whispersofblood

The problem with Pretenders and HoS elite infantry is that the Lord of Pain gets such little utility from CMD traits and Artefacts that the whole structure the army list deteriorates. I could only really come up with the following; Lord of Pain Skilled Leader. Heroic Structure Pendant of Slaanesh Paired up with this list. Shardspeaker w/ arcane tome 15 Painbringers Blissbarb Archers Blissbarb Archers Hellstriders w/ Clawspears Chaos Knights Chaos Knights 18 Untamed Beast Chaos Warshrine (Curse) When taking a unit of elite infantry I don't think I can play without curse or at least the threat of curse. Especially if I'm going to lean into the full rerolls that come with the Lord of Pain. Painbringers are obviously less tanky than warriors but that is just something to live with.

It's hard to draw a lot of value from that battle as your opponent's list isn't very well tuned. Did you two suggest changes the Nurgle player could make to be more in line with the demands of AoS3?

I played two games against LRL last night on TTS with the following list: Infernal Enrapturess (Glory Hog, Rod of Misrule) (Vanguard) Infernal Enrapturess (Warlord) The Masque (Warlord) Bladebringer (Seeker Chariot, Armour of Destiny), Flaming Weapon (Warlord) Chaos Warriors (Halberds + Shields) (Hunters of the Heartland) Blissbarb Archers (Vanguard) Blissbarb Archers (Vanguard) Blissbarb Archers (Vanguard) Hellstriders w/ Clawspears (Warlord) Hellstriders w/ Clawspears (Hunters of the Heartland) Chaos Warshrine (Curse) I basically played each game exactly the same way. The Warriors and the Warshrine were deployed in the middle, pushed up and wheeled to cut the board in half. Which gave me a large portion of the board to base my shooting units in. I basically used the two Infernal Enrapturess to secure a lot of my Battle Tactics from range. Because I could generate depravity from range I didn't have to do much charging and the CP my opponent saved for Unleash Hell was often wasted or used for BS which I don't really care about. He didn't have a unit capable of fighting the CW block. HE tried Avanelor the first game and he basically bounced (I think he did like 2 dmg on the charge and then 3 the next round), 3+ rr, and a 6+ against normal damage was basically immune to dmg from rend 1. The Hellstriders were essentially mobile walls used to keep my Blissbarbs out of danger. What I would do is move the Hellstriders first as the wall. Put the Blissbarbs about an 1 or 2 behind them depending on range. And then I would use Redeploy so they couldn't be drawn into combat by Dawnriders or other charging units. By turn 3 I had summoned an Blade bringer on exalted, and regular exalted chariot. The Bladebringer with Arcane bolt doing 3d3 MW on the charge basically broke a flank on its own. I had used Redeploy on the mask to make the room to summon the chariot the turn before and rolled the double. It killed 10 Stoneguard on its own. Which I think was pretty peak dmg doing 7 MW. Then once things got really close I used curse on the 30 block of Wardens and fired everything into them (I tried to force through Acquiescence with predictable results 😒) , and did 20 dmg total. Once the block was done, basically by board position he couldn't keep up with objectives scoring 1 to my 3 each round, and because I killed a Monster (I have cast Metamorphosis on my Enrapturess for the extra point) and I had none he couldn't make up the difference in Battle Tactics, so we called the match. The second went mostly the same with the opponent trying to play more aggressively. But LRL not built to play the aggro game actually are quite flat when it comes to dishing damage out and again the Chaos Warriors were just too tanky. The follow up round of combat where their target is cursed and potentially with acquiescence which I did get off a few times does very high levels of dmg. The Masque was great actually, and probably will be in all my list, great little model for stymieing Unleash Hell, and summoning from. I had originally only taken her over a third Enrapturess because I was 5 points over, haha. I never actually cast flaming weapon on the Bladebringer, so I might drop it for Born from Damnation, but its pretty good for dealing with Skinks so its hard to say in a Tournament build which I would take. The Chaos Warriors being 4+ and always having CP meant I never really cast Mystic Shield but I suppose you always have it, or can summon it on so something to keep in mind. I might switch the vanguard for Battle Regiment as my drop count was pretty high and I'd probably enjoy going second more often then not since most of my buffs are reactive and not active. I'm not sure how I would make this more Hedonite heavy, since Curse, and the Chaos Warriors were such a massive tool in this list.

It's a failsafe play. If he moves the aetherwings you don't take the shooting. If he doesn't move the aetherwings you are in combat, and of course take the shooting. It's not really galaxy brained it's a pretty straight forward play...

