Grimbok
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Grimbok
-
-
I have mark of khorne by the way. I have had some minor succes and wins with board control (while my army is getting killed) but still struggle to actually kill stuff and complete battle tactics. At some point you can’t avoid combat.
Karkadrak and buffed knights, I don’t see it. It’s not that much damage...
Sor lord is fine, but getting those spells off and keeping up with the troops is hard. Really disappointed, looks good on paper, not happening on the table...
I have yet to see any lists without Archaon og Empty Throne in any list reviews, youtube shows, tournament results...is our win rate really an illusion and like below 30%, but Archaon taking it to 50%?
So many trash warscrolls in that book (most imported from underworlds and warcry)....
Well, maybe just wait for a new book and hope for the best...
Grimbok
-
1
-
-
Any people actually winning games with S2D these days without Archaon or Empty Throne?
Played Maggotkin with pretty standard list, killed 4 Blightkings... no more. Buffed Varanguard and Knights on charge and double activation killed almost three... what’s going on, not even bad rolls.
There is just no damage output. Terrible warscrolls...
My army (ravagers)
Belakor
Karkadrak
Sor Lord (master of magic and tome)
Darkoath Chief
30 marauders
10 warriors
5 lance knights
3 varanguard
warshrine
doom sigil
It may not be the most optimized list, but it is very much the S2D...and should be playable i casual games (it was not an optimal Maggotkin army).
Any advice?
-
1
-
-
But it says sylvaneth wizards in keyword bold...still very weird they can’t cast the signature spell.
Grimbok
-
Can a Warsong Revenant cast Verdant Blessing in Living City?
Grimbok
-
Thanks for the info. The ability to setup just one or two trees is very nice because there are plenty of terrain on my board. Seems like GHB might save us there (and I don’t want to buy and transport all those trees).
Grimbok
-
What’s up with the new wyldwoods?
Can you choose to set up less than 3 pieces?
What if you summon a wyldwoood and you set up three individual pieces away from each other and you can’t place one of them. Can you set up the other two? How far away from other terrain, still 3”? How on earth am I supposed to set up 3 individual pieces within range of spell or ability with all 3 pieces more than 3” from all other terrain and objectives? How close to enemy models can I set up the pieces?
So you can teleport only one unit per battle round and they have to be wholly within 6” right. But treelords can teleport in addition, but they only have to be within 6”, not wholly within?
If a monster destroys a wyldwood, does it mean I can’t teleport? Except for treelords, because it’s on their warscroll?
So you can move a unit wholly within 6” and then teleport? But the treelords can not move, then teleport?
What kind of mess is this?
Grimbok
-
I’m thinking of buying a group of varanguard for my army. Which weapon option is the all round best?
I lean towards daemonforged blades. What are your thoughts and experiences?
Grimbok
-
First game yesterday. 2000 point pretty standard.
We played on the old board size, but with objectives spaced out with new ranges. They were very close, which is a shame. I like more space between objectives.
Takeaways:
It’s still AoS.
Coherency is an issue (mostly for my opponants 32 mm bases with 1” reach, I only had two big units on 25s..). Stupid and janky rule, perhaps the single worst rule in 3rd.
More command points and reset worked better than I thought. Redeploy is extremely strong, possible big NPE here. Command abilities are a big one in this edition. My army worked much better now, before I was starved for command points, but now I actually used my Darkoath Chieftains command ability, where as before I only had one point for more important stuff. So more of the weaker/niche command abilities can be used.
Hero actions are...fine, I don’t think they add enough versus the conplexity of the rules. Same with monster rampage. Did we really need this?
Smaller boards are a bad thing. We played on the old size, and the board was flooded with models... using new points...
Battleplans are way better than feared. I was fearing the hopeless and boring and complex 40 k style missions. It’s a good mix. There are problems with some of the battle tactics, i don’t mind the format, easy to choose and remember (single turn only), but some are way too easy. It becomes irrelevant because both have scored the same amount anyways...Grand strategy...whatever...again, did we really need this? With better and more difficult battle tactics it could work fine.
