Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tripchimeras

  1. Yeah I think if he gets the reroll saves and a +1 or 2 on Archaon's armor I think its really hard to bring him down that quickly. But that is definitely encouraging! Yeah I think Amulet of Destiny on the gatebreaker is definitely our best defense. Encouraging you didn't have an issue with him though! Thanks for relaying your experience!
  2. This is something I've seen a lot, and I just don't think its really true. They increased points slightly on the 40k side too and its simply a natural consequence of a universally slightly smaller board. But overall with the removal of paid batallions most armies have remained exactly the same size, if not slightly larger. Additionally I have seen very minimal shift towards smaller units with the reinforcement rules. The idea that this is shifting the game towards an MSU meta has not been born out at all so far, and I really don't think is going to happen. I am always very concerned that GW is going to move away from massed battle games at some point, and I think a lot of the base is very sensitive to this. But beyond some very superficial rule changes, the game hasn't been pushed that way at all thus far in 3rd. Also based on how GW proper has historically interacted with Forgeworld, there is approximately a 0% chance they are doing anything to coordinate their products with an Old World release. From past decisions if anything the GW proper teams are in direct competition with Forge World and often make decisions that are actively at odds with one another.
  3. So its looking like currently the dominant lists in the (admittedly extremely early) meta are all archaon lists. Either Archaon + Belekor, or Archaon + kairos in Tzeentch. Anyone have a chance to test SoB out against any Archaon and/or Tzeentch builds yet? I'm unsure how the matchup looks for us at the moment. We would need to bring an incredibly large percentage of our army to bear on him to have any sort of real chance to kill him, which would mean deploying fairly tightly which only works in some of the scenarios. And with all of the tzeentch summons I'm not sure how realistic it is for us to maintain that. I need to do the math but seems like 2 combat phases is the most you can expect a mega to survive in combat with Archaon (especially if the list has a chaos lord to doll out double activations on him). I guess the one benefit is that past Archaon I'm not sure how much damage the rest of the lists have to put out against us? So assuming Archaon is the only real threat to take down a mega (big assumption I don't feel super great about there), I guess we can just delay combat with him as long as possible and then hope to lock him up for 2 turns with 1 mega and then hope that by the time he gets out of it we have an insurmountable lead. But this assumes a lot, so I'm not sure this is a great matchup for us... TLDR feels like we would need 3 megas to take him out in a turn or 2, which seems difficult to orchestrate without sacrificing VP, so avoidance seems like play, but I don't have enough Tzeentch experience to know how much damage these lists are putting out aside from him. PS Did some number crunching tonight and it looks at his base, without the substantial spell backup available in tzeetnch, as long as we are able to get up a +1 armor buff; a single mega should survive a turn of combat (heavily damaged) even if he gets double activation and has finest hour up. However, with the extremely attainable access to things like +1 attack, +1 damage, destiny dice etc It seems like a prepared charge from Archaon, backed up by chaos lord, can likely 1 hit a mega unless he's got the amulet of destiny. So it seems like whether he has a chaos lord backing him up is pretty freaking important to how we address an Archaon list. Assuming he does seems like finding a way to kill or separate the lord from him is pretty paramount to beating the list. Otherwise its going to be tough going finding ways to slow archaon down while also staying ahead on VP if a mega can't even hold him up for a turn.
