whispersofblood

I think this reasoning fails to distinguish between list strength and book strength. The HoS book is bad, but it has fairly good list strength in actuality, it just isn't the stuff people usually look for, and isn't about just getting your buffed up pieces into their unbuffed soft bits. @Mcthew That's all changes. Lists are the most specific and inflexible expression of a book. That being so any changes in a meta will change a list. If the way you win the game changes that's a pretty massive change.

I don't want to be the one to spoil people's list writing fun, but... IJ are going to be beastly. The changes to Pile-ins are a MASSIVE boon to the Mawcrusher, and Rogue Idol. IJ's natural counters have been slapped down in many of the specific ways that IJ struggled with them. AND, active scoring heavily plays into the playstyle IJ incentivize. Watch out for S2D, they are multivariate buff stacker with basically access to all the keywords in the game, AND they can shop around for the best price. HoS are my sleeper pick, they are not nearly as bad as people think and they are going to slap people who aren't paying attention as they have deep pockets and access to again all the right keywords. They don't have the DPS problem that Khorne has, however, the vast majority of the daemons are trash though 😄 Its interesting that @Athrawes had issues in the LRL - HoS match up because I actually see them very similarly. LRL are priced more attractively as a whole. But, the best versions of both books are very comparable and competitively when we start getting data from events, I wouldn't be surprised to see HoS having a winrate not far off LRL. LRL will probably have better results because more competitively minded players will look at them. HoS is going to suffer from a terrible reputation. DoT are going to slow burn because most of the people who play them are basically going to have to buy/build/paint a brand new about 50% of their lists in my estimation. But, there is I think 2 very strong potentially overpowered builds that jump out at me. Fyreslayers... I can't stand that they are still going to be a thing...

+++ MOD EDIT +++ Please don't be rude to other members! The GHB appears to have nothing (see also; zero 😂) to do with balance at the end of AoS 2.0. And, everything to do with how powerful or not different archetypal units are in the context of AoS 3.0. Followed with some more targeted changes to specific or wonky units. Now I disagree with some of these changes (Wardokks are too cheap, I don't think any 2 wound infantry model should be more than 100 pts in 5s for example), but the general shape of the points for AoS 3.0 are very playable as a set.

This isn't new, some sets of people just don't like the idea of a faction like LRL or HE existing. It grates on their nerves makes them uncomfortable. HE were terrible in 6th and like 4/5 years of 7th edition and people still hated them for some vague idea of being overpowered in 5th edition. It is literally the perfect example of bias and prejudice, when confronted with a reasonable example of said subject, you immediately perceive it as the most offensive and threatening form of that thing. People have really no clue as to what sorts of horror lists are coming for them in early 3.0 if they think Teclis+Spell Portal and 60 sentinels is actually all that scary. It is interesting that some of the loudest voices on the forum is response to 3.0 and the points or "balance" are absent or not producing any substance when I read through or post in the factions they say they are repping.🤫 There is some horrifying army lists about to be released into the meta, you lot best get your pampers ready.

Unity of Purpose doesn't have that restriction meaning you can use Unleash Hell on the ballista and another unit.

TBF the HoS warscrolls are bland, like so bland that every time I go to write a list or talk about HoS I have to reread them... and I'm the sort of person who can recall keywords on specific warscrolls from armies I don't play, that didn't interact with the rules of the game until a new rule shows up. Their basic profiles are ok, so yeah I think some of the HoS stuff is overblown, and fundamentally based on what was the desire to really be able to field a Mortal Hedonite army, so essentially being frustrated. For example Painbringers are fine, they are the sort of God specific Chaos Warrior clone you would expect, but somehow that's really disappointing and falls flat. Some of it is archetypal though, elite but otherwise normal line infantry aren't good in AoS, unless they are incredibly hard to kill for their points. So it is not really a surprise that Painbringers, and Twinsouls are meh. So I don't actually think its a stats problem, there are competitive builds even still in the HoS book, they just are kinda not what a person who is drawn to HoS is going to prebuilt to see, or enjoy if that makes sense? Your third paragraph does have a lot of merit, GW does want you to rotate through your armies to even out your individual purchasing power/quarter, so that you are constant buying. That's obviously an incentive structure they could build into the game, I don't know if they necessarily have the system mastery to pull it off though. But it isn't an impossible narrative.

