tripchimeras

I think with the slaanesh nerfs we should consider the very real possibility that the pt changes were locked in before the Slaanesh book even dropped. Its well known that it had been sitting on a shelf for 6 months to a year when it got released, and in the back of my mind I just have this thought that whoever wrote it TRULY thought that the book was going to kick butt (Which is insane in itself), and when they decided on the point hikes they just thought the MSU meta would make this "powerful" book even better with summoning so they hiked the points even further for third. Only for it to release right around the same time and find out, "oh ******, this book is terrible" too late to change the GHB. Only explanation that makes any sense to me. For most of the rest, there were some good point changes, there were some bad point changes, and there were some wild point changes, but honestly for a new edition its pretty expected imo. Its honestly pretty difficult to know out of the gate considering how many things went up, combined with all of the new rules, just how impactful they are. My suspicion is that Cities, DoK (I know they had pt hikes but they still feel undercosted), LRL, S2D, and OBR all feel like pretty big winners with Cities and LRL especially feeling strong. Can I just say that whoever made the decision to make Irondrakes conditional battleline with this new ruleset is literally insane... All that being said, its a brand new edition, and GW just does not put enough into QA/playtesting we all know this. Like every new edition there are going to be 3-6 months of jankiness and weirdness until all faqs are released, we get a few new books under our belts, and the winter faqs come in to fix the rest of the unintended rules breakage they missed first go around. Its going to be fine, and the great thing is that the base rules for this edition really do feel super solid, so after we all help GW do the QA they should have done from the start I think things will be looking better then 2nd. Personally I'm super happy with Orruk Warclans and SoB. They came out looking good. I think the SoB hype is probably a little misplaced because shooting got stronger and gatebreakers getting more expensive DOES hurt. But hey, thats not really what SoB was ever about, so the fact that we can take 4 model armies should rightfully be celebrated unequivocally regardless of the actual power level haha. Warclans definitely feel super solid though.

I think its still a big deal. Whether that's a "good" big deal or a "bad" big deal, I'm not sure about. More then anything this rule previously effected small unit size units/single models. This generally speaking meant much less for large units before. So new coherency rules are unlikely to effect how this influences pile in plays. A single monster now has drastically increased combat flexibility. Pinning a single model used to just be a matter of keeping 2 models in b2b with it, now you literally have to surround it to pin it into place. This is not a small thing.

Yeah I did think about that too. I do think the changes they have adopted from 40k are some of the better ones though. And at least for now it still feels like its own distinctive game. I'm still not feeling too 40k adjacent. Now if this continues next edition we may start to have issues. But at least for right now, the changes that got carried over (coherence aside) mostly feel positive. I should clarify that when I say "they are free now" It is more implied then explicit. So this could turn out to be wrong.

Honestly think a lot of these changes end up being a bit more subtle then they first appear. Reinforcements in particular doesn't effect nearly as many armies as it first feels like it would. Aside from things like 3x40 skink spam and poor fyreslayers (seriously I have so much empathy for the 20 people who play them, because they are so screwed) most armies are going to have at most minor adjustments for this rule. I do think there will be a lot of adjustments, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't like going from 7th edition to 8th or from 8th to AoS haha. Honestly feels like a closer comp to 6th to 7th, maybe just feels that way to me because going from ranks of 4 to 5 feels pretty similar to the coherence change, in that it really doesn't change THAT much but it feels very strange. This feels pretty moderate to me overall. I just think because AoS has a lot more players who haven't gone through this before that its going to cause a ton of adjustment.

Since all of the leaks last night/this morning the new ruleset really seems to be coming together as a much more coherent/cohesive idea. And I'm honestly really optimistic at this point. When the new batallions were leaked yesterday at first they seemed kinda week and I was thinking not sure what point cost I'd pay for these at. But now that its clear they are free and basically you just divide your force up between them how you see fit they make a lot more sense and quite honestly add a really cool element to list design I think. The reinforcement changes are really not going to change a ton of things for most armies. They really are only going to effect armies on the more extreme ends of the spectrum, which is a good thing. I do think they will help as a soft debuff to seraphon and some of the other more abusive lists we were seeing in competitive play, but for most part its really not going to force a lot of change. The clarification on CA's and only one being able to be in effect at once per unit combined with reinforcement rules alleviates some of my fears on those (though I still think unleash hell is going to be a bit of an issue). And bringing all of these rules together I really do think we are getting a picture of a more intentional coherent game then I think the rule leaks at first implied. Now how well this all works out of the gate is still going to be incredibly dependent on the pt changes and faqs but I am significantly more optimistic now then I was even a day or two ago. Very cool stuff.