  4. So far with my playtesting I have mostly been leaning towards 4 megas as to my ideal tourney build, which I'm finding really surprising. Because when I first saw we could do it, I thought it just seemed like a fun gimmick list. But having played a few games with 4 megas and one or 2 with 3 mancrusher, I've found the 4 megas to be a bit better so far. They are just so good at denying most lists VP and pretty much can always get theirs. So far from my limited testing it feels like it makes up for the decreased flexibility/ board control of the mancrushers with this ability, and in some ways actually gives them more flexibility because they don't have to push to maintain VP leads as hard, because they can usually guarantee opponents don't get their battletactic every single turn. However, there do appear to be a couple builds they really lag behind at least in my head (though I haven't actually gotten a chance to play them). Gotrek in particular gives me pause when thinking of 4 megas as a legit tourney build. I think if you stick him in a middle of the road cities army or whatever, a 4 mega taker tribe list has plenty of tools to play avoidance while still getting enough VP to win. But you stick Gotrek in the middle of an LRL or Seraphon list that really punishes you for playing avoidance and it feels like a different story. On average he should do just under a full mega gargant worth of wounds a turn. Meanwhile a fully CA/heroic action buffed gatebreaker on the charge doing as many mortals as possible still only manages just under 4 wounds to gotrek, which means you throw 2 mega's into Gotrek you are probably killing him something like 30% of the time (not good...). So this feels like a prime build where you really miss the mancrushers. Because you have nothing to feed gotrek/ don't have the killing power of 3 mancrushers to reliably 1 shot him (3 mancrusher unit + 1 buffed up mega should usually kill him in 1 go). So you either have to hope Gotrek takes away enough of the shooting elements that you can weather 3-4 rounds of shooting without engaging much, or B they divide their forces and allow you to whittle them down without having to sac megas to Gotrek. I think you basically can afford to Sack 1 mega to him a game if it is for a meaningful reason, then you have to hope the other 1500 pts of opponents army can't kill more then 1 more mega, all while you ideally are racking up all your VPs. This is the type of build that makes me lean a little bit more towards 2 or 3 megas again. But not only do I enjoy playing 4 mega's more (both the novelty of the 4 model army and just the playstyle so far has been really enjoyable for me), I think in most matches they are slightly more versatile. Like a 4 mega taker tribe doesn't really need to exert a ton of board control to win in most matchups, because they are basically never going to lose on an objective, and have so many easy paths to battle tactic VPs. I also don't think we really need that combat oomph from 3 mancrushers most of the time, because there aren't many units in the game we NEED to smash to take a W, we usually can avoid them or already are killy enough. I think its really just the mobile chaff thing that is the issue holding me back from fully committing to a 4 mega list. I think they only end up mattering in a small handful of matchups, but those matchups seem likely to place high in the meta, which makes them more meaningful... Wondering how others have been experiencing this? I think the good news is we have multiple valid builds, and it doesn't seem like one is obviously a lot better overall then the others right now. But on the flip side trying to plan for summer/fall tourney's is really hard right now because I'm so indecisive about how many Megas to take haha.
  5. Gotta remember that these books weren't written within 2 weeks of eachother. Books are almost always locked in for printing months before they get released. And that doesn't even take COVID into account. My understanding is that the production/release schedules for everything are way off right now. GHB 21 and AOS 3.0 are the first things to get released "on time" in quite a while. I would bet Broken Realms Kragnos was written and locked in months before GHB 21 was. The 2-3 week release gap is definitely deceptive I suspect.
  6. Its seems to just mainly have been intended to correct a wording in the core rulebook that would have made him break allegiance abilities if taken from what I'm seeing now. Since 99% of destro has allegiances locked to specific keywords seems like he's still pretty limited. Someone noted the 6+ ward in bonesplitters isn't, so I guess he would get that now? If the changes to Armor mods didn't already ****** bonesplitters so much, honestly might be a pretty decent combo. But yeah doesn't seem to do anything for us, except what @novakai just outlined, but think he could already do that, so not really a change I think.
  7. Well on the downside the faq confirms positive modifiers past +1 do affect rend. On the upside it appears the faq has removed nearly all access to rerollable saves from the game. While in the case of poor slaanesh, this is yet another kick to the groin, however overall this goes at least part of the way in reducing how abusable this is. There is still going to potentially be an issue with rend becoming too devalued, but it at least removes some of the most potentially abusable examples.
  8. So the new faqs seem to have almost no effect on ironjawz. What I'm not sure about is the Kragnos faq: Is this meant as a clarification that he doesn't remove your ability as a faction to use allegiance, or is this meant to state that he benefits from them even without containing the faction keyword. If the former, not super sure why it was necessary. If the latter, this feels like insanely huge, and makes him amazing in Ironjawz. First time reading it I thought it was latter. But now that I read it again, suspect its not so exciting. Just wanted to see how others read it.