No more battalions...big plus. Armies are closer in powerlevel just because of this. Good thing. Core battalions are...fine. Again, are they needed? Do they make the game better...it’s just more stuff on top of other army construction rules...
In conclusion: It’s still AoS. More complexity without much benefit for the game experience. I can live with that, but omg it’s hard to begin playing this game! So many things...so not beginner friendly at all. Battleplans are fine, which is perhaps the most important thing, and the battlepack style is very modular, so players and organizers could make their own battlepacks.
Grimbok
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Reinholt said:
So after playing a game with the new coherency rules, I will say this:
MAN that is janky.
I don't think it actually changes much that matters, with one exception. Screens are slightly smaller (though not as small as one would think as if you have a truly cheap screening unit that was only going to live one turn anyways losing a bunch to coherency is no different than losing them when they get mulched in combat). However, it literally made our movement phase take more than 2x as long to sort out the new rules. It will get slightly faster as you go but instead of just "whatever here is kind of a line" now setting up screens took a much longer time. I would estimate the movement phase was >50% of the game and my main prediction is the new coherency rules are likely to make the game significantly slower as now you need to fiddle with formations way more.
Likewise, being on a 25mm is a superpower. I can fight in two ranks with them. On the other hand, 32mm models with 1" reach are absolutely shafted as you need these funky jagged formations just to fight and an opponent prepared for that can really reduce your ability to hit. So I think this may not be working as intended for GW and unless they want the game to grind to a halt and/or intend to get rid of models on 32mm bases, I would make the base weapon reach for all 32mm models 2". We literally had a 10 minute single move where tons of measuring happened to get a block of Ogor Gluttons into combat. The conclusion by my opponent is that he is putting his Gluttons in the bin and will just be running min units of Mournfangs now, which is probably not what was intended with the new coherency rules.
Third, and I think this is really the unintended part for GW, the formations look even dumber. If you thought conga lines were bad before, my battleline of Skeletons, deployed to hold an objective, were heroically charged by a group of mournfangs alternately charging straight at us sideways or at a 45 degree angle, with not a single one coming on straight, to make sure they could all fight. Formations look WEIRD when you get bigger bases in larger units just to get things into combat. Like comically weird.
So I think my conclusions are as follows on new coherency rules:
- Game is slower
- Formations are even jankier
- Base size matters more than almost any other attribute for melee units >5 models (single models or min units who cares)
Probably not working as intended for GW but that's my initial read. Anyone else tried it and feels differently?
Agree.
How the new coherency rules can go through design process and playtesting is just mind boggling. It singlehandedly makes this edition rules worse than the previous. Janky ******, that solves nothing. And there are many easy elegant solutions (cloud formation every model within 12” or whatever range you want being one). Absolutely no idea of base size issues, horrible ugly formations etc.
The rest of AoS 3 is fine. Too many things stacked to my taste (do we really need hero and monster actions or more command points?), but fine...
Grimbok
-
4
-
The points are way off, I think they used some kind of generic formula. I think kurnoths are paying (too much) for counting as two models, big monsters cost more because of monster actions.
Problem is just Sylvaneth started way underpowered before the adjustment. My list look fine, until I see how few models and wounds there actually is...the army just crumbles too fast.
My Slaves to Darkness are fine. Less than 100 point total in my list are gone (just dropping a pacj of furies, no big deal).
Stormcast, I will just wait for a new armybook coming soon.
Grimbok
-
Yeah, it’s quite rough. Kurnoths and Durthu/Ancient alone is a massive points hike. The rest is fine all things considered. But just having one of each kurnoth unit around is almost 100 points...insane...
I made a 2000 points 4 drop list...just 95 wounds....auchhh...
But the core battalions and other rules in 3.0 and the Kragnos updates seems fine for Sylvaneth, it actually seems more playable now. Without the increase for kurnoths and durthu, it might have been actually playable (maybe a win once in a while)...
Grimbok
-
Oh yes of coarse..😀
Looking at skull reapers with bare chests and 4+ saves...
Grimbok
-
This is extremely disturbing if this is what is to come in a new book...utterly garbage and super weird stuff.