I came on here yesterday for first time in a while after complaining to my much more optimistic friends to give them a rest from my pessimism and instead complain to strangers on the internet for a change. And within 10 minutes of scrolling through comments I found myself instead writing paragraphs of text defending the game... I don't know if this says more about me or the internet (probably me), but I find it funny either way. All of that aside, I think the reinforcement rules have really turned me around on things a little. I still have very real concerns about coherency and the pro shooting CA's, but the reinforcement rules put a lot of these in a different perspective. All of a sudden the worries about working with giant unit blocks that aren't on 25mm are a little less concerning because there aren't going to be a lot of giant unit blocks not on 25mm bases. The shooting CA's are a little less worrisome if you are going to have to spread them across msu's (though I'm still worried about these). I also think one of the game's cardinal sins in 2nd edition was the over-lethality of units. So many times I'd read about a new unit ability that was contingent upon a unit surviving a round of combat and thinking "well that's useless". Because by and large units really didn't survive rounds of combat very often unless they struck first, at least not crippled. The reinforcement rule makes this much more likely, or at least it means the combat phase activation interplay will be much more meaningful. Additionally it is a soft debuff on shooting. Think its overall effectiveness will be very dependent on how its applied within army books (with conditional battlelines and what units get the single tag placed on them), but its got potential to be a really positive change that mitigates some of the other potential issues introduced by other new rules.

How was that your takeaway from my comment? I literally had 1 line devoted to 40k, simply stating that its historically been an even bigger rules mess then fantasy to help illustrate my point that GW rules have always been messy (A. completely subjective B. not a comment at all on it being "the worst game EVAR!" just that the rules have often been a mess, which is not a comment on its overall quality). I get that there is a lot of ****** talking between 40k and AoS fandoms but come on, I mentioned 40k only as an offhand reference to GW's lack of rulesquality across the board, not as some sort of punching bag to uphold AoS as some game worlds ahead. Like in my personal opinion the fantasy side of GW has historically had more compelling rules for me, but that was in no way the point of my comment, nor does it mean I think 40k is in any way "the worst". I just think its rules have HISTORICALLY been a mess (9th edition seems like its probably actually cleaner then AoS right now, and its not the only point in history that has been the case so its by no means always been true, just think overall most editions have been a mess on release). I will say that I honestly think its funny that for the same comment I've been accused of suffering from Stockholm syndrome AND toxic negativity.

Things seem to be looking like its going to be a super strong book (hopefully not too strong). I'm excited (though generally with GW logic every strong book comes with a weak one, so I feel a little bad for stormcast if this logic holds up, because They've been waiting for relief since 2018...). On the Chaos Dwarf rumors earlier in the thread, especially with their name changing, anyone else feel like they going to end up being put into Destruction as first non-green skin faction? They have all these connections to kruleboys and hobgoblins, and there relation to the rest of Chaos back in the day was always tenuous at best. Change the name and this could finally be GW's opportunity to really open up Destruction to be more then just the afterthought greenskin allegience. Especially after Kragnos feels like that is where they are trying to go. I'd honestly be really happy about that. Destruction desperately needs more love and variety and as pumped as I am for Kruelboys it would be really nice to get some non-greenskin blood on the team. BullCentaurs actually feel a little like mini kragnos' don't they in look?

Its definitely one of those bittersweet things where I think mortal spam is terrible for the game and gw needs to stop dolling it out like candy, but on the other hand I want destruction to be competitive and if they are already throwing it out to everyone else I wants it too haha.

