whispersofblood

It sounds like you've not played new Nurgle. I think it's relative rarity is going to make it a sleeper book, and general lack of competitive Stans will depress it's winrate. I think the best way to think about SDG is to go back to HoS 2019. The KoS warscroll was largely what it is now, which is pretty unimpressive. But you have to think about the state of the game that it was released into. There was a lot of alpha bunkering/striking doing explosive early damage with high movement and glass cannons. HoS were essentially immune to Alphas, not only that the army got stronger over the game not weaker. So if you weren't more circumspect about how you did your damage you would likely lose quite early. Also the variety of objective games was much lower, and shooting was basically non-existent. GW could release the exact same book today and it would be strong but it would likely just gatekeep combat armies. SDG similarly gain the majority of their power from how the game is played. AoS 3 is meant to be a much longer game and closer game. SDG spam specifically is highly resistant to giving up Battle tactics as they: a) lock you out of movement based BT b) it's very difficult to muster the strength to remove a unit in a turn after they have hit your lines c) the shooting meta has basically destroyed screens as a useful tool for some time, and coherency rules have significantly impacted players ability to make them d) their monster keyword and MW shooting make SDG when spammed extremely good at completing BT at range e) lastly they have enough defences to be able to ride their luck which in games over only 5 turns can determine games alone. To give SCE players their do. SDG combat damage is infact middling, and they do have a "low" model count (for any real purpose though each SDG is 5 models without the weakness of being 5 models). I would almost go so far as to say they are quite bad if you just take a unit of 2 in a list. Even taking a 4 man hammer is kinda meh at the competitive level. However, these things aren't poor enough to make their situation strength or meta strength not overwhelming when spammed. If armies were say limited to 4-6 of them then it might be, but upwards of that number the MW shooting curve evens out and the dmg becomes intolerable when considering how the game is won. Ironically they have all the things that Sentinels don't that prevents Sentinels from domination. Sentinels might seemingly kill things easily but their impact on the scoreboard is low, the LRL player usually has to do something else to score points. SDG do a lot even if they never kill anything in combat in a turn when spammed, often picking up points as a consequence of doing whatever it is they want.

Shadowfield generator has been NPE for the better part of 20 years! It's a terrible example.

I had expected it Monday... Especially since it's been officially recognised as happening.

@Enoby Isn't this the exact same arguments members on this very forum make when we talk about "consensus" OP units though? Imo the internet environment has been terrible for the one thing having a mass of people should generate. The sharing of experience to improve people's outcomes. Instead we coddle people with copious amounts of copium and tell them its their opponent's fault for bring the unit, or GW's for writing a bad scroll or ability. While simultaneously getting on people who point out counter play calling them white knights or shills. Your experience seems the natural consequence of letting people play these games in their feelings for so long.

Meh, I've been using similar models in a quarter back role for the whole edition with artefacts to improve that role generally. I'm sure most people would be more comfortable with the ward, but I prefer strength of role than just improving survivability. And, since it appears that ward+charge has been failing a rethink may be on the cards. Especially in a 2 cabbage build, but I think support Mawcrusher and gruntas/brutes is probably better than distraction Mawcrusher overall.

The best advice is to play like you are still playing IDK. Something about playing Orruks makes people play like they are described in the fluff lol. You need to build in tools to take advantage of in game. So things like geminids, as IJ are the only faction with a hero phase move that can get you the range to turn 1 prevent CMD abilities being issues or recived. The combo is: Touched by the Waagh=> Mighty Destroyers=> Geminids of Ul-Gysh If you are high drop you should be able to deploy the things you don't want shot turn 1 within 24". The last thing is to give your opponent multiple options. Take up multiple positions and give yourself options to change your target. Don't move to create for sure charges (getting as close as possible to one target), try and give yourself some flexibility. So that if they destroy a unit you had intended to charge with a different unit or a combination of units can charge together and achieve the same goal.

