you need it for a battle tactic, or multi charge.
For just ranged shenanigans I'd be more tempted by iron drakes and chariots. If you can work around the issues both have really good points. If you can get Iron Drakes in position they are pretty no fuss. Scourge runner chariots definitely have a cost issue, as well as a base size issue. Weirdly both options just randomly hit monsters harder as well.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Thugmullet said:
I'm not spending hundreds more to have them change a warscroll and end up with 5+ of the same unit gathering dust in the cupboard. I think cities are going to be in a rough spot competitively going forwards.
Again, thanks for listening to this rant. I just gotta get the salt out. I feel better all ready.
I know cities will be a fun army to play as usual, and fun to play against as well. I'm just disapointed, I thought for the first time we might have a shot of having a truly competitive book with multiple builds.. But I just suspect now we're back to we're we were.. Bottom middle. And we're also going to be one of the last books for AOS 4..power creep will not be fun for us.
You kind of need to be super careful any time a shooting option is the “best”. There is just much less counter play to it, so GW is much more likely to err on the side of nerfs. I do really understand your frustration, but I’m not super surprised that they changed flaming weapons. It’s just such a massive buff that still requires a cast to go off, so correctly balanced it’s either gonna be way too strong when it resolves or really disappointing when it doesn’t. They definitely should have reverted the points nerf though.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tonhel said:
I can't say I agree 🙂 . The focused set of enchantments are so great, that I mostly ignore them or forget them. Same with every dismounted character 😉.
While StD has a huge amount of warcry bands, they aren't really useable and are more of a gimmick. Their strength are the visuals, but rulewise they are a mess. I.e the darkoath savagers. The proven have +1 damage, but they are on a 28,5 mm base like the gloryseekers who do less damage. Than the wrathtouched (aka Wolverine) is on a 32mm base, but has the same amount of attacks/damage output as the gloryseekers and thus weaker than a proven who is on a smaller base. I wouldn't have a problem that all those warcry bands are removed and that there is good Darkoath infantry set that can work as a proper unit.
Sadly the diversity within the AoS StD is a gimmick, it's show only. It's not comperable with how a player can make a WoC army his own.
The special characters for WoC will come with the Arane journal and campaign books. If you are in special characters ofcourse.
Cultists base sizes are a bit weird, but I don't think its too bad? I run Rotmire in Nurgle and you just need to put the little dudes in front rank.
Corvus Cabal are a good choice as a utility unit, not good at fighting but have the deepstrike and are invisible in terrain. If you want to fight with them then 5 are on 25mm and the other 4 are above that means they can easily fight in 2 ranks with everyone fighting.
Cypher lords have awkward base sizes, since they only have 3 25mm ones and the other 5 are 28m and above . Should still be able to get most in. 70 points is pretty dang low.
Dark Oath Salvagers do indeed have awkward base sizes, with 7 out of 10 on 28mm and the rest 32.
I'm going to be honest, I was going through the cultist units one by one and forgot how many of them there are.
A fair few of them have enough 25mm bases to easily fight in 2 ranks anyway. (Splintered fang being a big one).
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Do KO have a problem? I see them winning games quite a bit, and the Woehammer stats have them at very high win rates (I know everytime I play them I get spanked). They can go really far and then shoot like nobody else, or they can do that AND hop outta the boats and chop people up with their saws amazingly well too.
Looking at Woehammer, the lists I see were changed a bit, but not much. One was 1990 and jumps to 2030, another goes from 1970 to 2030, another 1990 to 2050. A few get hit a bit more, 2000 on the nose to 2100, Most of them look like running the list is just dropping a unit of arkanauts or a character. In return they get what looks like a relatively easy to score battle tactic. I thought KO battle tactics and GS were already very solid? Rule the skies seems very good.
-
There are two different keywords that apply. One is leader, and the other hero. Both Ven Densts are heroes, but only one is a leader.
When it comes to orders, HERO is the relevant keyword. Since Dorelia has that keyword, she can issue an order. That means that yes, you can have 7 heroes to issue orders.
Leader is a keyword that is I think entirely for army creation. It’s similar to how Behemoth has army building restrictions but Monster doesn’t. While many monsters are Behemoths not all are, and while many Behemoths are monsters not all are.
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Fastner said:
If I wanted to try the big blocks of Steelhelms do you think it is still best to run them in Hallowheart or Misthavn? Or do we go with Vindicarum and just rally in melee?
Something to be said for running Vendra with this and just using her to rally.
I don't think steelhelms get a huge amount of stuff from any of the cities really? I'd probably go for whatever fits the rest of your force. If you are massively spamming big steel helms units it might be one of the few times I'd be tempted by Hammerhal Ghyra. Jumping to bravery 11 from 6 when you have 10 or more is pretty big. That said I feel even with the points jump for command corps then having only half your models run means you probably don't need to worry about morale that much.
Its pretty hard to get away from Hallowheart and Misthaven though.
I still kind of want to try Lethis properly, particularly in a list with Ionus Cryptborn. Is there any reason he can't force the Lethis prayer through if needed?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Firegelants. That's the unit you were looking for.
Wildercorps have 29 attacks for 130.
Flagellants have 21 attacks for 100, steel helms the same. Correcting for points doggy boys have 22.3 attacks per 100 points.Cavaliers have 26 attacks including horses, working out as 14.4 per 100 points. Much better attack profile on 16 of them though.
I suspect best plan is creating a truly dreadful to charge brick. A warforger with flaming weapons and a screen of steel helms or doggos with cavaliers lurking with a potential counter charge order is not going to be something your opponent wants to deal with.
The screening unit being able to drop an expected 3-4 mortal wounds is pretty nasty anyway.
Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I’m kind of assuming that horde and non elite options are going to have a degrade option like Nagash losing power when he has taken a certain number of wounds. Something like “this unit has 0 control when below half strength” achieves quite a bit.