Qrow
-
Posts
308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Qrow
-
-
34 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Agree to disagree! I hope to see a whole playable sub-theme of hobgrots!!
Maybe they are conditional battleline with a Hobgrot general !?
Or conditional battleline with kruelboyz allegiance, which would make sense too. Guess we'll see when the battletome is released, hopefully sooner rather than later
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Maogrim said:
Man, Hobgrotz aren't just ugly models, but they don't seem to have any synergy with Kruleboyz or Orruks in general. And they aren't even battleline. Just cheap, bad models that probably die to a stiff breeze and can't kill anything in return. Good thing I'll have 20 of those then.
Sorry for sounding salty.
Totally get it, if they were just cheap chaff I honestly wouldn't mind them, my old army was chaos dwarves and decent hobgoblin models are hard to find. But yeah, maybe they will be made better in the Battletome, I sure hope so. Given the leaked FAQ costs for the new stormcast in the new GW video, hopefully a few kruelboyz units will go down.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Arzalyn said:
Got a clear look at the lore in the dominion insert I posted some weeks ago. Rather than clans those are social divisions, which could point to some units. I wonder if we gonna see more beast-breaakaz beyond the boss and other kind of siege weapons they will have beyond the balista/crossbows.
I still think these will end up being warclans/wartribes. Badstabbaz being Gutrippaz and our rumoured cavalry based, beast-breakaz buffing our monsters and making units more anti-monster, and Deffspikers buffing our artillery and possibly hobgrotz.
On a strange note, I just realised that hobgrotz can't be taken in a big waaagh allegiance as they don't have the orruk keyword; same reason they don't get the kruleboyz allegiance ability. Lends to my theory that the will get the orruk keyword in an FAQ, not like it would make them overpowered
-
48 minutes ago, novakai said:
woops it was beast skewer and breaka boss
I somehow missed both of these, they look amazing. If they actually do have gnashtooth riders coming in the future then Kruleboyz have hit pretty much every one of my wants for the faction. Add in some two-handed sword weilding berserker style units and its just LotR orcs in AoS
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, novakai said:
i mean they already reveal two other units (the breaker boss and the man-skewer) that already way more orrucks then Hobgrotz are you expecting that the next 6 units to all be Hobgrotz?
i don't there a big group waiting really, since FOMO and limited edition was going to keep people on the fence from waiting to long to go in. it was more of a suprise that the anti-scalper measure actually work to prevent it being sold out. i can see people waiting to purchase the starter set that is probably cheaper and more reasonable for newbies
it just AoS is not going to sell at the level of Indomitus and GW not really been great lately
Can you link to the boss breaker and man-skewer? I'm having trouble finding them through google
-
5 minutes ago, Chikout said:
I can only provide the most anecdotal of anecdotes. I'm precisely in the camp of wanting to wait and see. I love the gutrippas and the heroes but I'm not a massive fan of the Hobgrotz. If the army turns out to be 50/50 orruks and Hobgrotz then I'm out, but if they show off some cool centrepieces and orruk cavalry then I will pick up the Dominion box as a starter.
I'm sure the number of people in my position isn't insignificant.
I'm also sure there are also people wanting to see if they can do a full Thunderstrike army.
Hopefully we get some answers in tonights warhammer event. I'm already all in for kruleboyz, but that's due to 1. The fact they look similar to lord of the rings orcs, especially the Killaboss on Great gnashtooth, and 2. The Legion of azgorh, one of the two armies I have, no longer exists and I like to have 2 armies for variety.
That being said, I'm really hoping we get some indication of future direction tonight, especially as I want to know what I can replace the hobgrotz with or if they can be made decent with future models/rules. Hell, I'd settle for them being battleline in Kruleboyz specific armies, at least then they have a spot as a cheap filler unit that can absorb charges
-
I think it would be good for GW to at least clarify what's happening with the kruleboyz, hopefully we will get some answers this Wednesday. Regardless, I'm hoping to run a full kruleboyz army.
I'm also curious what the hobgrotz are going to end up being. Because a unit that is not worth its 95 points and doesn't get its allegiances ability is just... bad. I'm holding onto the idea that maybe they just didn't realise the hobgrotz don't have the keywords to use kruleboyz alliance ability, or some other mistake
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ekrund Oath Splitters said:
Im hoping the Murknob has some more synergies with him in the Battletome, he seems so bad! He even stops your own spells effecting units wholly within 12" on a 5+.