The interesting thing about nuzlock is that it is entirely player driven limitations rather than mechanical changes. There is nothing stopping you from catching that tasty Pikachu you see second in an area; except your own will power and pride. If I was to design a nuzlock that can be used in all the play modes I would do something like. Players cannot target a general eligible for LoS! from further than 12" away. The general must receive the first artefact The general must have the highest bravery Heroes with a mount trait cannot select an artefact. Units with missile weapons with range greater than 18" must deploy with at least half the models in the unit on the back board edge. The first battleline unit must be reinforced, and cannot be a conditional battleline pitched battle profile. The first endless spell must have a faction key word, if none are available the first must be less than 50 points.

That isn't the nature of the game though... Again look at your own anecdote. By your admission you would have been run over in a one-sided fashion under the ordinary rules of the game. That's a glaring red flashing sign that something has gone terriblely wrong. I've also not said anything about winning, so you are arguing against yourself on that one. If you can quote me saying so please do, but I don't evaluate the sorts of opinions on things with as fine a margin as winning. It's a terrible metric, the goal of playing these games is ultimately the pursuit of fun. Winning a match isn't just the natural consequence of "power". It's just the result both participants are pursuing with their chosen forces. There will be a winner, the question is can one army do the basic things the game asks better than the other. I've seen your battle reports, I commend you on having fun on the game board and paint board, it's your hobby to enjoy. They are however very much a game between two people who take the models they want and don't want to think to deeply about it. And that is 100% cool if that's what you enjoy and have access to. But that's not my experience of Warhammer nor has it ever been, so what works for you works for you. But the message I responded to was a player who isn't having fun and gets run over when he takes his foot off the gas. And, is very likely playing against factions significantly more competent than a universally panned Hedonites of Slaanesh. Almost every book has the breadth of room to cycle down it's "level" so to speak. I'm of the opinion that LRL cannot do that as they don't have the ability to fight ordinary combats that tend to predominantly appear in casual settings. When I mentioned my ability to write lists it was the ability to understand what the context the list will play in. Competitive, casual, built to lose, built to teach, etc etc. Lastly I'd like to give you a warning. HoS are likely to see points decreases in December. LRL are likely to see the opposite. So your carefully curated 50/50 win rate will soon be upset as you lose a unit in your force and your friend/opponent gains 1.

Hedonites are rubbish... so if you are 50/50 against a rubbish faction... the implication would be LRL are what? Interesting and viable are not equivalent, 2 mountain spirits are interesting, but there aren't viable for a variety of reasons. You understand by your own admission the bolded means you are wrong right? You can't play an ordinary battleplan, following the ordinary rules of the game and not get run over. Typically what I find fun is being able to have a reasonable chance of executing the strategy I had devised at list construction. Maybe we have different versions of what casual means, but in the circles I move in any comparison to HoS means the army is dead on arrival. I'm quite good at list construction and I'm able to build up or down to meet an objective target, I've found similarly to yourself as your own anecdote demonstrates as soon as take the foot off the peddle even slightly the army collapses.

Points will go up meaning that the list will just have less support. Some people are talking about 50 points but even 30 points basically means you can't play LRL competitively. And, as your own experience shows its basically impossible to play casual LRL.

I expect when the nerf comes LRL will fall off a cliff. So unless you just love piloting the army I'd suggest making them a hobby project. I've been trying for months to come up with something that works to no avail. GW doesn't have the fortitude to stand up to the amount of rage sentinels seem to cause.

My friends and I were discussing this very thing last night. We came to the conclusion that unless the battleplan requires it, it might be best to just not try and kill her at all. Reasons being she hardly degrades, her chart is very kind. It's not necessarily easy to even do the 3 dmg in your own turn key alone in the opponent's turn. So if you opponent is paying attention you probably won't kill her until ture 4/5 anyway. Given the difficulty the cost might be higher than the gains. Next match try just delaying her or ignore her where possible and see how that goes.

