Kasper

I mean each to their own, but Im curious as to why you find it annoying. The "leaks" are really just 1 week in advance. Typically man-who-reads-book would have spoiled everything the moment things went up on pre-order anyways, but this time he wasnt sent a copy (he received 40k stuff though). When Im following a series or about to watch a movie, I dont want the plot and ending spoiled for me, but rules in a tactical board game is something completely different. With the leaks nothing is spoiled - To me it is all about taking it all the rules, understand them and learn them.

Simply based on some of the other point changes in that "leak" I dont think it is legit, but we shall see. +30 points per Salamander will hurt quite a bit. I run 2x3 in my DT list which means I need to find 180 points somewhere. In my list I run two "fluff" choices - An extra Slann and a Knight-Incantor with Everblaze Comet. I feel like I might have to cut either to meet the point requirements, or drop some Skink screens and a couple of endless spells. It seems odd the normal Stegadon or Dread Saurian didnt drop if the "leak" is true.

Im so disappointed in the AoS community - How come the 40k guys can have massive leaks but we got nothing in regards to the GHB20? I need them pooooints dude! 😄😄

We have so little data in this Warhammer community and yet the little data we have, that LVO spends a ton of time compiling, you are just gonna hand wave away because it doesnt fit your agenda? Okay dude. Slaanesh was recorded as having one of the highest win % ever. Slaanesh was a problem. Everyone knew that, even competent Slaanesh players realized their faction was bonkers. There were multiple posts on the FB groups of people feeling terrible about playing Slaanesh because games were so one-sided (they won hard) and they had to comp themselves by shelving their army. Myself included - People at my club refused to play against tripple Keeper because games werent fun. This forum was filled with so many threads of rage about Slaanesh. Anyways, it is quite clear you have a hard-on for Slaanesh and blinded/oblivious to how reality was. I have no desire to keep this going since it is clearly just a waste of time.

So what exactly isnt your point then? Because it isnt very clear. You believe it was a bad move to nerf Slaanesh after over half a year of complete domination in both casual and competitive games because the newly introduced armies would have forced Slaanesh into a different list, that would be less oppressive against the current armies that Slaanesh beat without a sweat?

I played Slaanesh from day 1 and I had to shelf the army (it is still resting in my drawers, slowly trying to sell it off) because it was borderline insane and it completely ruined pretty much every single game between combat armies. Yes, it didnt dominate EVERY melee army (Fyreslayers comes to mind) but it ruined many. Slaanesh was very dominant from day 1 and all the way until the FAQ with the summoning point nerfs, even in the bigger tournaments. From what I remember Slaanesh had a general win % of around 75 when factoring for mirror matches. You cant tell me THAT much of the meta was pure alpha-strike lists. In my opinion this is a very clear indicator that Slaanesh was borderline insane and broken vs the current armies you saw. To me it is completely irrelevant if new shooting armies (that hardcounter Slaanesh I agree) are introduced down the line to keep Slaanesh "in check", because it still keeps this hard rock-paper-scissors thing going which isnt healthy for the game. I dont care if Slaanesh would fall down to 50% due to Tzeentch, Seraphon, Lumineth etc. being introduced - It would just further create super polarized games where Slaanesh won by default against MANY armies but would also lose by default against many armies due to magic/shooting output. That isnt a cool system. This is also why I find straight up looking if X army has 50% win ratio as a stupid indicator if X army is "ok". If you had 3 armies where army A beat army B 100% of the time, army B beat army C 100% of the time and army C beat army A 100% of the time (rock-paper-scissor) each one would have a balanced win ratio, but terrible game experience. This is how it felt like playing Slaanesh for me.

Your assumption seems to be that it is OK for X army to run wild and smash a majority of armies into the ground without a fight because certain other armies hardcounter army X. I dont believe in this idea that armies should be balanced around a 2 dayer 5 game tournament event. Rock paper scissors is somewhat OK if it is done in a soft way, but when Slaanesh hardcountered pretty much every single melee army and only lost to armies that shot them off the board before they could do anything, it is a ****** design that needed to be reeled in. It effectively created a situation where the game was decided right there and then when you saw what you were up against.

If all you care about is points I probably wouldnt buy it and just rely on warscroll builder, or wait for the points to be leaked shortly after. To me the new updated realm rules and updated/new battleplans are very much worth it though. I dont feel like they are "running out of ideas". They are fleshing out a system (realm rules) that largely were ignored outside of tournaments, and to my experience some tournaments started excluding them too. Streamlining it is only a win in my eyes, not a failure at all. There is also the whole narrative/open play stuff with sky battles and ways to play with multiple players. It isnt something for me, but Im glad it is there because not everybody is dead set on playing 2.000 pts matched play like me.

People get enjoyment out of different things. Some get enjoyment out of winning. It is really no different than any sport where someone's goal is to win, even if it isnt a super important tournament they participate in. For me I play Warhammer to socialize with my mates and to roll some dice, but ultimately whenever I write a list the goal is to win, not just to ****** about. That doesnt mean we have to net-list off "pros" or tournaments, but purposely bringing a bad list would just feel wrong to me and I would hate every second of it. Even if you arent participating in a tournament, you might be wanting to practice your new army or whatever and try to finetune a list in preparation for a tournament.