  9. Kragnos' new faq states that he benefits from allegiance abilities regardless of his keyword. At first I thought this might almost make him worth it for us, since he'd count as 20 models. But then reading closer I think he still benefits 0 from it, since all of them, including mightier makes rightier specify the model. Is that everyone elses reading as well? Got so excited their for a second haha. Think it helps him a lot at least in some of the other destro books, especially warclans.
  10. With all the focus on unleash hell, I think the rend/armor mod situation shouldn't be lost sight of. I think its mostly been discussed as a point of confusion rather then concern, but I think its going to exacerbate the mortal spam issues. It creates a situation where rend is significantly devalued and the more durable units in the game, most of whom were already very competitive, become incredibly more powerful. This causes even more emphasis in the competitive game on mortal wound generation as the only way to effectively combat these units, and just contributes to the shooting spiral 2nd had already started, and that unleash hell potentially makes worse. +1 armor cap feels okay imo, but given the prevalent interpretation of the rend rules, and the seeming confirmation of it working that way in the Khorne article today, it seems that things in the 3+/2+ save or re-rollable save categories, can easily become neigh impervious to non mortal attacks. It just feels so backwards in a game that was already suffering from a heavily shooting/mortal focused meta to compound it by making combat armies that much less effective. Rend 2 is common enough that a little added survivability feels like a good thing, and units that had 3+/2+ saves can still be notched down enough by the more combat focused armies that killing them feels feasible at +1 armor cap. But with the modifiers able to cancel rend it just feels too much to me. Now most of the time for most armies this really isn't that abusable. You can only start abusing it once per game per character most of the time. But in chaos? Lots of sources of + saves in those books, and lots of high armor/rerollable armor models to complement it. Its not everywhere, but the places that can abuse it can really abuse it. This could easilly be one of those things that sounds scarier then it is, and turns out I'm way overreacting too. Just in light of the Khorne article confirming it works that way, and thus clarification in the FAQs against this being all the more unlikely, I'm feeling bad about it in the moment. PS In a vacuum I think this is actually a great fix to shooting. But since shooting armies that didn't spam mortals weren't really the biggest oppressive issue in AoS, shooting that spammed mortals was, I feel like this instead compounds the issue. PPS upon further reflection, this was definitely a kneejerk reaction to the Khorne article confirming the rule was likely staying for me... Thinking about it more, maybe its not so bad. Definitely think some chaos lists are going to abuse the ****** out of it early, but I do think overall it probably helps vs shooting in the long run and I'm sure abuse will be curbed as more books come out... So meh... Leaving my overreaction here for posterity so others can overreact to my overreaction :).
  11. I mean I know I quit on GW for several years after the AoS switch and didn't come back till early 2nd. I ebayed most of my models in the heat of the moment, including some things I now regret selling. I do think that resentment definitely lingers. I think the biggest thing that contributed to it all was that GW convinced themselves they were a models company and the rules just did not matter. They had been saying it for years, and I think the AoS switch was the culmination of them testing out that theory. I'd like to think they learned their lesson, especially with them finally doing things like bringing official GW tourneys back to the US. That being said I don't feel like lingering AoS resentment has anything to do with any potential reduction in 3rd sales. AoS has been selling like gangbusters overall. Its not 40k but its significantly more profitable then fantasy was at the end from everything I've read. We've got to remember that at the end there fantasy was barely breaking even. Wasn't the basic spacemarine box selling more then the entire fantasy range combined? Like it was 100% GW's fault that things got to that point, but its not like they took the drastic step they did out of nowhere. The game had been ailing for a while. I think the step they took was 100% the wrong one, but they have clearly recovered and learned from it. Don't think AoS is going anywhere. If there was a 3rd sales drop off, my feeling its mostly just the timing. They condensed the post covid release schedule into such a tight timeframe that the end of edition releases just wore people out I think. They should have delayed 3rd some, but I get why they didn't (you don't want product just sitting in your warehouse like that). I think they will be fine, and if it didn't hit their expectations I feel like it probably wasn't off by much. But this is all conjecture.