I wouldn't say there is no issue at all. I'm just not sure if save stack specifically is the issue or if some warscrolls for other reasons make save stacking problematic. Like I said before if save stacking was the problem we'd be seeing lists that broadly speaking lean into the mechanic. And, I'm not seeing those lists anywhere. We aren't seeing Avalenor and Spirits of the mountain. We aren't seeing steam tanks, or massed bastillidons even in thunderlizards. No liege-kavalos or Valkia the bloody tarpits. Even when we do see it with things like blood knights really it's because the whole list is very tough, mobile and with enough combat umph. But even great players aren't burning the world down with it. And, players are killing Nagash in games as well. We are seeing specific sorts of warscrolls though and they are leveraging save stacking. So it appears to me there is something that save stacking exasperates. For me the data says that it is the number of wounds + healing on Megas and healing in Archaon that is the problem. Anecdotal but healing is what makes my 4+ save Killaboss on Vulcha such a threat as well. In BW I have lots of points for save stacking, because the chart caps my +1s right away. And, he can use CMD abilities even after they have already been used elsewhere. And, still it's not the most impactful. What is though is being able to heal 3d3 between when I choose to engage with it and before my opponent has a 2nd turn to respond.

I start broad because I don't know that I am correct. For me I ask myself what sorts of list would I see if I was right and what would I see if I was wrong. Because writing an army lists is free just clicking around can show you what players who want to win are thinking. And, frequently you'll get an explanation. There are a lot of monsters on 3+ saves, like a lot a lot. And, people aren't taking them, or even thinking about them. Which implies players believe rightly or wrongly that there are better choices available to them than multi-wound model which can save stack. People do however take such models which aren't good platforms for save stacking, l myself am taking a Killboss on Vulcha. I find 2 examples of save stacking most prevalent. Archaon and Mega Gargants. For Megas it's easily explainable, their core strategy is to not die for 5 years. Archaon is a lot more complicated imo. His warscroll has been largely unchanged from the one Khorne players were using to middling success in early 2.0. Where he was imminently killable, even in the low rend meta of the time. It was the combination of schemes, spells and destiny dice that propelled him to infamy at the end of 2.0 and the general reduction of heavy combat units in favour of more agile units capable of trading effeciently. But he was largely immune to damage by any practical reasons anyway. I would argue Archaon's relative ability to not take wounds remains unchanged. Some armies actually have an improved ability to do dmg believe it or not. What has changed is the ability to grind him down because he heals 15d3 wounds a game. Which is on average more wounds than he has. So as the opponent you can't do 2 wounds here, 5 there, and have a hard decision for how to use Archaon turn 3-5. This idea shows up again in the steam tank commander who similarly can heal in a variety of ways. Obviously with significantly less output, decreasing his relative value in game. So let's take a look at other examples and then apply the logic? Examples that demonstrate save stacking absent significant life tanking is problematic?