Wait stop the show. Why is your opponent not using Runic Fyrewall at least to stop Unleash Hell?

You're right I was pulling the Doomseekers from memory I should have checked the precise subphases. Risks of rushing to reply between tasks. Really the overall point which was probably lost due to the error is that you need to use units in concert to force decisive combats. But, that is only after you have accertained that combat is the solution to the problem at hand. ***Also just as an aside, 9 Longstrikes double shooting is stronger than 6 longstrikes double shooting and using unleash hell. So actually Longstrikes have recieved a nerf on their per battle round dmg.

...mate... He asked me what FS could do in the face of the scenerio presented. Aetherwings protecting Longstrikes. My response was in regard to that, a situation where the throwing axes were useful vis-a-vis 6 wounds of save - aetherwings. And, that the gap provided by that shooting could be exploited by Doomseekers or moved through. Alternatively the shields a 1-2 charge where the blade shields are used to remove the aetherwings so a second unit can charge the Longstrikes. Again in this case a Doomseekers would be useful as even if the Longstrikes save the unleash hell for the Doomseekers he will fight. There is obviously a world of difference between being able to build a strategy around something and having access to something.

You'll have to check with the poster as they what they were insinuating. I was just clarifying the point, and providing examples which either steelmaned or countered the arguments there after.

@Enoby see what I mean?

No one is perfect. I've made boneheaded plays myself, from fatigue, not thinking or not being flexible it happens. Misplays happen to all of us. Yeah FS are the perfect example of a faction with room to grow into AoS 3. They actually have good shooting, and chaff shooting. Throwing axes and bladeshields are a good counter build for unleash hell. Throwing axes also add utility to having more than the minimum sized unit. Brilliant chaff shooting. Secondly Doomseekers add aot of value in AoS3. Not only do they get all the benefits of being Heroes, they also are brilliant counter play to Unleash Hell, and are great at slipping screens with their single 32mm base. And, even if they die to Unleash Hell they have a boosted fight on death ability which means even if they tank the shooting and die they should get the job done with 6 dmg 3 attacks. Like I've been saying the answer to these sorts of problems are in the deployment, and movement phase. Which means you need to include the tools to pull them off. And, we need to radically rethink what we need to include in lists. +++Edit I just wanted to push back on the having to stay out of range bit. Taking damage is part of the game, players need to be comfortable with taking damage. And, knowing how much damage they can take without ruining their plans. This is a hard lesson I learned in the coal mines of dealing with 6th and 7th edition Dwarf shooting. For fear of losing models or a unit you can often lose the whole match. And, blame the "oppressive" nature of shooting when it was just a lack of nerve.

Oh I realise I didn't respond to the bit about BoC, and why I brought them up to begin with. Most people think about armies the same way they think about a sandwich. A bunch of ingredients between two buns. When really you need to think about an army and particularly a fixed army list like a multicourse meal. Each course needs to be carefully selected based on the limitations imposed on it by previous choices. If you want to take 3 mawcrushers in a list (which might be a list in AoS 3) you need to be able to lock down at least one, but preferably 2 objectives for under 250 points. That's a big ask, but it is a consequence of wanting to include 3 very resource greedy models. Too often the conversation around factions, (especially when the group says a faction is bad) is what this faction can't do which others can do. When a much more productive conversation is "What can I do with this faction?" Now singularly playing a faction often gives you credibility as you have experience but more often just generates tunnel vision, resent and oddly previlage.

Ok this is a clearer example. Your opponent made for lack of a better term, a series of unfortunate tactical decisions. Which I can probably assume were because you had effective shooting and your opponent did not? Obviously it is hard to dissect a battle I didn't see but, charging aetherwings unless you absolutely have to is a well know poor decision. But, why did he need to go after the Longstrikes? Could they not hunt down the hero required to use Heros of Another Age? Was the dmg generally so intolerable to their game plan that they couldn't focus on the objectives and their battle tactics? Also, there are tools available to prevent this situation and by rushing a player puts themselves in a position to suffer. I can't say as I didn't see the live match, but it sounds like this was a game of AoS2 played using the rules of AoS3 and no accommodation has been made for the new abilities the game presents? Maybe there needs to be a thread dedicated to helping people improve tactically? In this case it seems you created a decent trap and your opponent walked right into it. But, yeah if they have no tools in their list, then the loss here is a natural consequence of their poor list, not the rules of the game. Which is good, because it means your opponent can not have this happen to them in exactly the same way again.