  12. I mean how big of a difference really is 3 drop vs 4 drop going to be for us? 2 megas or less we have 2 drops, 3+ megas we have 3-4 drops. Given how juicy warlord is going to be for most armies, I think we are rarely going to lose priority with 4 drops so I really don't think the extra drop alone is worth taking what you perceive to be a less optimal list otherwise. I do agree I'm finding list building more difficult though overall. I'm used to having like 2 or 3 list choices that make any sense with SoB. All of a sudden we have like 6 enticing options! We are just spoiled for choice now haha!
  13. Yeah this is my concern with my single mancrushers. But in my mind its hard to get past a 4 unit army with nothing to deal with the likes of teleporting units into your back objectives etc. I know kicking can help with this, and the importance of primary VPs has decreased a lot. So on balance the free VP mancrushers are giving away very well may not be worth what versatility they provide. The 2 ed player in me still can't grasp that 4 mega's would be anything but a fun gimmick haha. But they do offer serious VP denial that can't be understated, you're right. Honestly would love if its our best option, so hope you are proven right!
  14. Yep worded very poorly, my bad. In my head I just meant the more models that can do it the more flexibility you have with where and how you use the monstrous reactions each turn. They just up your flexibility all over the place. Only real downside is that because they count as monsters and are battleline they are pretty premo VP generators for opponent. But I think the trade off is worth it. Yeah sandals are great, probably better then the wizard. While flaming weapons helps in a similar way, its obv not reliable, but I do really like the idea of having a Giant mage, and now that its better then before I'm too tempted. Plus that unbind isn't worthless either, though its not going to stop a ton with no modifiers.
  15. I think its a little early to tell what the best Sons build is going to be still. Like I've gotten only 1 game of 3rd in personally, there have been no tourney results to pick through and the army faqs aren't even leaked yet. So the good and bad news is we don't know which kinda leaves you going into prepping for the July tourney blind, but it also gives you complete freedom from being over burdened with Netlists to just go with your gut and see what happens. But since you've asked, personally the way I've been thinking about it so far is that we want to best leverage our objective advantages and make it as easy as possible to collect the battle tactics VPs. On top of that with monstrous reactions monsters get better the more you take (more d3 damage dealers). So I think this puts maneaters in quite a strong position as they give us more board control and are also pound for pound our best damage dealers at this point (though obv they make us a little more fragile which isn't great for the shooting meta). I think at bare minimum its going to make sense to have 3 single maneaters in a competitive list. So I'd say that is a pretty good place to start for your tourney in July. And combine that with wanting a gatebreaker (who wouldn't?) that already curtails what you'd want to bring right off the bat. So I guess my preliminary suggestions just off of trying to get as close as possible to filling the full 2k points, would be either: A. 1 of each mega in a taker tribe + 3 single maneaters (this is what I'm starting out with for now). I'm thinking glowy lantern and the amulet of destiny for artifacts. And you can put them in the 1 drop batallion for a 3 drop list. B. 1 gatebreaker and 1 warstomper with 3 single maneaters and a unit of 3 maneaters. Think you put Amulet of destiny on the gatebreaker and you've got a 2 drop list on your hand. Probably go stompers tribe in this one since +1 to hits are so readily available now? But that is entirely based on me thinking 3 single maneaters are good to have, and pt filling from there haha. So I could be totally off base once the dust settles.
  16. All megas are leaders. So no. The only battalions we can take as of now are Battle Regiment and Hunters of the Heartland. Maybe FAQ gives us an exception, but at the moment we are super limited, because Megas can only count as commanders and maneaters only count as troops. PS Important to note that Generals have nothing to do with battalion composition. I've seen this confusion elsewhere. All that matters are the battlefield roles assigned to each unit in the pitched battle profiles and how many wounds a unit has. PPS If you are taking Kragnos you definitely want the Mega to be the general. Kragnos always counts as one and cannot take any enhancements. There is 0 benefit to not making a mega your general.