I love to complain about AoS. I think criticism it is very important. But everytime someone writes talking about how this x new edition is the worst ever, the new rules are terribly written, and they quit, I feel the need to try to comment on at least for me why, despite GW not writing the best rules its worth it. Like it sounds like you legitimately should stop playing if you have no fun playing the game, and I honestly find it surprising you spend time on AoS specific forums discussing the game and investing so much effort into it if its been such a fruitless experience to you. I think there is no doubt that the game has major issues and is not balanced. I do think that it has some major bright spots in the rules though, and it is good enough for tactics to still dictate a lot of outcomes. AoS is not a skirmish game, like in any way shape or form. It sounds like that is what you want it to be, which is odd because GW is first and foremost a big battle game company (one of the only ones), while skirmish games are a dime a dozen. There are a bunch of amazing skirmish games out there. Comparing AoS to any skirmish game is futile though because its just not comparable. As far as your complaints, they are all pretty valid. Terrain is a joke. Because the base rules are so simple army books need to compensate while also needing careful regulation as there is little in the base rules to control for things like shooting spam. GW has done a pretty bad job at this, I'd say before Tzeentch it was in an OK, but not great, spot in this regard. But since then whatever moderation the rules team had seems to have collapsed (though this feels like it often happens at the tail end of Warhammer editions). However, I think there are some really great building blocks as well. I think some (but admittedly not most) of the army books have been very well designed, enough that it gives me hope GW is at least capable of designing a good book. I think some of the base rules are actually quite nice (controversially I think priority at its core is great, and just needed some balancing which to its credit 3rd looks to be attempting). I think the way the game has handled movement thus far, while imperfect, has a lot of potential (pretty skeptical about the new coherency rules fixing those issues at all, but there are some supplemental rules that could make it work that very well could be in the rulebook). So there are plenty of things I think suck about the game, and I think GW has very few excuses for why their rules team is so small, unedited, inconsistent, and, as you say, insular. But despite that there are still plenty of things I like. And I think there are enough good things in the game that I think tactics DO often dictate outcome despite the flaws. And while occasionally my fate feels pre-determined by matchup, considering I only play a ~B tier army in a pretty imbalanced game, more often then I would expect, I can look back to actual in game decisions that led to my defeats or victories. And honestly given all of the pluses GW games afford, that is 100% enough for me to love and enjoy this hobby. Do I want more? YES, 100%. And I am going to complain and whine about all of the dumb-ass decisions GW makes on a daily bases, until they do something about it or my voice gets too horse. But, as far as the continued enjoyment of the hobby the game, as is, is enough. That's not Stockholm Syndrome. That's just honest self reflection and understanding of the most important things I want out of my hobby. I won't defend GW's ruleswriting, but I will articulate, that for me the game is still worthwhile. And as someone who has ragequit the hobby before myself (after Fantasy was discontinued I swore GW off), I can tell you that I searched for years for another game that scratched my hobby itch the way Warhammer does, and I have yet to find it. Ultimately I came back about 6 months into 2nd edition, and found a game that was significantly changed, where GW actually had listened to a lot of the fan criticism. So I don't think its fruitless to think that sometimes they do actually listen.

Look GW are not great rules writers. Importantly they never have been great rules writers. This is not some new thing. AoS1.0 out of the gate was quite literally unplayable in any organized sense. Warhammer 8th edition had to be so heavily comped on the tourney scene that the competitive game barely even resembled the base game. Lets not even get started on 40k. Yet here we all are complaining about AoS 3.0 on a forum, taking time out of our days to talk about this game that causes us endless frustration. Why? Because GW games have a draw that goes well past their middling rules. The lore, the models, the army building, the community and massive player base. AoS is not a balanced game, but that's part of the fun. List building is so open and diverse and has plenty of loopholes and OP builds, in one sense that's bad, in another it lends itself to endless thought and discussions. What hidden tricks can I find? Lets us all as a community laugh and cry about the latest idiodic situation GW has gotten themselves in (How can anyone not just sit down and just LAUGH when Kragnos' point cost was revealed?). There are plenty of well balanced smartly designed games out there that are and always have been "better" then GW games. Yet GW is king for a reason. And at least for me they are good reasons. The game is way more then its rules and always has been. The rules just need to be JUST good enough to keep all of the other aspects worth while. And GW always ends up getting there ****** together just enough to keep the rules playable. I see no reason this edition will be different. Especially since we don't even know the full rules yet. Not to mention all of the faqs and point changes that will effect how every unit interacts with them. Like don't get me wrong I hate the aparent lack of fixes to the broken shooting meta (if anything it looks like its stronger), but I have no doubt the game will be about as it always has been. A mess, but a worthwhile mess. Thats just me though. There are plenty of other options if balance is really the most important thing to you. KoW, 9th age, a whole host of skirmish games too long to mention. All are better balanced games, but none of them have ever grabbed my passion the way GW games do. At the end of the day all of the little things GW does better then everyone else end up compensating for the 1 huge thing they don't do well (rules).