His point is that such a thread exists for LRL and seemingly never has for any other faction. Just as an FYI DoT do have the power to change one of their opponent's die rolls. I've also drawn the distinction between being able to have your army do what it does, and having your army buff the thing that it does. LRL interact with the second not the first. It's also now an ability they share with anyone who can cast a spell. Last we have posters talking at cross purposes across threads. Here is Sentinels aren't OP but NPE. In the various AoS 3.0 threads Sentinels are oppressive and shooting needs a massive rework. The truth is Sentinels outside of skewing into 60(which is probably the real cap), are good at one thing and ok at applying dmg at range. They are really good at seemingly putting the fear of God into the opponent. The best way to deal with 20/30 Sentinels is to not worry too much about them, and play your game.

What do you mean by this? CMD abilities can only be used once per phase. And, units can only benefit from 1 CMD ability a phase. Seperately do you think you are playing AoS2 with AoS3? What changes have you made to accomodate the opponent's access to this powerful abilities? Like have you tried geminids? Taking units of fell bats or black knights to bait or block unleash hell?

The problem is that mostly the solutions are strategic and tactical, which a) the internet doesn't like to talk about, and b) even when it does get talked about, it is categorized as "get good" and dismissed. But, the question you should ask as a person who Sentinels make uncomfortable is; how are they literally agitating me? And, how can I make my opponent suffer instead of me? Basically my understanding is that Sentinel's put such an extremely level of mental pressure on the player that they suffer from the experience. Which I can accept. That was ultimately the most effective part of ranged weaponry in the form of combat that AoS replicates. So when the LRL player targeted and killed your bloodthirster, yes you lost your bloodthirster, but the real effect is the psychological one. Now you feel pressure, you're rushing to make up for what you feel you have lost, and making poor decisions such as hunting down the offending sentinel unit. If you are at the table trying to deal with shooting, it is probably already too late. But, on the table you need to take the pressure and put it on the player with the shooting so that they can't act indiscriminately. Now very good players will ignore your plays, which is what gets called target selection usually. But, the better you are and the more useful units you include in your list, the more compelling you can make the threats. The better and cheaper the units you take the more efficient you can make the strategy. So, units like Furies, Harpies, Frost Sabres. Fast, agile, and with enough punch to do something to the shooting unit when they get there. This is how you apply pressure and make the shooting player take aim at the units you want them to shoot at. So the answer TL:DR is the work needs to be done in the List Writing, Deployment, and Movement phases. As to HoS yeah I have like 2 builds, I'll post in the thread in a day or two once I can play some TTS.

There is an explanation right above your post. And, as I have no intention to cause harm, distress, or upset there isn't any hostility. It's called sarcasm... Yeah it's an excessive amount of armies and factions no doubt. But, it lets me be quite chill with other factions and not be so emotional invested in tiny power discrepancies. It also lets me see the distinction between an army "doing it's thing", and "buffing how it does it's thing". LRL interact with the second to various degrees of success. They don't really touch the first, which I would argue or agree would be unfair or unnecessarily restrictive on other players. The results and anecdotes of other posters here on both sides demonstrate that LRL aren't stopping people from playing their armies. And, even where they do the second thing, it's not generally very successful, because they are winning the game. Tagging HoS was to demonstrate that the distance between what the community feels or believes and what is true is often quite large. People tend to believe what they believe and that's basically the end of the analysis in the long run. Which is how you end up with the belief that BoC (a faction almost no one plays) are a meme in a game no one has played; because that's what they already believed and that needs to be disproved to their personal satisfaction. I've basically figured out competitive HoS now, just waiting for the FAQs to see if I want to run for the first bit of AoS 3.

I'm curious what shooting units are you talking about? The only unit I can think that is really good at applying damage (DMG a combat unit would care about) at long range is like Blood Stalkers, everything else seems quite scalpel like. But, maybe I'm forgetting something. Skinks I suppose, did just gain MW on a 6 to hit so there is that. I guess 20 Helon Sentinels using Unleash Hell is quiet brutal as well doing like 12/13 MW (20/21 if the unit charging was the one hit with Lambent Light in the LRL turn) to the charging unit, if they are within 3". But, Sentinels can't really be buffed in a way to dramatically increase their active damage. I think the matched play battle pack is missing a restriction of duplication of non-battleline units, that would deal with your Allopexs, Salamanders, and cockatrices. Shark Spam is definitely a think in AoS 3. As per the fiddliness of combat large combat units, that was an inherent issue of real life combat units maintaining the integrity of block to retain the benefits of being a block. Hell the Theban phalanx specifically went deeper in response to not being as good individually as the Lacedaemonian phalanx, and ultimately proved the better tactic. I think intellectually the conversation needs to move from what are the advantages of being a block, rather than what a block can't do. IF there aren't suitable advantages, don't block up. Using the Ogre example Gluttons operate in the half-space between a lot of different types of units, which is a strength, but also it means they aren't obviously one thing, and won't be adapted to being that thing. So the double reinforcement which might make Chaos Warriors a great block in the center, won't necessarily work for Gluttons. But, there is one thing that seems patently obvious about large units; they aren't meant to be blenders except in the most specific cases.