There are bad, good, and better people at all tasks why AoS would be different or somehow made to egalitarian seems impossible to me, but maybe I'm wrong. You're perspective is too narrow btw. All mechanics segregate: However, mechanics themselves are not complex, in general. The complexity is deciphering what the presence of that mechanic means on the table. Which brings us to... The skill is discerning the affect of the mechanic's implementation, and the effects of the mechanics existence on what will happen on the game. The question should be does save stacking or the volume of +x to save abilities create a situation where players are too segregated. A situation where improving via experience or study does not mitigate the existence of the rule. Perhaps as we try and answer this we can come to a conclusion as to what is a "bad" mechanic. Lots of mechanics are intended to have a restricting or negative affect on players. For example not being able to come within 3", this is a new AoS mechanic, it introduces the possibility of failure at all times. The introduction of a negative affect cannot be the simple definition of a "bad" mechanic. I believe the my question is a much more effective question to ask when addressing these sorts of issues. Yes. If you build a bad list, you will be constantly frustrated by almost all in-game mechanics. Objective control, Battle Tactics, and yes the combination of +1 save abilities. I have a friend who refuses to bring more Arkos and he consistently can't hold objectives and because he gets behind on the primary score must take increasingly high risk plays to keep the score even. That's bad list building and rightly he loses more than he wins, and he accepts that outcome as a consequence of his choice. I've watched players lose games because their first movement phase was bad. I've also watched players not consider how they would get to their opponents territory and therefor it is impossible to score Savage Spearhead or Aggressive Expansion. Should the Movement phase remove all restrictions and buffs because the combination of mechanics segregate? I don't think anyone would put that forward. We generally accept that players need to learn to move, and if they don't they will fail more often than they succeed. Personally I think the theoretical existence of momentarily invulnerable pieces is a good element of the game, and many strategy games include invulnerability abilities. I think really the bigger (and possibly real issue) is how fast hero monsters put wounds back on. Archaon is particularly egregious in this regard, which means he can engage with no long term consequences, mostly because it means there is limited long term risk in using models which concentrate power, being the Hero keyword. As the only risk is explosive destructive power, which still doesn't exist in MWs and while explosive ordinary damage does exist, +save abilities completely negate. Outside of hero monster dmg you put on (even save staked models) sticks, either as wounds or dead models. The final thing I'll add is that there is definitely a problem with the internet, forums, and streamers who by observing AoS create a meta, which then creates a counter meta, into infinity. In the before time, people had to grind their army to figure out what worked and the forums that did exist were not so heavily populated. Not to say this created more diverse list. But, it did create players who understood their list, and could change it incrementally over time. Addressing the cost and opportunity cost as there was no expectation (consciously or subconsciously) of immediate corrective measures to problems.

This is likely why a lot units which are exclusively "hammers" appear quite cheap, and why I'm against calls for increasing the points on strictly damage dealing units like Gore-gruntas and Sentinels. Similarly I think its worth pointing out that the component of the game that uses points, and the GHB does not primarily deal with doing damage or killing units in general. Damage in AoS 3.0 to date is primarily about opening up board space, you can complete 4 Battle Tactics without necessarily needing to do a single point of damage to a model. The component of @Kadeton's argument that we seem to be skirting is that save stacking as a mechanic drastically segregates good players from the pack. And, we never have really addressed mechanics which segregate are acceptable or not as a premise, as a community. So long as we do not we will continue to see issues generated by this underlying unresolved issue. For example guess ranges, obviously segregated, but are a skill. The argument was that it wasn't a skill relevant to the game; totally sound argument. The question fundamentally in this instance is it ok to be average to mediocre at the core game (effectively strategy and tactics) and that be the cause of most of your in-game problems.