I mean they already have announced that GHB with army faqs and updates will be launching in conjunction with new rules. So I think we can safely say there will be extensive faq sheets pushed out for every army. Even GW will know the new rules break a lot of units. There are going to be big faqs for every army... Now how much are they going to miss day 1? Knowing GW, plenty. But I think we can trust that a decent portion of the unit specific loopholes we are all seeing right now will be resolved in some way in the GHB/faqs. Speculating on which ones will be left is a complete ****** shoot. I have no doubt plenty will be missed, but knowing which ones is totally unknown. Like I am sure there will be some sort of exception placed on unleash hell. So lets just remember that all of these crazy rules changes are coming with a complete pt rework and army faqs.

Sometimes games end quick. especially in team games synergies can be all over the place and if people aren't optimizing who knows how it works out. You're going to play skill levels all over the map and different armies are strong vs different things. As long as you are being a good sport and doing your best to have a fun game don't feel bad about it. Especially in AoS games end t3 all the time, the best games go all 5 turns, but get the double turn at right moment, or kill their best unit early things can snowball fast. Its a game next one might go till t5, or they win t2. If you play with the same group consistently and find yourself dominating and your friends are starting to have less fun, you can always tweak your lists a bit as you learn what is really hurting them. Take a couple extra choices they can handle, etc. Make sure its still a list you like aesthetically and thematically, but there are choices to be made to make things a little less strong in every book. One other thing that I think can be really helpful is if you are close and feel comfortable with them handling your models is to switch armies for a game. A. it can really give them some insights into why they are losing B. it might give you info on why they are losing to help them beat you in future and C. if they win with your army against you it can give them a moral boost, "oh I'm not completely garbage after all". Could be a nice change of pace. But at the end of the day, its a game of strategy and list building is part of that for better or worse. Against strangers or acquaintances there isn't a ton you can do to change that dynamic. But if its a consistent gaming group, just help others refine their lists and work together to see what it is that is causing you to win. Are they playing push hammer? Are they just in an unfortunate place where their book sucks? There are things you guys can do to keep it fun. As long as you are all playing with the same goals it shouldn't be an issue. But don't feel bad because you happened to choose a decent book. You are playing within the spirit you and your group enjoy, you aren't ****** anyone by playing an army you like and enjoy.

Definitely not 100% worse. He's def still viable. Just think the math on him vs foot version has shifted a bit. Also that all makes total sense, and I definitely think He got hit much harder in Big Waagh because sacrificing brutish cunning for +1 armor hurts so much more then it does for IJ. You never needed to make the choice before, for the exact reason you couldn't combine ethereal with 2+ armor, so it was easy. He is definitely slow, but I like having a mid-late game trick up my sleeve my opponent is likely to ignore, and depending on the list 460pts can just take up too much realestate. That being said, I do miss the look on people's faces T1 when I deploy conservatively, they give me top of t1 thinking I am going to have to waste it and all of a sudden a maw krusha and rogue idol are charging in their face. No matter how many times I warn people in advance, they usually underestimate just how far the threat range really is. Overall Maw Krusha definitely more fun, think on the margins foot megaboss probably slightly better overall, but you may be right that for IJ that small efficiency gap is reversed.

Just to clarify, still think Maw-krusha is good, just think its not as versatile as it once was. I'm sure taking that will be totally fine in most games. Experiment. Ethereal save isn't available anymore, so its just about whether the alternatives get it done for you, not whether they are better then before. I think the one extra heal only in your turn isn't likely to make or break you though. If you are playing an ironjawz army I think my personal choice would be to go +1 save, metalrippa klaw and either weird un or mean un for mount trait. Then if you find you are having trouble with survivability, maybe go with the reduced rend realm of metal artifact. If Big Waagh I'd go brutish cunning instead of +1 save.