Just curious, but what did you expect out of the GHB? To me it is just point updates, updated alligiance abilities (think they all got a battletome now), new/changed battleplans and a bunch of fluffy stuff I will never play around with. Im super happy that they are updating the realm rules, might actually use them now.

Seraphon can only ally with Stormcast Eternals or Sylvaneth

But that is just not true. By your logic every single new book would default to tear up every tournament if there was a true power creep happening and that is just not what we are seeing. Keep in mind that a new book generally has an advantage for a short while simply because the player behind the new book knows your army, but you dont know his or where the weaknesses are. Prior to COVID the podium results across the world were actually very diverse - Sure some armies appeared more than others, but it was still very diverse and it wasnt just the latest book winning. The whole mentality of "oh I play X army and I cant win vs Y army, so Y army/unit must be broken" is so unhealthy. Every book has some form of issues with internal balance, so you cant just randomly stuff things into your list and expect it to be the best your battletome has to offer. Maybe your friend is just way better at the game than you? Maybe his list is just a little more finetuned? I find it so funny so many people see themselves as this divine being that always play flawless and perfect and never make a single mistake or got room to improve at all, and base statements in regards to balance or whatever off that.

Yeah I understand that there are some people that just line all their stuff up and just go head first into a giant brawl in the middle of the table, but you cant really expect to experience a fair and balanced game through that way of playing. It is a tactical boardgame no matter how you look at it.

To be frank this just sounds like bad play, because it is nothing like the games I experience at my club or with my mates at all, and we do try to finetune lists and multiple people I know just copypaste a list from a recent tournament etc. What kind of armies/lists do you play with and against? Alpha strikes are strong, but thats where you need to learn about threat ranges and deploy accordingly or use screens of cheap units to prevent your good stuff from being killed. There are very few armies that just flat out annihilate you with little you can do in return. I feel like the described problem is where two inviduals just line up all their stuff and then max move everything forward without any thought or care. Of course stuff will be blown up, since it will just be a matter of whoever has the strongest units in combat.

Im pretty sure you are forced to take the Koatls specific artefact.

I would wager if there is no “you can” in the sentence, then it is an ability that is forced to trigger. Seems odd you cant opt not to use it, although the situations would be rare.

Isnt that the whole point of adjusting unit points though? Bringing stuff in line according to their power, not outright removing said unit from matched play. If Warchanters went up 30 points, you would still take Warchanters, but your overall army is nerfed since you might have to give up a screen of 5 Ardboyz or whatever to fit everything else within the 2.000 pts. mark.

That was a case of rolling dice with Plague Monks being a pain, rather than a balancing act really. I would predict a minor Warchanter/Ardboyz/Gore Gruntas increase, while Brutes/Weirdnob/Megaboss on foot get a minor decrease.

@AaronWilson Well done at the TTS! I feel like the Starstrike battleplan kinda turned against you. Feel like the game would have been much different if the two objectives werent ontop of each other. I read your tweet about Seraphon producing non-fun games for your opponent. Would really like to hear your reasoning and figured an answer would be easier here without a letter cap. Is Kroak simply too oppressive? Is it the bound Endless spells? Is it the 50/50 with the Fangs command ability? When I started theorycrafting especially heavy magic/Skinks lists, this is the exact outcome I was fearing. It is important to me that my opponent is also having fun. On the other hand, almost every army has a degree of “not fun” interactions, so would like to hear how bad it actually is on the table.

Brutes are better at dealing damage than Ardboyz, so getting the ability to have 2" reach on some of them would only increase this advantage. They still fail at numbers, bravery, charge bonus etc. compared to Ardboyz, which is generally why people opt for Ardboyz. If all you wanted was damage output, you would already pick Brutes tbh.

@Calebexnihilo Why not include an Oldblood for an extra +1 to hit? More hits for the Starpriest venom etc. @swarmofseals Yeah I agree. I think Coalesced players have to consider some movement tricks. Saurus just seem too slow and predictable otherwise.

Yeah imagine trying to "honey comb" them to get what looks like 3 ranks into combat. In general, models where a part of them got overhang is a pain. So annoying when parts are sticking out of the base area. Slaanesh Exalted Chariot comes to mind - So ****** annoying when trying to play!

Well as you said there are no events, so it is kinda hard to figure out what a "competitive" list looks like in the new tome. Some people are playing online on tabletop stimulator, where Starborne has been doing well - Largely Skinks, Chameleon Skinks and Salamanders. If you go into the Seraphon section here, there are 2 threads with lists from Jack and Paul (playtesters). In general you need to decide between going Skinks, Saurus Warriors/Knights or big dinos. From what I have seen, the "most competitive" list currently is fielding multiple Salamanders/80ish Skinks.

If you roll perfectly average, yeah. I like some leeway in case RNG doesnt favor me that specific game.

You lose out on a command trait if Kroak is the general, zero gains. The forced trait in Dracothion’s Tail is pretty decent, otherwise Im a fan of Arcane Might which lets you reroll a cast/unbind in case you roll poorly. With both of them the Slann is kinda of a support piece, so I would grab the Celestial Equilibrium spell that gives every other Seraphon caster +1. With Arcane Might and +2 to cast on him (Astrolith) you should pretty reliably buff Kroak up to be +4 to cast.