This is exactly my point. Most of the time, the design of LRL actually doesn't have a powerful in game effect, it can't because if it did it would give the LRL player an advantage which would translate into results. Meaning for most people playing with or against the faction it's all just flourish 💥and no substance 💣. Which is why playing "control" is generally such a unrewarding experience regardless of the medium. For example, LRL player casts Total Eclipse. IJ player wanted to use Mighty Destroyers, but now can't afford it 😒. So they just move forward and charge normally, which lets them smash and bash their way out of the original problem 😄. Like I get it people don't like getting push back on a tactical level which is quite clear from a lot of the angst with some of the AoS 3 changes. But, fundamentally it is a bit rich to claim you are being aggrieved when you've not been stopped from doing your thing strategically, onlinconvenienced tactically. Maybe I just am not able to empathize with this specific issue because I play like 8 factions, and then have like 3 more cross-faction mini-factions. But different factions presenting different tactical problems is like the core of faction based gaming. I also find we are very bad at seeing the core of a book and determining its capacity. The HoS book produces good, solid, competitive lists, but it isn't what I would call a fun book. The LRL book can produce good lists that great players can do well with, but it is probably actually just not very good for the bulk of the community who will find it quite frustrating actually.

Imagine living a life of such complete and utter previlage that being successful at your endevour more often than not isn't enough. You must be sucessful AND that endevour must conform to how you believe it should function, which is of course closely aligned to what you prefer. Literally no consideration for the other player at all.

That isn't necessarily true though. 6 are less agile than 3 of course. But, they trade off is durability. So they serve a different tactical purpose, think of 6 bulls like you would 30 of a 1 wound infantry unit. You wouldn't expect the bulk of all 30 to fight but they provide bodies after initial contact with the enemy force. I think at the end of AoS2 we have trained ourselves to pump points into units to make them bigger and meaner hammers. My reading of the core rules to date suggest that isn't a mindset that is going to work. 3.0 reminds me a lot of 8th edition if you were around for that? The edition started in most places with people playing almost a phalanx v phalanx styles game where the unit with the deepest ranks was effectively unbreakable. And eventually evolved into a game requiring high power projection revolving around the best phalanx (see; effective and affordable) a book could produce. Be that shooting or highly mobile combat. AoS 3.0 looks basically the same as that evolved version of 8th edition. Deep units of bulls seem alright in that context surrounded by the rest of the OM book. But, 9 is definitely an over investment as it saps your pool of points required for projecting power. Anyway as always this is just my opinion and what I see when I look at the rules.

It's also possible that the designers are communicating to you that they don't want people taking units of 9 gluttons. It is difficult to interpret why they don't want that, but it's quite clear by your demonstrated lack of success that it's not a choice the game rewards. And, maybe you should try something else?

So just so we are clear your position and I assume anyone who has liked your needlessly aggressive response is; is anything other than perfectly flat rank on rank is "gamey", and therefore the coherency rules are unworkable? Also if your position is breathlessly easy to "misrepresent" have you considered it lacks reasonable nuance or is simply so contakerous you should be duely ignored as a Duardin Longbeared?

Why does it keep getting repeated that 32mm bases fight in 1 rank? Minimag a sponsor of this very website has movement trays that let 32mm bases with 1" reach fight in two ranks. Should I start a new thread and ask for it to pinned?

What do you mean when you say balanced lists?

This really isn't the thread to get into the guts of factions, but the reason 20 HGB were so good is because most units couldn't deal with 10. So while the change makes it "harder" for FS to apply their advantage, it also gives them the room to shore up areas that they are also good at, just not as dominant in. Also 10 HGB are still a dominant unit relative to AoS 3.0 though they wouldn't be necessarily dominate in the duration of AoS 2. They also have A LOT of rules that aren't used and again almost all the keywords a faction might want. Most of the factions buffs are either no roll, or uncontested rolls. So they basically do and have the buffs they want. All their elites are reasonably priced, they have a lot of wounds, and what they lacked in speed the changes to board size means they can get into advantageous positions easier. They will have to deal with getting outmanoeuvred. Finally they are covered in MW saves.