I think at the end of the day the hobby is about a lot of different things, and there are different people involved in the hobby for varying reasons. This can cause vastly different expectations between types of hobbyists and end in misunderstanding and conflict. I think most often this is why things like what the OP described happen. Gamers who have unwritten rules strangers couldn't possibly know; stuff like that. I do think there are elements here like any community that are toxic and negative, and purely bad. But generally speaking most of this stuff is just someone having a bad day, or the result of people not communicating expectations to one another. Its a social hobby and ultimately it is all about establishing clear expectations, cultivating a group of like minded players, and trying to be understanding and recognize where people are coming from. There is no one right way to enjoy the AoS hobby. I think where we all can get into trouble is where you assume the way you enjoy AoS is the RIGHT way to enjoy it. That is when you see some of the behavior being described in this thread. There is nothing wrong with power gaming or competitive AoS despite the obvious flaws with AoS as a competitive game. There is also nothing wrong with thinking GW can make their game better and encouraging to do so. What gets the power gaming community into trouble is when expectations are not clearly defined and when people lose perspective. As someone who kinda falls into this category myself, I think it is very easy to get into the weeds when discussing the game, especially on the internet with strangers. When someone asks a question or relates an experience, it is only natural that a competitive gamer is instinctualy going to approach that topic from a competitive perspective. We are usually coming from a good place of helping someone get better at the game, but it is very easy for comments like this to come off as either A. Condescending or B. Discouraging. Not everyone is trying to be competitive, and not everyone is meta chasing. Very important to be clear about your intent and what you mean. I know I struggle with that sometimes. This extends to everyone though. If you are a casual gamer who just wants to push models around. Establish that upfront. Both online when discussing the game and in person before playing a stranger. As a competitive gamer I can tell you right now I get nothing out of bringing my best comp list to a game against a thematic khorne demon army and ending the game t1. I learned nothing and feel bad, and your day has been made a little worse. If you say upfront you just like to play casual and have fun, I know to bring a different list, maybe play a bit looser, make some thematic and "epic" choices to encourage fun encounters that might not be the best decision. We will both have more fun. And there is never anything wrong with telling someone "Oh I really don't want to play ObR right now. Haven't figured them out yet and not ready for a rematch." No reasonable person will ever be mad about that. All of this pertains to online forums just as much as in person games. If your perspective is coming from a place of modest competition, where you are mostly casual and just want to pick up a tip or two, if you lead with that, 90% of responses (especially on this forum) are going to respect that and try to engage with you from that level. That being said, this is the internet. There are toxic people, and even for the rest of us we all have bad days, and the internet can be a far too attractive place to vent our frustrations. Best we can do is try to be understanding and move on; easier said then done I know.

Not sure what your normal opponents or local meta are as that surely is going to have a huge effect on the Maw Krusha's effectiveness, but I have not found them to be nigh-unkillable at all. "aside from mortal wounds" is a pretty big BUT in my experience, considering they have become more and more common and pervasive with each new book released. And unless you forego a free mighty destroyer for +1 armour a 3+ on its own without ethereal is just not as survivable as it feels like it is. Perhaps this is a Big Waagh vs Ironjawz difference in percieved worth, as with Big Waagh unless you have an Ironfist you pretty much HAVE to go for brutish cunning precluding the better save. Maw Krusha's are not bad by a long stretch and I stated they are still good in my post. But Maw Krusha's without ethereal amulet are pretty much feast or famine propositions at this point. They are never useless, but a good deal of the time those 450 pts are better spent elsewhere and in a take all comer environment where the meta has increasingly skewed shooting heavy, you will find yourself spending more and more of your time simply trying to screen and protect them, or having to go all in balls to the walls very early. Surely in many matchups they are still great, and if you aren't min maxing you won't regret them, but they are 100% not as good now as they were 6-8 months ago in my mind or perhaps "good" is the wrong word. They are less versatile. Meanwhile I think a foot megaboss is sneaky good. They often get ignored, but you pop a +1 damage on them and give them that 3d6 charge all of a sudden you can do some real damage in a situation your opponent was not expecting at all. They are making their points back as a support piece alone, but also can function as a turning point unit in the right circumstances. I just think they present less risk and are better in a situation where you don't know who your opponent will be (this was not my opinion 6 months ago, when I was using a maw krusha in my primary list). On a separate note interested as to why no allegiance over Big Waagh? Since you can still get 2 free mighty destroyers in a Big Waagh list I'd think the Waagh table bonuses more then compensates for the general Ironjawz allegiances if you aren't taking a subfaction? Curious what you have found to be the clincher for going unaffiliated. Why do you want to move away from the Rogue Idol? Have you found it lacking or are you just looking to try something new? Personally I think generally the best Big Waagh armies tend to be primarily (about 2/3) one faction with the other filling out a role the primary lacks. I think if you go too far down 50/50 you often end up with a jack of all trades master of none situation. If your base is bonesplitters (mine is usually as well) I'd go for adding Gore Gruntas, a megaboss, and a warchanter for starters. They give you some much needed multi-wound rending punch and if you make the megaboss your general and give him brutish cunning they give you some really great tactical options. Now doing this ofcourse is putting a lot of points and resources into support characters that are really only good for helping 1 unit (though don't sleep on the megaboss with +1 damage from warchanter either, he's no slouch). I think this is the trap with big waagh lists, once you start adding support characters of one type it encourages more units of the same type to buff and there are just not enough points to go around between fully buffing multiple bonesplitter AND ironjawz units at the same time. This I think is where Rogue Idol comes in and creates a bridge between the two armies. So definitely encourage you to play around with more ironjawz in your list (especially gore gruntas), but do be mindful that Rogue Idol actually gets better when you have support characters of both types. As for the Waagh point gameplan I think they certainly encourage a more defensive approach. Rarely do I find a game where my starting loadout doesn't involve me stringing congo lines of savage orruks zig zagging across the length of my lines to allow me the time to get to t2. I don't think its ill advised at all to hang back first turn, especially if your opponent doesn't leave himself wide open. That being said I think its important to deploy flexibly and if your opponent leaves you an opening t1, do not be afraid to go in sans waagh points if you don't need them. They are an amazing bonus, but they are just that, a bonus. If my opponent doesn't set up his screens properly in deployment I will very often go full alpha and fly in my rogue idol and mighty destroyer my gore gruntas in for long bomb charges opponent wasn't expecting out of the gate. The great and wonderful thing about this strategy is that it is low risk. The second I don't get off my fly spell on the rogue idol, or I realize I screwed up my bubbles and don't have maxed out buffs on my gore gruntas or whatever it is super easy to just revert to turtle mode as I will always have my savage orruk screans out and ready to turtle down and build up my waagh points for next turn. Sorry for insanely long post, feeling talkative today, been a while since I've posted much haha. TLDR is add ironjawz slowly and carefully, and don't be so quick to rule out adding a couple ironjawz pieces but keeping Rogue Idol. There is still enough space to keep your bonesplitters core in place, you might just have to lose a battalion. Your army as is sounds fun though regardless.

