Frowny

I agree. I think fulminators are also quite promising in living cities. They were already borderline playable and the increase in damage I think helps them a lot. They are hard to deliver but living city totally fixes that. Neither really needs the stormcast battletome abilities.

I've always thought Stormcast would be an interesting army for an animal theme. There are already lion/eagle/dragon motifs throughout, which could easily be turned into their own things. It would only take a little conversion and addition of 1-2 more animals. Maybe some bear or wolf helmets on a squad. Could even use different models as the base (like khorne reavers or tzeentch acolytes who are more naked) to play up the wildness of it....

I'd love in as well.

I can see them being interesting as move blockers as well. 17+d6 on turn one in tempests eye and stretched out end to end could block a lot of board. They could be 3 inches ahead of the enemies front line on t1 in many deployments, limiting your opponent to only 3 inches of forward movement for non flying models. Sure, they will die, but you've hopefully used that time to gain a board advantage or objective advantage. If you put another unit behind, you could even shoot something when your front unit is charged. They even get to do a little incidental damage shooting something before they die. For a fast screen, doesn't seem terrible

Did we hear earlier that Ogres and Nurgle were getting releases relatively early in AOS3? I can't remember why I think I heard that though.....

But it isn't all or nothing. 30 Arkonauts to move up the middle is quite cheap. It can even be fit in the double frigate lists people are looking at. Something like 3x Heroes (Khemist, Navigator, navigator) 30 xArkonauts, all weapons (on foot) 20x Arkonauts (In the big frigate) 10 x Arkonauts 2x Ironclads Should be doable in 2000 points. And honestly, this is what I'd try to start, possibly trying to fit in a gunhauler to get a little more mobility.

Has anyone tried big units of arkonauts? They seem to be good targets for unleash hell. Short range doesn't matter! Only 300 points and almost nothing wants to charge them. Also, i don't remember. Is anyone a priest? Curse seems amazing with massed arkonauts fire.

@swarmofseals I'm more curious about what actually does kill him, not just the theory of it (since I agree with you basically in entirety) and how he plays out in practice. I think he's outrageously strong. And very importantly he costs over 500 points less than Nagash. Not to mention the avoiding melee. For example, tzeench archeon will pretty reliably put Nagash in his sword, but mannfred can just cloak away.

With the heroic actions healing 2d3 per round and ignoring the first wound sustained shooting is unlikely to kill unless it is one of those already strong shooters. You have to do 5 wounds to just break even, and more if he can ever use the hunger. Chip damage will be a struggle, at least without leaving a lot of the rest of your army intact. What have people seen actually kill him?

Question for everyone- has mannfred ever died for any of you and if so how? My initial read of the book is that he should be basically unkillable with 13 wounds, ignoring the first against him per phase and the ability to avoid any combat he isn't going to win. I am still of the opinion that he is incredible beyond belief in any competitive list but confess i have never played with him-my local store hasn't yet reopened after covid...

I see your goals, but i dont think you can make a hero hammer type list work while ruling out all the big killy heroes, vykros or no. I think to be at all competitive you'll have to make some concessions either on not doing as much hero hammer or on which heroes you allow yourself. For SBG, that's radukar, belladonna, the dragon Lords, the mortarchs, and the Avengori lords. After you've already i clouded radukar and belladonna, you are left with exclusively little support heroes, hardly enough for a Herohammer list. It's possible you could do some sort of caster Herohammer i guess? With endless spells? Or maybe you'd be willing to convert a mortarch to be more wolf-like and fit the theme?

Fenrisian wolves work great and are indeed the right size and look. For hero hammer, mannfred, the Avengori lord's, and VLZODs are all great. It's definitely doable.

This exactly. I don't think it will be that difficult though. I would just emphasize the highlights with a middle tone so you still get the desired overall tone but can see whatever details. Almost like an edge highlight.

I can see why GW would restrict their tourneys and stores to only GW minis. However, as a community, I can't see why we would, except if GW were in actual financial trouble (which it definitely not the case) For me its all about effort and community. I'm 100% on board with people using different models (as long as the mostly make sense). Especially if there is a good reason to do it @Golub87 gives a great reason with terrible ancient marauder models. Or trying something else out before committing. AoS is expensive enough that I don't want to gatekeep it further by forcing financial hardship on newer players.