This exactly, in the Battlepack from the GHB whoever finishes deploying first gains priority, having Priority is having the choice/ the same as winning the roll off. After a bit of time spend on my other factions I've finally spent some time on my HoS, and this is how far I've got so far. Obviously its all theoretical so it might require some scaling to get it on the board and properly functional. Infernal Enrapturess 140 1 140 Infernal Enrapturess 140 1 140 Infernal Enrapturess 140 1 140 Syll'Esske, The Vengful Allegiance 210 1 210 Chaos Sorcerer Lord 115 1 115 11 Blissbarb Archers 180 1 180 11 Blissbarb Archers 180 1 180 11 Blissbarb Archers 180 1 180 5 Chaos Knights 170 1 170 5 Slickblade Seekers 230 1 230 The total at the moment is 1685, I would intend to take burning head, and probably Cogs and see where I can get from there. Between CP, spells and abilities the Chaos Knights are a stall piece that will walk around at a 3+ rr and a 5+ ward when I need them to be, and can be relatively decent as Behemoth hunters now with their lances at 3+/3+/-2/2 dmg on the charge with all out attack, and rr hit and wounds with Daemonic Power. Mostly it will be about surging forward, and then running back until I amass the DP to start dumping daemonettes on the board. Invaders is filthy for CP generation, the list starts with 1 each for each general, 2+ from rod of misrule, and potentially another on a 4+ from Heroic Leadership. I'm considering giving the Sorcerer Lord Arcane tome to cast Cogs turn 1, and still be able to mystic shield, and/or daemonic power. Since the fane and Heroic recovery happen at the start of the Hero phase you can take the MW and Heal it for free right away on your Bravery 10 Enrapturess. This list would be looking to gain at least 7 DP in my active turns. The Key is making sure you generate the DP each turn to replenish your loses as the battle goes on and keep in mind the sorts of models/units you will need to score your remaining poor of battle tactics. This list will probably end up a Battle Regiment and an Entourage for around 4/5 drops.

The only Realm available at the moment is Ghur, I'm sure GW has plans for the rest to appear in different formats or supplements for Aos3. But at the moment it would appear in the GHB and matched play battlepack there isn't a multiplicity of artefacts and spells from the realms. As per usual though you and your opponent can agree to use those older books as source material in your games for spells or artefacts, but it does invalidate or compromise your experience as useful for other gamers without heavily qualifying.

I was tentatively hot on Entrapturesses at the launch of the book, and 3.0 has only made them more interesting to me, and I think they have a place in all of the hosts. As for Syll'esske anything that projects Battleshock immunity in 3.0 is worth trying at least once imo, and their spell is bonkers obviously. I'm actually considering a unit of 3 Fiendbloods as a Levitate target in a Godseekers build. In my head I have Syll'esske, cogs, and 3 Fiendbloods as a little base to build off of. Hope you have fun with @Athrawes

TBF nothing got "nuked" All the heroes are objectively better than they were before either they are more effective fighters by way of their access to heroic actions, or live longer, etc. Eltharion healing D3 basically every hero phase is damn annoying, especially considering the other actions aren't massively valuable to him. But, I don't think heroes are general points well spent anyway, but I do want the arcane tome on my Lord Regent so I'm debating adding a 3rd hero to field the Warlord Battalion. The Calligrave has been growing on my since launch and I actually think they are our best Scinari unit in the end of 2.0 and moving into 3.0. It was only our obsession with Syar that made them seem poor. I'm actually trying to get 2 into my lists going forward. He has a long range MW attack which the game has lost with the changes to Arcane Bolt, contemplation lets casting the more difficult and powerful Endless Spells (Soul Snare Shackles, stand out here), and the once per game ability is frankly amazing but fair in multiple was as it is a dice roll which is nice for the opponent, but also you get to choose between how much value you are getting and how likely it is to go off. And, he is the cheapest Scinari, who can just relax in the Shrine and provide almost full value. Ballistas are fine, they get a lot of value from Iliatha, but not so much for Syar or other Nations. This is a cool attribute of our faction in that the relative value of units depends on what Nation you are in. FYI I'll be exclusively playing Iliatha or Alumnia as I think they offer the most interesting playstyle personally. Honestly I own 30 Sentinels and I'm probably not taking more than 10 in my lists they just don't take part in the game the way I want them to so I'd rather buy more Wardens or... other things 😏

Tbh a unit of 30 is quite large relative to most units in the game. Half the units in the game cap at 10, and another 25% probably cap at 15. But I understand your issue with the gaps left between some allegiance abilities and warscroll rules. I think at this point out best bet is to play games and get a real feel for the changes. So much of our opinions are considering these changes in a AoS2 mindset. You might find 40 models to retain your buff unmanageable on the table for instance.