You absolutely do not need a maw krusha to take a good list. In fact once generic artifacts were jettisoned in July I think it took a decent sized hit in usability to begin with. The purely offensive builds for it are still good, but a bit less universal, especially with the shooting heavy meta we are in now. I would say a foot megaboss is better at this point anyways. For your subfaction the 2 best options if you are going ironjawz heavy is either Ironsunz or playing Big Waagh. I don't have as much experience with ironjawz faction as with big waagh, but rule of thumb is you probably want a 6 block of gore gruntas, 2-3 war chanters, a caster, your megaboss, and then after that you want to spam ardboyz and brutes. Ardboyz used to be unquestionably better then Brutes, but over the summer Ardboyz got 10pts more expensive and Brutes got 10pts cheaper. With covid and much fewer big tourneys being played since the last pt update , and the fact that I no longer play with ironjawz battleline aside from gore gruntas (I like bonesplitters battleline personally) I am not sure which is more efficient at this point. But I would guess that they are close enough in utility that I'd just choose whichever you like more and go for it and just spam away on that unit for the rest of your points (you probably want a battalion as well depending on what combination of units, when I was playing ironjawz last year the 2 go tos were ironfist or ardfist). Personally I am a big fan of Big Waagh and what Bonesplitters have to offer in that combined list. But if you love Ironjawz there are definitely a couple of competitive ways to play them and you def don't need a krusha to do it. And most importantly unless you play tournament style competitive games, I think Orruk Warclans is a more then strong enough book (with basically no flat out bad units) that you probably can't go wrong however you want to play them and can ignore all of my advise above and just have fun :).

Yep 100%. Think the reason people are listing him here is that he doesn't really make much sense within the confines of Stormcast, but like you say that is more a prob with the book. He is lore and game perfect as a compliment within Cities of Sigmar though. He isn't unfair or OP, but he is 100% functional in a competitive environment. I love how he works if you just view him as a hamerhal character haha.