@Leemer I really like the reaver heavy list. The 3 shots with unleash hell and curse seems excellent. Iight drop Lotan who still seems terrible. If interested you could also go 30x now, since they are battleline or can be. I also like the look of 10x thralls deep striking with the extra charge. Yes, the coherency is not ideal but with extra charge range they should mostly get there. They still hit incredibly hard for their points. Something like Eidolon of the storm Soulscryer Leviadon 2x10 thralls 30x reavers Should be about 1500 points and a strong start. Add some eels, sharks or as you did, some aether wings. I like that a lot. Just theorycrafted

1) Taking cheap chaff to stop shooting units strength is a cost imposed on taking melee units and melee centered armies, which now might need an accompanying chaff unit. This is exactly the cost we are all worried about, now just codified by you into a direct point cost. It feels strange to say that to even the odds against 300 points of shooters, your 300 points of melee needs to take a further 80 points of chaff to take the unleash hell. It should be lopsidedly in favor of the melee unit or at least an even fight (300 pts vs 300 pts). 2) Taking shooting units to counter shooting units is a problematic solution, but it sounds like you agree that shooting is quite strong. 3) See #1. This is the same point. Dividing up your 300 point melee unit into 3x100 point units still means you lose 100 points on the charge, where before you lost zero, with minimal changes to the shooting unit I would consider this a buff to shooting. 4) Spending more points on better and more wizards to counter shooting units is exactly the same as #1. You are proposing a tax on armies that rely on melee. 5) This at least needs more explanation. Also losing a hundred points of a horde on the charge still seems to advantage the shooting unit, where before the horde would have lost nothing on the charge and would have much better odds of wiping the shooters out efficiently. That being said, overall I think the new rules are cool and do indeed give a lot more interaction in opposing turns, and I'm not entirely opposed to unleash hell. I think unleash hell will be interesting, although think the opportunity cost may be a little low. You will use it nearly 100% of the time with the relevant units, since CP's are relatively plentiful and fight twice abilities (or shoot twice abilities) are amazing. I think it will not be an interesting decision, since when appropriate, it is so obviously the best choice that it isn't a decision. I'm also super excited about redeploy since it also helps in melee vs melee matchups as you can keep a unit safe from a charge to guarantee a strike youreslf. Also gives reason to have flank attacks/ pincers, since then units can't as easily redeploy away. I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot.

I don't think you should try to ally in the BoC tzaangors, even if its allowed. Firstly, the recent warcom article states they are pointed differently for a reason, regardless of whether you agree with that or not (although clearly tzeentch has better allegiance abilities than BoC). Secondly, it was clearly an intentional decision to make them different points costs. allying them in definitely defeats the rules as intended even if it may be rules as written (and I'm not even sure if that is the case).

What are peoples net thoughts on the high-end soulblight from a competitive standpoint? Specifically 2 questions- 1) Avengori Lord/Lauka Vai from a competitive standpoint? On one hand, they are relatively expensive (although not nearly so much as a VLOZD), but they seem to be pretty much our sturdiest monster per point, with a 3+ save and ignoring rend -1. I can see them being useful as a pinning piece, throwing them forward turn one with a 2+ ignoring rend -1 and making it a pain for enemies to kill them. But maybe its better to just take more blood knights 2) Double VLOZD competitively? Certainly cool, and there are some things that reward it for the objectives, but they are a TON of points. One might be better off with just a lot more blood knights, who competitively seem great. Not saying they aren't fun though.

This seems interesting but why the Praetors? I'm not familiar enough with them to know what they do let alone what they might add here. I'm worried this list is really really immobile. You can only be in one place witht he pheonix guard, the annointed is kinda tied to the other wizards for the casting boost, and 20% of your army can't move and shoot effectively. Also, since your freeguild guard will just be cheap objective holders or screens, I'd try to upgrade them to handgunners- they can at least contribute while holding a back line objective and will do a little damage when charged before they inevitably die. I think thats worth the 30 points more or whatnot. Also with your last 40 points, I'd add some aetherwings. Just being able to push a cheap pawn forward to take an objective on turn 1 without exposing your stronger pieces when they move up is excellent.