  17. Played my first game of 3rd on TTS last night. Took takers tribe 1x KrakenEater general with glowy lantern and flaming weapon, gatebreaker with amulet of destiny, warstomper, and 3 single mancrushers. Played vs trip thirster khorne with a couple of skull cannons, a secretor, one priest, 4 units of reavers , and a unit of hell hounds. We tried out the new Feral Foray battleplan. It's a naturally bad matchup for Khorne and predictably we called it end of 2. They just have no chance on objectives vs taker tribe, I'm somehow faster then they are (Why on earth do thirsters only have 10 movement??) and I think its honestly too many wounds for khorne to chew through reliably, so they can't really play keep away objective game, but also can't really meet us head to head all that well. So not sure where it leaves them in the matchup, at least for thirster lists. Really enjoyed 3rd rules though. I like how the scenarios are much more limiting on how many points you can score from main objectives, so its harder to build huge insurmountable leads early, and battle tactics matter a lot. Battle tactics and grand strats are obviously really favorable for us (even though I missed mine t1 haha), which is great. CA's are really, really interesting. Bottom of t1 I had a battletactic to kill one of his thirsters where after movement I'd have an easy 6 inch rerollable charge from my warstomper to get to him. But I completely forgot about redeploy when choosing it, and he redeployed the thirster to make it a 10 inch charge. I only hit a 7 first and then a 6 which was only enough to carry me into an imperfect screening unit of reavers. However, because of the new pile in rules only pinning you to the unit instead of to the model, I was able to pile in 3 inches to be just within 3 of bloodthirster. So I was still able to unload on him, but I fluffed on shooting against it and didn't quite get the rolls I needed in combat and left him with 4 wounds so missed the battletactic anyways after all of that. But the pile in did allow me to also clip one of his objectives so it was still a win. I think my biggest takeaway is that CP's felt super scarce. Game only lasted 2 turns but we were both chronically depleted on them just because there are so many useful CA's you want to use, second player turn 2nd round we both had 0 CP for the entire turn. So while I do think things like redeploy and unleash hell are very abusable and potentially problematic, I do think CP limitations are going to make some of the craziness we are expecting a little harder to manage. This does put a lot more emphasis then I thought their would be on the generic battalions though. Because getting those free uses of CA's or an extra CP or 2 is going to be a much bigger deal then I thought it would be before. Which is honestly not great for us, since we have almost no access to them. Though CA's aren't quite as necessary for us as other armies so prob not too too bad. Last observation I've got, battleshock feels pretty big now. There just weren't generally CP left over for auto passing tests on his end, and even if there had been only 1 unit at a time could have been affected. This is honestly great for us, because we have no battleshock unless we take 3 mancrusher units and while last edition our shooting felt fairly minor from my perspective, its effective enough to ping a couple units for a few wounds, and all of a sudden against low ld units that matters. I was also able to unleash hell on the blood thirster that has that big mortal aura with my gatebreaker and the 4 wounds took him down a bracket on the damage table causing the aura to do less then it would have that round. So while I think overall I'd prefer all the pro shooting stuff to be dialed back, it actually can benefit us some as well haha. Overall it feels like a much more enjoyable and interactive game then 2nd, and all the hype for Sons feels mostly justified. I do think balance wise gunlines are going to be a problem for everyone until GW can get shooting units pointed properly for all the new abilities that help them. But in general I'm really happy with the rules after my first game.
  18. Interesting, I always do the math on every unit in my faction, but for whatever reason I was just too lazy to do the warstomper because its variable and just assumed he didn't do more(and in 2nd SoB just didn't feel like optimization really mattered with where they were in the power curve). But if that's true this list makes a ton of sense and feels like one of the stronger options. I do think that as much as I want nothing to do with this many mancrushers 2 and 6 or 1 and 9 feel like they potentially could be the strongest. My guess without playing any 3rd yet is that 2 and 6 is probably going to be the sweet spot, but I'm hopeful its 3 and 3 because I just don't want to have to buy more mancrushers haha.