I think the phrasing is important in that situation "can roll a dice", that allows you to choose whether or not try to get rid of any spells. Still a hard sell though, he doesn't offer much for 115 points, especially when 10 more would give you a swampcalla which can dispell and provide awesome unstoppable buffs. I'm hoping he may get a couple artifact choices that add onto his AoE buffs, but we will see.
You list at 1000 is the same as mine, but most in my meta are 2000 points or nothing, so I'll be testing out:
Leaders
Killaboss on Great gnashtooth: 200
Swampcalla: 125
Swampcalla: 125
Murknob: 115
units
20 gutrippaz: 360
10 gutrippaz: 180
10 gutrippas: 180
6 boltboyz: 240
20 hobgrotz: 190
10 hobgrotz: 95
10 hobgrotz: 95
Endless spells
Soulsnare Shackles: 65
Total: 1970
I'm swapping my stormcast for a friend's kruleboyz, and grabbed a few extra gutrippaz off of people who only want the boltboyz from the orruk side. I think dropping the snares and 1 set of hobgrots for another 10 gutrippaz would be better, but I'm not buying more until we know that the battletomes and rest of the kits aren't just a week or two away.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, eekamouse said:
AoS is decidedly not mentioned at all here which is interesting... if not concerning:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/29/the-forges-are-relit/
To my memory, forgeworld hasn't teased or released anything for AoS for a long time. So it makes sense that AoS isn't mentioned when they are talking about restarting weekly preorders, as they have no AoS preorders coming.
I'm more concerned about the forgeworld facebook page announcing they are a horus heresy specialty page now. To be fair, I have assumed the LoA was a completed line for a few years now, I just hope we at least start getting quality of life updates.
-
I think there is a chance we are over-thinking our lack of updates and attributing to malice or planned action that which could easily be explained by laziness and a lack of caring. There is honestly a good chance that the legion of azgorhs stagnation is simply due to GW not being bothered to look into our issues, rather than deliberately pushing new armies by holding old ones back.
It doesn't help that we are a forgeworld army as well, because there are way less LoA players than there are of other allegiances and most people are not aware that we have been skipped over for point adjustments for the past two years. There are a lot of players that are not aware we are even a legitimate allegiance, including those that organise official tournaments.
Sadly, we don't have the same level of vocal players as other factions, so we are comparatively small in the grand scheme of AoS balance and struggle to get attention where needed. Still, I'll keep sending in battle reports and suggestions hoping that someone will latch onto them and push through some LoA changes in the next balance wave.
-
1
-
-
I tend to by the forgeworld models because I like my army to look similar across the units where possible, and because I do use the Legion of Azgorh in tournaments.
I admit, however, that I would have a larger number of models of the rules were kept in line with other allegiances. Bull centaurs for example; I ideally would like 12 of them so I can run the execution herd as 6-3-3, but I can't justify buying 6 more with their current rules. Shar'tor as well, I am proxying him in matches because he is expensive as hell to buy and he cost too much to play regularly.
Outside of that, I have a large number of almost all other the other models. I would like to buy a skullcracker, but I think I will have to go through a recaster for that one.
-
4 minutes ago, Charly2912 said:
I've just received a reply from FW and want to share it:
"Hi There
Thanks for the email and for letting us know your thoughts and feedback.
We do take all feedback very seriously from our customers, so this email has been passed on to the relevant heads of departments to look into.
Thanks again for your email, and should you need anything further, please let me know.
Kind regards"Sadly there is not a word of any future plans mentioned. It was not even ensured that they want to keep the range (as they usually do)
In general it sounds just like a generic awnser, but I hope it will be forwarded and read.
At the very least, it may mean the AoS rules team gets an email from each of us, as well as forgeworld forwarding them for us.
It's a pity that they haven't kept us up to date with the other allegiances, as we are such a cool army. The k'daai, huge bull centaurs, drazhoath, even our artillery are so distinct. Hopefully they will listen at some point and start treating the legion of azgorh the same as other allegiances; even if the range never grows, it would be great to be middle of the pack competitively.