The objective isn't to stop other factions where they are strong. That's impossible unless you are stronger on that same metric. Ie your defences or offensive power is strong enough so that they can't apply their own offensive power. That is pretty rare in AoS. The objective should be to harry and harrass them where they are weak. For example. The weakness of the tecnado is spell portal. The best LRL can do about that is cast with Teclis. They have two options cast two spells preventing them from layering board wide debuffs or cast at a 10 within range of unbinding. You also know the real damage comes from the battleshock test not the spell itself. So units immune to battleshock reduce the utility of the whole tactic anyway. However being able to stop LRL magic dead is both a ridiculous and unfair standard. LRL pay a lot of their points to make magic something of a strength despite is high unreliability. Its about as reliable as is generally fair in the game imo. The test is combo breaking and KB are well equipped to do, as are SCE, BW, OBR, SBG, etc etc. KB are a control army and are that way by intent which means off rip they aren't going to go punch for punch no matter how you build them. You're better not trying to do that. Which is why carefully building to achieve specific BT from before the first model is selected is so important. Trying to just fight people will result in game loses where you didn't need to lose. @Landohammer this is why Shamans are a bad warscroll. They negitievly impact your ability to play the game by making you largely stationary to get their abilities to work. And, the Sludgeraker is good because of his large buff range for multiple units, on a mobile platform that takes serious effort to remove. Sentinels don't kill him without Lambent light, which is 100% in your power to avoid. It's should basically be impossible to not remain wholly within 12" of the sludgeraker it moves faster and can run. Gutrippaz with only go between 17"-18" up the board. The raker does between 9"-14". But it might take practice to get good at managing the situation. Also keep in mind there is a world of difference between making a 4+/4+ -0 dmg 1 attack do mw on a 5 and making a 2+/3+/-1/dmg 2 attack into mws. The second is good in its own right so spending points and utility to make it "more good" while consistent with Orruks, might not be worth it to the master generals participating in this thread. On gobsprakk I did say maybe he isn't worth it. 🤷🏾‍♂️ But, sometimes you make compromises to get the thing you need. What is good about gobsprakk is how flexible he is. He can be a completely different piece one game to the next. That makes him high skill cap, not bad per se. There is a distinction between being aggressive about engagement and aggressive on the board. KB need to be the later which often will mean letting the opponent kill stuff. But, it needs to be the stuff you want them to kill. Which is why Rippas are a bad screening unit, giving broken ranks to the enemy for doing what they were going to do anyway is poor strategy. Regardless of their ability to do the actual job. @Ganigumo your description of the meta is largely accurate. But, your analysis is leading you to a faulty conclusion. Archaon is Archaon he can't be anything else, you on the other hand have the option to be anything else so why try and be a worse Archaon? It's better to build so that Archaon kills things like he will but so those losses don't bother you. That is why you attack his ability to score points rather than his attack his ability to kill or survive things. @Zorki the goblin stuff has legs but I generally prefer to stay in faction lately as keyword soup is a thing. The Wolf Riders are decent but I'd probably find more use for them in an army that was meant to be charging a lot. But, they definitely are just a good unit and warscroll so people should take them if they find them useful in game. While goblins might be "better" the key to a hobgrots is that they don't cost anything in game terms. The shooting is incetendal. @LandohammerI'm mostly playing BW at the moment as I play LRL which are very similar to KB, I enjoy having a large amount of warscrolls and abiltieis, and I have a rogue idol an I want to swing around 😅. But, it's a playstyle I've played for the better part of 20 years across a lot of different editions and factions. So I'm used to redlining units and using them in ways which aren't necessarily obvious or even logical on the surface. But also, it would be odd if a contrary way of thinking resulted in a similar list wouldn't it?