  19. I mean it seems like we may be in for a lot of faq updates not to mention the fact that our units may be getting full warscroll rewrites if we are about to be getting a new armybook next month. So everything I'm about to say comes with that giant caveot. While I really like where ironjawz are at the moment, I'm a little sad about where bonesplitters/big waagh! are as of this moment. They feel like they got shafted a bit. Even past the horde discount going away (this effects pretty much everyone across books) the limits to armor modification really hit BS hard. their scroll has a built in armor modification ability on it, which means they are capped at 5+ armor. Granted you can give that 5+ rend resistance up to -3, but still its not great, it takes a lot of the wind out of their sails. Really hope in the faqs and/or new book the shield save bonus is just built into the profile. Still means we will never see 3+ save bonesplitters again, but itd be at least something.
  20. Look I do think Ardboyz have an advantage over brutes, but I think there are situations brutes make more sense. I think with the reinforcement quandary, as you agreed, there is a place for brutes. That's all I'm saying. I said from outset statistically ardboys are better, and your very helpful stats illustrate that well. However, I do think you are exaggerating how easy it will be to get optimal ardboy coverage in combat, and not because of how fiddly it is (I agree its pretty strait forward). That formation allows basically no room for coherency issues and requires convenient unit spread from opponent/good charge. There are going to be armies that can pick out specific models that will prevent you from using that formation. SoB and ObR come to mind, but I think there are 1 or 2 other books that allow for picking out specific models too. And in these situation's its going to be pretty risky to lay out your boyz like that. I admit its an edge case, but when the differences are not that great, I feel like its relevant. I 100% agree that jacks of all trade models like Brutes are always in a tight spot, and its hard to justify them over GG or AB in any one specific situation. But that's the thing with Brutes they are worse then GG as hammer and worse then AB as infantry, but they can aren't that much worse then either. So they have some flexibility and utility that doesn't come at a super high efficiency loss. I think movement is honestly the biggest strike against them, but depending on the meta and the list I can see uses. Now I say all of this, and will I take them myself? Maybe?? Honestly, probably not haha, but that is partially my personal playstyle and I still think they have their place. It just depends on what the rest of your list looks like. You are going to take ardboyz and GG more often, but I think there are lists that are better with brutes and you will still see them occasionally in competitive play. So I don't think they've been rendered unusable at all. They are worse then they were, but better then they where they started in current army book.
  21. I think I mentioned BoC, more for effect 3rd changes overall have on them then pts specifically. Like they didn't get hit hard in pts in relation to everyone else, but they were also already near the bottom of the pile, and they weren't helped that much either. I think they potentially get hit somewhat hard by things like reinforcements, coherency etc etc. Like I think they benefit from monster changes for instance because they've got a lot of cheap monsters, but they are still 0-4 for behemoths and don't have way around that, so feels like having meh cheap monsters doesn't help as well as it could. I also don't play BoC though, so totally could be wrong.
  22. Thanks for sharing, and I do think its very interesting. But it DEFINITELY does not tell the story in terms of relative power shifts. As others have mentioned earlier the specific units effected, and overall context of what people will be taking matters much more. Like DoK is a great example where you see a 20% increase in point cost and at first glance it looks like they got crushed. Then you look at practically what their new lists are going to look like and its like "oh, this is very nearly the same". They didn't get hit very hard at all in reality I think. But then Tzeench DID actually get hit hard. My point is just, its all very interesting, but we definitely shouldn't place a large amount of importance on these top line stats. PS. not saying you specifically think that. Just feel its important that this stuff gets put into context. So my response isn't meant to be directly directed at you haha.