And... Live to Fight

OR... just be grown up enough to realize this to shall pass. You can scream into the clouds for a day and a night, and when the sun rises they will have changed. But, you will never know they would have done so regardless, and all you've accomplished in truth is wasting a fraction of your precious time on the earth. These changes aren't any worse than the change to 8th edition which say some frankly monstrous lists, I should I know I was at peak trash competitive energy at the time. We all got more experience with the core rules (GW included) and the game got better and more enjoyable, and then we got too good at it and it spiralled... I've spent my idle time today writing as many lists as I can dream up for all my factions and few I have always found kind of temping (Khorne and SCE) and doing thought experiments on various battleplans and Battle tactics. It has been fun and enlightening and fed back into the next list I write which is probably why I feel much better than I did last night. The board game feel means that no two games are going to be the same, and you will have to do a lot of improvising. How people are going to have to deal with my IJ not just on primaries but on how aggressively I can get my BT but also deny the opponent theirs. Its going to be massively different to how they will have to deal with my LRL managing space and denying zones or targets for easy Battle Tactics points. I am a highly critical person, just ask my friends, but criticism and moaning are distinct. Criticism implies there is a corrective action to be taken. Right now the common criticism is that people don't like what the point changes do to their armies, which is at best a statement of preference. I've yet to see anyone post a real effort at a list that they believe demonstrates that the changes are so bad they are no longer capable of engaging with the matched play battlepack. If you want to do that, I'm all ears. I don't believe the forum or community benefit from people shouting back and forth about their preferences which are irrelevant in the face of what we have to play with until we have actual games and data to use for the winter faq we all know is coming.

Abuse... we need to stop using such emotive language about a consumer product. I like the models, I like the game, I like the narrative and I can easily find opponents. Also you don't have a legitimate issue. You have a specific issue produced by your own choice, based on a assumption that a fringe benefit you had yesterday would last in perpetuity. You placed a bet and lost, its fine. So you have two choices, play S2D or struggle on with HoS at a cost to you, in your local currency. Should I stop enjoying football because they change the offside rule every 6 hours? I like everyone else on this forum can freely choose to engage with GW and their product or not. 6 edition changes in the last 18 years is hardly the most problematic issue in my life, and tbh if we were still in 6th edition WHFB I doubt I would still be playing.You can't improve something without invalidating the aspects you identify with needing improvement. Like most things, people aren't happy with what is usually good for them. As an aside, here is some advice. There are many reasons why a person who plays a wargame should play more than one faction. The first is protection against meta changes. What sorts of armies are good changes like the weather, then there are faqs, points changes, etc that can influence if you army is fun. The next is having a deeper understanding of the game, as having to look at the core rules, and each faction from a different lense helps you decide how to tackle problems. The last is protection against edition changes, I can pick up probably any of my armies and field a decent playable faction and with a little money spent can make them all competitive. But, having a main and an alt means you can always play the game while you save money to play the list you really want to play. For example I'm trying to decide if I'm going to pick up two chimeras, or a Spirit of the Mountain first; but in the mean time I can play either army, or one of several other factions I have.

lol look bro/sis if you want to mourn that's fine but don't pretend like you are acting rationally and debating or discussing. If you are just emoting online, perhaps flag your posts. Or do what I learned to do on Facebook, type it all out and don't hit post. IF you want to play AoS3 then join the discussion, if you just want to moan about the misfortune of being a HoS player(A faction I myself play; I own 2 plastic KoS and 2 Soulfeasters.) then perhaps there are better ways to do that, which don't expose you to normal, and rational criticism to a hyperbolic position. Like just sit it out a minute and think about something else for a bit, I'm certain you will be happier afterwards. I've been through Three edition changes in WHFB, five in 40k before finally giving up, and now 3 in AoS. Let me tell you for those of us who have been around you aren't saying anything someone didn't say going from 6th to 7th edition, to 8th edition, to AoS2. Every edition certain types of armies are invalidated, for instance my Chaos Army with 3 core(batteline) units of knights going from 7th to 8th were no longer core, and the required points for core went from units to % of the army. A massive invalidating change, but I wanted to play the game and I got on with it. If we are being cool, it (being able to use another factions batteline) was an interesting historical and practical aspect that let the god armies fill their batteline with generic Chaos units, but these factions all have their own versions of those units and probably should be relying on them going forward. It is unfortunate that your specific army got lost in the shuffle a bit, but have you considered playing S2D Slaanesh followers? That is one of the natural advantages to playing a Chaos Faction the core faction is always somewhat available.

Then you can play S2D and given the state of HoS at the moment perhaps that is for the best. Your statement was you cannot play the game. Which you can as you have 2.5 Battleline Chaos Warrior selections, and 4 Marauders Battaline selections. 3x5 Chaos Warriors was what I was referring to as Min/Maxing, which is essentially the definition filling the minimum with the minimum.

Unless the only battleline you owned was 15 Chaos Warriors you have battleline for S2D, or BoC. And, if that was the case then yes edition changes often require investment if you were min/maxing the previous edition.