-
I just sent another email, added a bunch of justification for the point changes, as well as stating that increasing the save of the bull centaurs and ironsworn would also assist those units in being more competitive.
Though with the bull centaurs I would suggest dropping 20 points and adding a 3+ save, they compare poorly to stormcast dracoths and the dracoths are not consider to be great.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Morglum StormBasha said:
Qrow I don’t agree with the ironsworn change as 30 for 210 is too cheap.
I do agree that Drazhoath should be 260 and Shartor 200 and 20 off renders, dreadquake and battalions.
this would do a lot to keep us at least as competitive as say stormcast and sylvaneth...
30 for 210 is too cheap, but there does need to be a change for them. They don't get used in favour of fireglaives and compare poorly with other similar options from other factions, such as CoS longbeards. I think they are another option that needs a warscroll rework, bumping them up to a 3+ save would be the best option in my opinion; a 3+ save would give them a place as an anvil, at least giving them some bonus over fireglaives.
4 hours ago, IrishCarBomb said:Nice Assessment! I agree with you on virtually all of those. The 3 most apparent over-costed units are the Dreadquake, Drazhoath and Renders and in that order. I think Renders should be dropped to at least 160 or even 150, OR keep them at cost but add 1 additional attack to their Darkforged Weapon profile. I also agree Shar'tor and the Battalions need to have points reductions. I would even argue a slight increase to the magma cannon +10 pts to 150 would be acceptable if the other units were adjusted accordingly.
Also, I'll get a message out to them soon...
I think we should have Forgeworld cc'd on all correspondence as well. Even if they state they are not the ones to change the rules any longer I am sure they have some influence over their armies. Let's flood their mailbox with requests to at least update the unit profiles a bit. Something as simple as point cost reductions immediately makes the army more competitive on the table - no other changes necessary. (...but if a change were to come - I still would like to see a couple more artifacts and/or additional spell in the Spell Lore. One more new unit or hero would be amazing too!)
I almost forgot - here is the Forgeworld email I have used to communicate with them in the past: forgeworld@gwplc.com
Thank you. Renders are in a weird place, as if you lower them too much and they are just become flat out better than k'daai and that makes one of our options bad again. The biggest issue I see is that they actual have synergy in the army: they can be buffed by battalions, shar'tor and the taur'ruk. I think with all that support and being 150/520ish they would be a no brainer, in a bad way. An extra attack or 3+ save and a small drop would be nice, but GW seems resistant to warscroll changes even in the most troubling units in AoS.
We were in a good place when 2.0 came out, we had a strong army with good rules and only a few bad units (dreadquake...). But after 2 years with no updates and the power creep shift that has been happening every 3-4 battletomes, we have fallen way behind.
-
1
-
-
The email I was told to give feedback too was AoSFAQ@gwplc.com. I normally mention recent battle reports and suggestions for point adjustments; though in the case of the dreadquake mortar I suggest a warscroll lookover, poor thing is just... not great.
Feel free to disagree with point changes, but lately I have been suggesting adjustments in the ballpark of:
Leaders
Drazhoath: -60 to 260
Shar'tor: -20 to 200
Taur'ruk: fine as is
Castellan: -10 to 100
Standard bearer: -10 to 90
Deamonsmith: good as is
Battleline
Ironsworn: -10 to 80/210
Fireglaives: good as is
Other
Renders: -20 to 160/560
K'daai: fine as is
Artillery
Deathshreiker: fine as is
Magma: fine as is
Dreadquake: -40 to 140, really just need a total rework. Bring back the half move to hit units.
Behemoth
Iron deamon- -20 to 160
Skullcracker: fine as is
Battalions
War host: -40 to 120
Artillery train: -20 to 100
Execution herd: -20 to 140
I get that a lot of these changes seem extreme, especially the -40/60 point drops I suggest, but we have been skipped over twice (three times if you count the Christmas FAQ) and the newer allegiances severely overpower us. Just look at the Cities of sigmar dispossessed and compare them to ours. They get 3+ saves everywhere, irondrakes make our shooting look pathetic and they have actual synergy between units. Despite how much better their units are to ours, they are still not considered a top tier army.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Lorax said:
Is it too late to think that we might get another Forge World type update where they bring us back into the fold again? I have to say I was pleasantly surprised the last time they did it, it reinvented our army. We could certainly stand for a new update (in total agreement there). Has it been confirmed that Forge World is no longer responsible for AoS rules? Otherwise we might have to wait for them to do it.