  23. Yep this is the key on slaanesh. You are capped at 1 unit a turn. And based on what you are bringing to the table base at this point, I'm sorry, you could summon a keeper once a turn all game long and the top tier armies would still just plow through slaanesh at this point. This is a SLIGHT exageration, but not as much of one as it should be. Look in theory MSU will help slaanesh sumoning, but msu also makes it that much harder to NOT kill the units you target, and if you are playing for summons your army is all 180pt 11 wound archer units and blissbarb seekers and its just not going to go well for you anyways. You just can't replenish your troops fast enough at 1 summons no matter how much depravity farming you do. Realistically T1 and T2 you will build up depravity points at a good clip, but there will be basically nothing left to support your summoned units by end of 2 against any remotely competitive list. I am sure there is some janky list in this book somewhere still that if played perfectly and utilizing a bunch of gamey loopholes that it can compete at some level. You can find something like that in almost every book. But it just doesn't justify the drubbing GW gave them. Gits changes were bad, Fyreslayers were tragic, Beasts of Chaos were ugly, but all of these are older books that are going to be getting replaced soon anyways. Slaanesh is brand spanking new, came out of the gate way overpriced and just got destroyed again. To me its by far the most bizarre of the point changes. On the positive side a lot of armies I think got done really well. Love warclans changes, love SoB, love S2D. All felt like they got really solid changes that either keeps them in similar good place (warclans), improves list flexibility (SoB), or gives them a needed buff (S2D). Think Seraphon are still going to be really strong but I think the pt changes largely were decent and they should be a little more manageable. I think DoK, LRL, and Cities are clear winners to me. DoK got pretty big pt hikes, but they are pt hikes that just don't fundamentally change their army comp, and I really don't see changing their OP level enough. Same with LRL. Cities just got plain BETTER. Like ALL of their monsters got reduced when every other army saw big pt hikes on monsters, and they really weren't bad to begin with (especially phoenixes). And lets not get started on how much better Hallowheart and tempest eye got. What on earth was GW thinking making Iron Drakes conditional battleline??? That is going to be one hell of a no fun experience waiting to happen. They were great before, now you are talking about ALSO giving them ability to stand and shoot, reducing cost of soulscreem bridge for them, AND they can now have a 3+ save in combat. Big winners for individual units. I also have nightmares thinking about whatever horde armies are left trying to play vs gyrocopters. Think about 60 goblins trying to take an objective from some random chaffe unit with 2 gyros behind them backed up by hawkeye and celestial huricanum. Thats 120 3+ 3+ -1 rend stand and shoot shots... Look I know that's an edge case, but just wanted to throw that out their to demonstrate how good Cities can be now.
  24. I honestly think warclans is in a great place as things stand. Minimal 10pt increases mostly, which in comparison to other armies is really not that bad. Even the increases on mawkrushas are pretty good for us given how much better they are now. I think the 5 man battleline for ardboyz is great. While being limited to 15 may seem bad, coherency combined with 1inch reach was going to naturally limit how big you wanted those units (and with the loss of batalions the big blocks feel not as great now anyways). I think with the 25 pt swing between ardboyz and brutes you really do have to consider coherency, brutes have access to 2 inch reach, so 10-15 brutes are much easier to manage around the board despite the bigger base sizes. I think while 15 ardboyz statistically are better then 10 brutes I think in practice and taking into account things coherency and reinforcement limits, brutes have a place. I just think overall our flexibility and options feel like if anything they have increased, and I think with all of our charge bonuses and movement shenanigans we are really well positioned to counter the influx of stand and shoot based play. Don't know if I'd call us one of the big winners so far, but definitely doesn't feel like we are losers. Feels like we possibly got a modest upgrade for the edition taking everything into consideration. But time will tell, and if we are getting a new book next month, obviously big question is will it only be changing up the kruelboys or will everything be getting changed.
  25. I honestly think baring some miraculous FAQ save next week or whenever they come out, the best option for slaanesh players is to shelve them until christmas at which point one would presume they get at least modestly salvaged. If its your only army and you aren't competitive, yeah just using old points is probably best bet. I bought like 2500pts (about 2000pts in any sane world) of slaanesh stuff when the new book came out just out of love for the models, found out rules sucked, still tried to push through, started building slickblades and gave up on the entire project after 4 because it was literally the most painful model building experience I've ever had and killed the last shred of enthusiasm I had left. Unopened boxes sitting on my shelf ever since waiting to be Ebayed, now I won't be able to give them away haha.
  • Create New...