Have people thought of making the runelord a wizard with the generic tome? Would seem good to augment his already +2 to dispel, giving him up to 3 dispels, I think. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong or misunderstanding. I think ironbreakers may be better than pheonix guard now if all you want is tanking. Easy casting mystic shield to put them on a 2+ save, and easy command use for all out defense to ignore the first rend is pretty strong. A 2+ is comparable to a 3+/4++ (pheonix guard with all out defense or mystic shield) but they also benefit from being much cheaper. Slightly less offensive at base, but if you were bringing support heroes, especially the +1 attack form the king they start to be killier too. Many lists already have a runelord for irondrakes, and the -1 rend is situationally great on them as well.

Historically, Sisters of Slaughter and Witch Elves were also to be feared. I think they still can be with the right buffs. Slaves to Darkness Marauders are also quite strong, or at least were in AOS2. And a big part of the reason they are strong is their 25mm bases- fighting easily in 2 ranks is just that good. In contrast, Sylvaneth Spite Revenants, Namarti Thralls and Bestigores are mathematically just as strong per point. Some of this is the buffs you can stack on them within the alleigance, but a big part is that ~1/3rd can't fight most of the time if you go with any more than 10, even in AOS2. The reason you can't think of them is that the rules have already made them weak. The challenge, is that these coherency rules don't actually fix that problem and instead make it slightly worse.

These are all reasonable thoughts but also seems to miss the mark slightly- The question at hand is how they did as game designers. To try to answer some of your points, 1) I don't want to be inconvenienced when playing a fun hobby game. If that is the answer, they designed it wrong. It is a critique of design. 2) I agree that maybe you should assume large models should just be pointed appropriately. The problem is that they DIDN'T do that. Gluttons saw the same increase as everything else. Indeed, they consistently underestimate how good being on a 25mm base is relative to even a 32mm. Until they meaningfully decide that base sizes need to be incorporated into the actual game (because they matter) this will remain an issue. For example, Infinity does this well, where every model has a silhouette size which determines their visibility. 3) Trying to beat the system IS the game. Maximizing models getting into melee, putting the right units into the right counters, trying to flank pin long strings. This literally is how the game is played. If the rules reward a lot of hairline optimization, then that is what people do. As an example, any engine building game like 'terraforming mars' or 'power grid', 'race for the galaxy' has lots of interacting systems where you are trying to optimize performance within the games systems. One of the key aspects of gameplay in AOS as well is optimizing systems- that's what we like about them. The challenge of game design is making it so optimizing the system is itself fun. Here is where the coherency rules fail- They try to improve fun in one way, by making less spagetti string armies and getting better immersion/apperance, by failing in another, favoring 'hairline optimization' to get things in range terms of pile ins. That being said, my overall impression of the rules is solid. I like making heroes more heroic and monsters more scary. I think the reactions will be interesting. Overall, I think its an improvement. They just dropped the ball on the coherency stuff, by adding only one part of 40k's system. If they'd given us the 40k engagement range system, I 'd be very very happy ('within base to base of something within 1 inch etc.') and it would immediately remove the finickyness of piling in

This is a very weak answer. Mortal wounds do most things dirty, and few armies can use them on all targets. And actually for their points they do ok against Mortal wounds. The same mortal wounds that would kill 5 blood knights would also kill mannfred/ neferata, an avengori lord or a VLoZD, all of whom cost a lot more. And if they are putting them into your blood knights they aren't putting them Into other targets. It is also pretty easy to take 4 units of them, making it very hard to mortal wound them all down. TLDR-they are plenty sturdy against Mortal wounds for their cost.

Yes, this. Very reasonable profile that carries buffs well with one of the strongest abilities on any AOS warscroll, retreat and charge. Mannfred + lots of blood knights +seasoning to taste will be winning tourneys shortly after the new edition is started up.

He's pointing for 3.0... i think it might fit for new points. For example, belakor went DOWN to 360. Relatedly, Belakor seems like an incredible pick going forward, since he also benefits from the hero and monster stuff