HoS are terrible, its obvious and clear for everyone. But, that doesn't mean that the game itself and the emergent meta will be terrible. To think so would be a fallacy. What @Athrawes is arguing that we should all be building to what we believe is good, and let the meta emerge from that effort, so that we can then with some actual insight, facts, data and statistics identify what works and doesn't work. Most AoS and wargame discussion is very inference heavy to begin with, which personally I find barely acceptable. But, we are going off the deep end, because of how we feel about the points costs. Like no one has even posted a hypothetic list yet and had discussion about the capacity for factions to achieve the battle tactics or their grand strategies. We are definitely mostly dealing in untruth.

@tripchimeras I'm pretty happy with BoC. What's your thinking on them not being well served? I agree I'm really excited by my IJ right now, there is some hideous stuff coming for the top tables.

Teclis himself accounts for 80% of the cost of the battalion, but also if you didn't take the battalion which I don't believe most people did, you are automatically down 10 bodies, changes to the cost of the other units make you lose at least 10 more bodies. I think there is a Teclis build but a) its very manageable to play against imo, and b) it doesn't have anywhere near the killing power people suggest. It sometimes comes across as if people just have ptsd. Well first of all, no they do not, a loreseeker is 160 points now, you still need to find the points to take the first one. Secondly, objectives account for less than half the points when determining the score, and even if the LRL player holds all but 1 objective for all 5 turns they finish with 5 extra points. Its the active scoring that is important, and quite a few of these give bonus points for completion with a monster. being able to take more models isn't a buff, you pay for models. Also for every unit you want with 30 models you need to take a unit of Wardens for. So its privilege that is paid for, as are allegiance abilities, and every faction has native synergistic Grand Strategies, so the cherry picking can be brought to an end. Lastly I didn't say the army was nerfed. The lack of nuance isn't appreciated. What I said was LRL aren't a "winner" in the point changes and many army lists are going to need a re-design as most factions will. Then another re-design once they play a game and understand you can't just turtle with Teclis and hope to deny your opponent the models to secure objectives. I'm actually very excited to get my IJ on the table as I can't wait to smash and bash my way through sections of the board. One of the things that has helped me appreciate the points changes has been writing lists for all my factions. It gives me a strong point to relate the changes across armies and see what factions can include. My BoC and my IJ are huge winners having gained a lot and not having to pay much in the way of point increases to get it.

Alarith are also have a pretty rare CMD ability in +1 Attack from the Spirit of the Mountains/Avenalor, Stoneguard without the use of any CP, can be 3 A, 2+, 3+ -2, Dmg1 6 to hit causing a MW. That is a very rare set of abilities in the game, and given that units aren't typically going to be over 30 wounds or so quite deadly as you can get 10 models on 32s into a fight with a 7+3 formation. I think all round Wardens are better, but Alarith aren't out of the game. And Ymetrica has legs, it's just probably the worst Nation.

There are a lot of assumptions built into this that I think you'd need to explain before you got a satisfactory response. Why are tournaments moving to a lower points total? The Gods( and demi-gods) are all for the most part stronger. They reasonably dominate your army build now however so your army is much smaller. They will look a lot more like DoT Archaon builds. But, that army was destroying all comers at the end of the edition. In the matched play battle pack monsters are intrigual to the game. They score more points but also killing them gives your opponent more points. Most battleline units compare decently against each other. And, you can make interesting armies with battleline-if units with characters and sub-factions which opens up more playstyles and army builds.

While I agree the HoS points increases seem aggressive. (the points on the KoS are insane), I think GW is reasonably worried about the summoning. Especially as all armies are smaller than they were. If I wasn't more interested in my other factions I might have given HoS a whirl, but the uninspired nature of the warscrolls lost me eye. Fyi my LRL list with no Teclis and only 20 Sentinels went up about 250 points. So I wouldn't say we won. Teclis list will lose anywhere between 20-30 bodies. It's a big difference in a build designed to essentially chip damage its way to victory. Especially how the game is now about actively claiming your battle tactics and keeping control of the board to deny your opponent as many Primaries as possible and keeping them out of reach of their battle tactics. Even without the points increases I think the core change to the game basically killed the Teclis + Sentinel spam build as a competitive force. But, it may have still dominated the casual fight to the death meta. Which is how most people seem to talk about the game online. All that being said I'm generally ok with the points changes now that I've had a chance to look at all my armies. Except BoC and Nurgle which I think are going to be problematic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I'm pretty sure Teclis only has one, 2 day event win. I suppose we'd have to parse what "performs" means.

Common misconception Brutes aren't weaker they are slightly like 5% less killy, this will change as due to the coherency rules. Predominantly its, less bodies on objectives, and lower bravery and no charge no us that makes Ardboyz *slightly* more favourable. But, if units are getting smaller and monsters more prevalent Brutes get a lot of benefit. Including having 2" reach, which means they may get more attacks into units than comparable points of Ardboyz. And, bonuses to hit against models with 4+ wounds.