Thanks for the feedback, good points all. The loss of the arrowboyz has definitely been my biggest concern for exactly the reason you outline. I really didn't feel like Brutes fit into the list well either after my first game, I picked them because they were the perfect # of points more then for a specific strategic reason; I think I'm going with boarboyz for now simply because I'm maxed out on savage orruk models at 60 for time being (and getting all of them finished painted in time is going to be hard enough). Going to finish painting everything else before I touch the second unit of savage orruks to hopefully get at least 1 more game in before deciding; 20 of them still have bows and the last ten I've been using in past 2 games without hands (my friends love me for this I am sure). This should buy me another week at least to decide whether I am going to go maw or not. Definitely appreciate the feadback though, pretty much confirms all of my perceived downsides of the list. If I stick with the Maw build at this point its going to be for the double monster cool factor rather then tactical reasons. I definitely think you are right that the non-maw build with arrowboyz is stronger, but I think the difference isn't so huge that it will impact my performance a great deal given how little practice I've had in the past 3 months haha. The small competitive differences are going to end up being far outweighed by the giant gaping rusty mistakes I make. Won't stop me from obsessing over it till the last second before the GT though 🙂.

This is exactly why I'm really liking the idea of having the Maw Krusha and Rogue Idol in same list. By putting mighty destroyer on a model that is so efficient on his own, even if there is nothing else within range to mighty destroyer he can always do it on himself. I think all of the cross synergies that apply to the list with gore gruntas and rogue idol apply to the list with maw krusha and rogue idol + you aren't paying the mega boss tax. Doesn't seem like you advocate that, and hoping you can expand on that a bit? Is it the fact you have to use your 1 artefact slot on ethereal amulet as opposed to buffing the wurrgog? Or do you think having that buffed shooting is really important? Really curious to here what you have to say on the matter, because it seems you have more practice/experience with this style list then most.

Thanks for suggestion, its interesting but I really want to retain the 2x30 savages, if you could squeeze in an ironfist I agree it'd be worth it, but since you can't without sacrificing bodies I'm decided to try out my maw krusha idea this weekend. It was pretty devastating in its first action. I landed on the following option to start: EDIT: Sent before I meant to Game went perfectly. Played against a gloomspite horde list, and while gloomspite aren't exactly top of the meta right now it still showed me what I wanted to see from it. Brutish kunning as I thought is 100% a must for the list. So I think as much as I would want metalripper claw, without the 2+ armour save from Ironclad I don't feel comfortable taking it. I didn't miss the shooting much. Having the freedom to just spread out and layer the screens knowing no matter which savage orruk unit opponent was going to hit they were hitting something that can hit back and be buffed up to really tank some wounds was great. The extra command point was also really clutch. Every T1 pretty much you want to take advantage of all the bodies and use a command point to generate more Waagh! points, so depending on that 4+ to have anything left is nerve racking. Having the extra CP in your back pocket from the word go is really helpful. I was able to make use of it immediately since my opponent didn't quite screen right/ underestimated just how fast I was despite knowing about the 20 inch fly ability, and I was able to steamroll both my mawkrusha and rogue idol directly into his big block of 60 stabbas immediately t1. Fly spell went off, mega destroyered my maw krusha and had easy 5 or 6 inch charges on each with +1 to charge with a CP to spare in case 1 of them fluffed. Neither did and I was able to use the command point with the mawkrusha's ability allowing me to nullify his nets. the 2 of them 1 hit the 60 stabbas, and the mawkrusha used his base size to engage 2 other support/screaning units at the same time. Basically rolled up his entire stronger flank immediately he was forced to teleport skragrat (or whatever his name is) to his other flank, and while we played out through t2 the game was pretty much over there. But even though a small deployment mistake on his part finished the game early, I was able to test out the screened out deployment structure with all of the bubbles, and I could see the path forward had he not presented the juicy t1 target. Think the list doesn't lose a TON from the gore grunta build, and I think psychologically it is a bit more terrifying just to know I have 2 monsters with potential 32 inch + threat ranges. I think the one thing that I still need to figure out are the Brutes. They kinda are just there. There damage output even without the damage plus is pretty strong, but that 4 inch move is just not ideal and they don't have the board coverage to adequately enclose/screen my support heros. They can KINDA babysit them by charging anything that gets close, but that doesn't account for double turns. And aside from having mop up duty, they are running so far behind the rest of the army that I found them just sitting around in no mans land for most of the fight. Baby sit an objective, come in behind the savages (if they are in a single line) to fight maybe? the uses just aren't great, feels like I'm paying a tax with them. Ideally I'd go either 10 ard boyz, or 3 gore gruntas but in each of those cases I'm losing out on the extra CP which I really like. A triumph isn't nothing, but I'd rather have the CP. That leaves either a random 10 savage orruks or arrowboyz in there to babysit support heroes, or 5 boarboyz to clear screens/go character hunting. The 10 extra bodies feels a bit like overkill, so I'm tempted to go with 5 boarboyz, but I do wonder about the lost rend of the Brutes. Maybe I just need to stick with them and get better at keeping them in the fight.