@Landohammer Perhaps its how I've was trained to play these games or any combinations of other factors, but I think maybe we could look at this problem from a completely different perspective. I think you have a pretty reasonable if not entirely community consistent view of KB, imo its just not the best way for the average or even above average gamer to think about factions. Its why I think sign posting is bad for gamer development generally and ultimately believe it leads to a lot of the "balance issues" gamers profess. vis-a-vis if my liner combo isn't as good as effective or liner as my opponent's its a serious balance issue. before I really get in to it, I'm not specifically talking at you, I'm mostly just using your problem as an example that we can all flex our minds to resolve. But, I do hope you can take something from my ramblings. In the bad old days before the internet and communities like this there was significantly more grassroots faction development and it lead to a lot more organic lists. Yes, some were better than others but what matters is the understanding of the interaction between the game and the set of rules provided to the faction. Sign posting necessarily requires the developers to be better at this than gamers and I don't think that has every been demonstrated to be true. To make this about KB, I think the Big Yellers >Shaman > Boltboyz > do dmg, liner strategy is terrible at what the game asks you to do, and thus produces suboptimal results for the average gamer. Its ultimately why I think LRL are poorly designed as well, and why despite what the early AoS 3 stats say will trend downwards until they get a new book. I often ask myself if this wasn't so obvious would I even do it? So a reasonable question is well if that is so wrong Whispers, what is the right answer? Forget everything you know about KB and think about what does the game ask you to do. To me the game asks two things: 1. Hold space on the board, the more space you hold the more points you'll score. 2. Achieve 5 tasks through the game in your turn; preferably with a monster The answer imo to these questions is: 1a. Prevent my opponent from getting to the places I want to hold 1b. Survive for as long as it is economically feasible to do so when my opponent does get there. I think about them in that order of importance as well, surviving in a place is bad tactically because it always carries risk and a cost. Prevention has less risk, and if you have the tools can be less expensive. 2a. I need to have 6 tasks I know I can achieve with relative ease 2b. How many tasks can I achieve without my opponent's interaction 2c. How many tasks are synergistic to what I want to accomplish in question 1. "a" is at the top because its ultimately a list building question, if you don't build your lists with these tasks in mind you will introduce uncertainty into your games. "b" is about retaining as much certainty in your scoring as possible, its why Broken Ranks is less valuable than Savage Spearhead or Ferocious Advance. Savage Spearhead in particular because often you can literally not do anything and get 3 points. "c" is really b.1, because you want to be picking up points for doing the thing you were going to do anyway. Its why people often don't get the most value out of Ferocious Advance as they can, or why they fail Broken Ranks more often than they should. Ok so those are the problems to solve, the question for me picking up a new book is how do my rules let me solve these problems. I'd start providing solutions in this order, 2a, 1a, 2b, 1b, 2c. When I look at the KB rules I think the viable battle tactics are: Take Dat, Ya Suckers! Ferocious Advance Savage Spearhead Monstrous Takeover Broken Ranks Conquer/Aggressive Expansion In the margins I noted down that if my opponent has a monster holding an objective Bring It Down! is a good way to score bonus points. When I look at the options I've selected, shooting doesn't help me really achieve these off the rip except the first so I naturally value shooting less than movement and combat, especially the combination of movement and combat. I also know my opponent is going to particularly target my battleline and Monsters for death so I need to be careful when I select them as they will cost me at some point. For me this leads me to a battleline combination of 30 Gutrippas, 3 Boltboyz, 3 Boltboyz. I know 6 boltboyz should expect between 7-8 dmg at 27" for 240 points. They can also distribute that damage to weaken units for destruction later or about 3-4 dmg to a hero in cover with a 4+ save. Not bad for battleline with no additional spend and very little structural weakness. And, if my opponent targets them for destruction their loss is manageable and they can be quite difficult to target early game. So the next question is how do I get over the line to 10 dmg, while limiting my opponent's ability to achieve the same strategic aims I'm looking for. The answer to me is Supa Sneaky and Hobgrots. 10 Hobgrots do about 2-3 dmg with their shooting for no additional spend. 20 do 4-5. That gets me to between 11-13 dmg for no cost more than the units themselves. Now the hobgrots are very likely to die in the return or if my opponent takes turn 1 before they do anything. So I have to consider what else do they do? Well the definitely block space, they aren't battleline so my opponent right away has to choose a BT that isn't inline with their plan for the turn, and if I position well they can contest an objective, preventing my opponent from controlling objectives at the start of the game, or gain control in my opponents turn. To extract maximum value I need a hero that can be my general, preferable one that doesn't need to fight as I don't want to give up Slay the Warlord, but I can be tempted if it gets me more value somewhere else. To me the logical choice is the sludgeraker, as it gains the most from being the General (18 cmd radius namely), and doesn't need to fight just be around to provide a bonus to several units at once with Sludgeraker Venom, buffing my Rippas and my Boltboyz in a pretty flexible radius something like a 30" diameter. Given that he is primarly in a support rule I'd want to lean into that role, with his artefact so I'd take either Arcane tome or Mork's Eye Pebble, but I'd leave that choice until later. My next focus would be movement as Ferocious Advance and Savage Spearhead want units that either want to run, or preferable not need to shoot, sometimes just being a different target is enough. Given the KB don't have cav, I'd be looking at any unit with good movement. There are a few options here, either more hobgrots (as they run and shoot), Killboss on Gnashtoof or Vulcha or Breaka-boss. given that a hero is really just a warscroll+ I'd probably lean into heroes at this point. I'd shoot for 3 here, going with 3 breaka-bosses! The do good damage, are cheap enough to trade, tough enough to require dedicated effort to kill, don't take battleshock and notably fit where ever I want them to. If I was feeling cheeky I'd bump one to a Dankhold Troggboss for some cheeky rerolls. Ok no I start running into points problems, so I need to make some choices. I probably start by dropping 10 Rippas, because I can live without the extra models and I don't primarily intend to be needing to do massive amounts of dmg in combat. And, I probably drop the cheeky Troggboss. Next I want to be able to interfere where my opponent might be strong. So things like magic, and high saves or high model count. To me magic is a natural catch all for utility. Its unreliable so I don't want to use it as my method of scoring points, I want to use it to destabilize and hinder my opponent. The KB lore is great at turning my opponents strengths into weaknesses, things like The Black Pit, and Choking Mists, but also utility like Nasty Hex, and Sneaky Miasma. The deck is very utility so I want as much of it as possible, on a platform that can get around. Gobspakk is a great caster and provides some counter battery ability to make casters wary about unnecessary but beneficial casts. Also I have arcane tome is a good tech enhancement. So maybe I taker a Killboss with his generally high utility, with the arcane tome, movement is king so a gnashtoof is gold. Equipped with Fast'un for a cheeky Nasty Hex or Da Black Pit sneak attack. With my last few points I want to shore up in screens or model count, and 10 more hobgrots fit well, they are cheap enough to be used expendably and have enough on the warscroll to provide me options on the board. Ultimetly the list looks like this: Sludgeraker: General; Supa Sneaky; Mork's Eye Pebble Gobsprakk Breaka-boss Breaka-boss Killaboss on Gnashtoof; Arcane Tome: Da Black Pit; Fast'un 20 Gutrippas 3 Manskewer Bolt Boyz 3 Manskewer Bolt Boys 20 Hobgrots Slittas 10 Hobgrots Slittas I take a Warlord, a Finga, and probably a Hunters as my core battalions. The next stage is play testing, where you play against as many armies on as many battleplans as you can with the same list so you can see where your list is strong and weak, or where you got it wrong with your build trade offs. But, the key is to not get too attached to any one choice or part of a choice. If Gobsprakk never casts a spell but he suppresses the opponent's magic sufficiently then maybe that is enough reason to have him. Maybe the Arcane tome isn't enough across multiple games, so you switch your artefacts and mount traits around, but the key is making sure you play your core strategy as many times as possible.