Last time I emailed them with LoA rule enquiries they responded that they are no longer in charge of the rules for their AoS products.
The last time we got an update was at the release of AoS 2.0. If the three years between editions timeline hold true, then we may see updates in next years AoS 3.0 release. I wouldn't bank on it, but it would be nice.
It is quite clear that we are an official army in name only, the GW AoS team has no plans to treat us with the consideration and respect that they do the other allegiances. Which is frustrating, because in my opinion as long as the models are being sold and advertised an active army, it should be treated as one.
-
It would seem that we have once again been looked over. I will keep messaging GW with battle reports and issues with balance in our battletome, but I think it is safe to say that we are a not considered a 'real' faction by GW. At least not in their balancing concerns
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Duke of Gisoreux said:
Your stats are incorrect. The Colossal Maw column in the damage table should be 4, 3, 2, 1, 1. There is no ability selected to increase the maw's damage. Savage frenzy only increases the number of attacks.
Which is funny, because I noted in the post that they was no option that increased damage but somehow missed actually editing the warscroll.
I have since revised the hero anyway, I'll attach the new version to this post. It does slightly, as in about 1-1.5 wounds, more damage on the charge compared to the loon+mangler, is a little more survivable with a 3+, but costs 50 points more. I think, when comparing to the loonboss on mangler, its main weakness is that it degrades properly, where the mangler is still lethal even with only a wound left.
It's main draw, other than being able to use the colossal squig model, is being able to buff hit rolls in my all squig lists.
-
3 hours ago, Dankboss said:
I know, it's just the intention of the Anvil is to create thematic characters, and I'm questioning the design choices. It just looks like all the powerful choices were taken.
Of course they can create whatever they like, it's just it seems so unlike the real colossal squig.I agree to your points, and also made a heap of mistakes as it was about 2am when I made it. No idea why I thought you could increase the damage of mount attacks and apparently for free as well... how about this version, severely toned down.
I still gave it a 4+, because the 5+ GW gave the colossal makes me sad, especially when the manglers get a 4+. It has no Ethereal however, and I kept its points closer to the original. This version is basically a slight step up from a loonboss on mangler squig, a little more damage and survivability, slower, but with a +hit command ability that squig armies struggle to access.
-
Decided to try my hand at giving the colossal squig a better place on the table, instead of being outclassed by manglers 9 times out of 10.
-
2
-
-
The LoA compendium is now available for download from the warhammer community downloads page. I had a quick look but it seems nothing has changed unfortunately, same points and same rules.
-
4 hours ago, MKsmash said:
I use Blue Scribes and Iron Golems. The Scribes provide a near-guaranteed spell cast, which I use for the Soulsream Bridge. The Golems provide an awesome screen for fireglaives.
I never thought of using the blue scribes, they would certainly help in the current magic heavy meta.
I have used my k'daai destroyer model to proxy as skarbrand before and he can dominate some opponents, but I struggle to use models that don't stick close to the chaos dwarf vibe. The sphiranx is probably the most I have differed from the standard chaos dwarf type models, but maybe I should take a closer look at the ally options I have ignored.
-
Other than the contorted epitome, what ally option have you has success using with the legion of azgorh. I am currently trialing the mindstealer sphiranx and I am loving it in my bull centaur list, having Some combat activation shenanigans can really even the battlefield
-
Can anyone with a physical copy of the 2020 GHB confirm the point costs of Reikenor and Kurdoss for me, because my digital copy has different values to some of the leaks
AoS3 - Kruleboyz Discussion
in Destruction
Posted
Honestly, the creatures face on the left looks like similar to that of a gator, and the rumours have been saying a giant gator model. If I had to wish-list, I would hope that it's a Shaman riding it. Give me Shaman on a gator, a gnashtooth cavalry unit, a hobgrot hero and hobgrotz being battleline in Kruleboyz armies and I'll be a very happy wargamer.