4+ save, who is writing this? Where is the quality control? I mean, the normal Lord Celestant is 3+. Why the 6” move? All this with the same lame weapon profiles from 2015...
The special abilities could be OP og total trash, not really a big deal, ****** happens, but the basic profile is just so bad...so bad...
Who looked at the super hero pose and wrote those stats😧
Grimbok
-
How are you gonna kill the enemy? Unbuffed warriors or knights?
Grimbok
-
It makes no sense they can’t have marks, when the marauders they lead and buff can have a mark... so now my knights, chosen and marauders all have mark of khorne, but my Darkoath Chief leading and buffing the marauders can’t...well, it’s only a reroll 1 aura they lose...
The Slaves to Darkness book is a poorly designed mess...so many stupid imported warscrolls that makes no sense...and railroading into Despoilers, unless you go Archaon...
But great models...
Grimbok
-
1
-
-
Is it correct that a Darkoath Chieftain can’t have a mark of chaos? Seems odd, since he is buffing my marauders, that have a mark...any FAQ on it or just standard GW ******?
Grimbok
-
Give the small heroes a command ability... in most new books thay have. But an aura of using the heros bravery is fine.
Grimbok
-
The basic rules are fine. Keep them simple, they work just fine. Maybe a tweak or two, Don’t make it like 40K, that’s a mess.
Shooting rules are fine, it’s more about a few broken units and abilities. Nothing wrong with Blood Stalkers, Longstrikes etc, but shoot in hero phase i just bad design. Longstrikes are pretty much overpriced garbage outside of anvils. Flamers and KO are just about points. There are so many bad shooting units. It’s not the basic shooting rules that are the problem here...
Many bad rules in armybooks needs to be corrected, especially out of phase rules, like hero phase combat and shooting, 6” pile in no need to charge, strike first, strike twice, shoot twice etc.
Drop the number of drops nonsense, and make first turn a roll off. No one army should know if they go first or second. It would also help the double turn issue and shooting dominant armies.
More double turn interactions in missions and predatory spells (which they ruined completely).
Drop some or all of the generic command abilities. No need for immune to battleshock or reroll ones. Game would be better without them all.
Better and interesting terrain rules. Water features, forests, rubble etc. Not 40K complex, just to spice up the board.
Less mortal wound, output and not on basic units like sentinels! Keep it to monsters and heroes and a few magical effects.
The problems in AoS is mostly just power creep and some stupid powerful armies. Most can be corrected with points, like KO, changehost, sentinels and Seraphon.
Grimbok
-
5
-
1
-
-
Ehhhh.... ok. I am going to convert one from the new underworlds warband. Does the Chaos Lord model come with a round 40 mm base?
Grimbok
-
Thanks
Grimbok
-
Hey
What is the base size for a Chaos Lord on foot? The chart has one for Lord of Chaos, whatever that is...
Grimbok
-
I agree. The tome needs a complete rework. This summer maybe?
Grimbok
-
To be fair, the patrol battalion is just bad design and liberators need a new warscroll, not a couple of pages of add on to save them.
Grimbok
-
2
-
-
Lets make a new start collecting box with iconic and beautiful chaos warriors, knights and an awesome chaos lord. Then make them really really bad, while making butt ugly marauders godlike powerful, while our new pretty warcry warbands are not battleline...classic GW...
It’s really really weird...ok, the karkadrak is a good warscroll design. A bit expensive, but good warsroll. Knights hitting on 4’s...come on. They need to hit harder on the warscroll and stay expensive. Chaos warriors make no sense, defensive buff in large squads of killer elite psychos...ehhh..what.
So we have three basic and classic units that should be the building blocks of the army, chaos warriors, marauders and knights. And they are terribly designed warscrolls. Oh and Varanguard at 280...not.
Grimbok
AoS 2 - Slaves to Darkness 2 Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
Yeah, it’s unfortunate...
And a mess across many books. Had a look at Darkoath Savagers. Nice enough warscroll, but no cultist keyword and no mark of chaos then? How come my Darkoath Chieftain can’t buff Darkoath Savagers...
I do have a stormcast army though😀...
Grimbok