LRL aren't good at BT which in the new 20-0 system is a huge weakness. You're going to see the results for LRL tank as this system of play becomes more prevalent. Even in this thread a few pages back a Battle Report where the KB player felt like he was smashed would be an 11-9 victory which is basically a draw. There are probably addition circumstances but that is pretty telling. KB are much better situated for AoS3. The real question is about the actual validity of the playstyle at all. LRL want to be playing like KB they lack some of the things that make KBs work though. - Knowing your buffs will go off at BT selection. - A variety of monsters and heroes that can fight and score bonus points - alternative deployment tricks, and the ability to leverage high drop count - enemy plan disruption; despite people's opinions to the contrary LRL don't have many cast bonuses. You can force magic through against them, and they can fail critical rolls. They also don't screen or have significant movement tricks beyound Speed of Hysh. Supa Sneaky is possibly the best control rule in the game. The real question is can control builds win games when ordinary red decks are so prevalent and can pack a ton of power into 150 point units? As an example I've seen reports where a player fails to properly lock down 150 point goregrunta unit and proceeds to lose the game. Or Blood Knights, and salamanders. I think these sorts of units are what the meta is mad of at the moment and will be dominated by in the future. Tradable units under 200 points that can put out a ton of damage. This is where boltboy screens come in I think. But, I'm not sure how to play it on the table myself so I'd have to experiment. It's a much more defensive playstyle than I would prefer.