So it seems (for good reason) that the new gold standard for Mixed Big Waagh is the rogue idol + 60 savages, 1 shooting, 1 combat build that I think started getting picked up as a big time net list after placing 4th at cancon. I love the list and am contemplating bringing it to my next GT. However, the foot megaboss with brutish kunnin however necessary he is, feels like a 150pt tax which bothers me a bit. Also the ever-present menace that is ObR hanging over the meta right now has me wishing for more punch. For the cost of the foot megaboss and the gore gruntas I can have a Maw Krusha though, which potentially solves both of my qualms if I can solve the third battleline issue without sacrificing the spirit of the list. So the base list I would now be working from if I went for combo maw krusha and rogue idol while keeping the spirit of the original list is as follows: This leaves basically 3 options to retain the body count I want for screens and the shooting meta while also keeping the list legal: 1. add back the maniak wierdnob, have 20 arrowboys instead of 30, and take a unit of 10 savage orruks for the 3rd battleline. 2. ditch the maniak wierdnob, keep 30 arrowboys, make the wurrgog prophet the general losing out on the brutish kunnin so that he can take the extra spell needed for the additional to hit buff for the arrowboys, and use the pt savings to either add 10 more savage orruks or a min unit of boarboyz to meet battleline requirements. 3. ditch the arrowboys entirely as well as the maniak wierdnob, and use the point savings on a second block of 30 savage orruks, a min unit of brutes or a min unit of boarboyz, and an extra command point. The one other think I still need to decide is whether to go all in vs ObR with metalripper claw and ironclad or balanced with ethereal and brutish. I guess the question is A. whether the list is better vs ObR with maw krusha in it to begin with and B. is it worth trying to retain some semblance of a shooting phase, or without buff optimization do you abandon it for raw melee?

the thing that gets me with multiple units of arrowboyz is that without the +1 to hit buff spell or the exploding 6's from the maniak wierdnob their output is really not good. Much more efficient I think to stack the buffs on a single unit of 30 (or in this case since you don't have the maniak its even less effective to have that second unit). I know if you roll doubles you can apply it to both, but that is just too unreliable to count on I think. A unit of 30 orruks with +1 to hit (assuming proper everything in range) is dealing out 22.5 wounds a pop on average. A unit of 20 orruks with +1 to hit and a unit of 20 orruks without modifiers (again assuming all 40 are in range) is dealing out 25 wounds. Doesn't feel like that is worth the extra 120pts. Granted, there are other advantages like more bodies, but even still I think I'd rather have 10 basic savage orruk screeners, or a maniak wierdnob for the extra high probability caster, especially since combining exploding 6's and +1 to hit on 30 arrow boyz results in an average of 30 wounds per shooting phase. Going a step further lets say you added the maniak wierdnob but kept the 2 units of 20, but spread the buffs around between the 2, you are looking at... 30 wounds! Exactly the same result 120pts more. Just feels like no matter which way you slice it the buffs stacked on 1 unit make more sense then 2 units of 20. I think the big exception that comes to mind is with kunnin ruck, where 1 unit of 20 with +1 to hit is looking at 30 wounds dealt, and 40 wounds with both buffs. Since you are investing so many points into the combo at that point the redundancy of taking 2 units seems to make sense. Idk totally could be missing something here though.

MSU Eels. Good time to ask the question honestly because Idoneth just took top spot at 2 different events this past weekend. Poland GT winner list: https://twitter.com/AoS_Shorts/status/1231285063737700352/photo/3 Sheffield Slaughter GT winner list: https://twitter.com/pete2498/status/1231867288581746688/photo/1 The Sheffield Slaughter winning list is the classic MSU Eels build that I think most would agree is the strongest deepkin build currently. Seeing someone win a GT with an Eidolan of the storm is freaking awesome though, and if I wasn't having so much fun with Big Waagh! right now it would have me getting my Deepkin back out of storage and running a similar Eidolan MSU eels build. Looks like a really fun build and I want to play around with it one day when I find the time. Think the decision to give the Eidolan cloud of midnight is especially interesting. I assume he's using it to screan against changehost. Very interesting meta choice, my instinct is to go with like ethereal amulet, but in current meta that might be better.