From a KB perspective a lot of lists are built (out of convenience or perhaps sufficient strategic thought) to be particularly the sort of list LRL want to be fighting. You really need to be able to dictate the pace of the game against LRL which is why you see them struggle against BW and IJ. Normally KB can do this via dmg projection particularly with Boltboyz, but that doesn't work against LRL because of the fragility of Boltboyz. LRL don't do a lot of unit deleting damage, but even they can get together 12-18 dmg in a turn past screens and such. Without Boltboyz most KB lists have no pace dictating ability and thus the critical weakness to even a moderate amount of Sentinels or spell damage. @Horizons The Vulcha is interesting I'm mostly playing BW and at 240 its seems to bring enough utility, between fly, fast'un and supa sneaky. Generally I'm using it for broken ranks hunting. But I agree I sometimes look at the 70 points savings from the gnashtooth and wonder how much I'm getting from fly and life tanking.

You're struggling because you've built a fragile gunline and it's coming up against a gunline that isn't fragile to other gunlines. Not because a or b is over or under powered. The key to defeating LRL is giving them immediate threats to deal with that don't correspond to effecient BT selection. Their damage is very surgical and not at all significant so if they get distracted it's likely they just start failing BTs. LRL don't want to see gutrippers at all, an allied unit of troggoths are also rough for LRL to deal with effeciently. I'd add the Rogue Idol to that list. My experience with boltboyz says they are a trap choice because gutrippaz don't appear strong. Long term however I see a gutrippa core supported by MSU hobgrot objective runners and screens as the model for success. Also don't sleep on hobgrot shooting it's some of the most effecient point per damage shooting in the game. What the army is lacking imo is a good trading unit, where IJ has goregruntas and BS have boars. The closest I've come to such a thing is a killboss either the Vulcha or the gnashtooth.

Just be careful with how you think about it. It would be more accurate to say LRL have done well, stats are always passed tense and not indicative of the future. You always have to be analysing why they did well, and then consider that when looking at what is coming into the game.

Buying or not buying is obviously a personal choice and if the release has lost interest for you that's totally reasonable. However, stuff is not going well in the UK... At all. It's much worse than people understand. I'm hearing things like 6 months to a year for shipping containers and up to 2 years to straighten out the industry. Given how much of GW's releases come from the UK (almost all of The EU) even if they have SCE product in NA for NA demand they aren't going to do a partial release. I feel your pain as I'm in the market for Brutes.

The question is... Does absence make people spend real money 😂 If anyone was around for the re-release if Wood Elves during 8th edition after the better part of 2 editions in the cold. They didn't sell... At all. Despite the people online insisting that GW was missing out on a cash cow. And Wood Elf fans insisting they would buy it all on release day. I'm finding it hard to get excited for Old World as I find Total War kinda provides the perfect WHFB experience. But, I'm open to it and will definitely be picking up the first book within a few months of release.

The China example isn't a particularly good one since the greenhouse gas production is literally the outcome of what he is talking about... The West's obsession with consumption. I don't think @RileyArlic argument is that flawed tbh. As basically your counter point amounts to: grassroots change or organization is doomed to failure anyway because consumers are seemingly incapable of personal responsibility... so the whole thread becomes moot regardless as the only logical conclusion is that consumers will continue to give views to whomever gets them out first. But we'll have a 12 page moan about some perfidious act or another, while continuing the behaviour the act seeks to benefit from. I Do believe social media and forums can provide push back on some stuff. Like FAQ's or other product related issues. But policy tends to boil right down to customer buying behaviour very quickly. I could however just be rounding into middle age and settling comfortably in my middle age curmudgeon role and be obviously wrong about everything. It's just my opinion at the end of the day.