tripchimeras

I'm not going to lie even seeing the title made me super apprehensive... Why not make it just like warcry? Because warcry is meant to fill a completely different hobby need. Its meant to be quick, simple, and easy to pick up and put down. Strategy and variety are secondary. More specifically a d6 dice does not provide very much in the way of varied results or design opportunity. a single d6 to decide combat outcomes is just not enough to provide a design space with enough varried units, rules, and tactical outputs/considerations. The latter is very much dependent on whether you consider the statistical/mathhammer side of the game tactical/strategic (I do). The more independent rolls you add the more variety, however. So despite the weakness of the d6 die as the primary outcome determinate in a strategy game, this can be mitigated somewhat by each successive roll added to any phase of the game. Thus hit and wound being independent factors of the game. Could they be combined to represent the same thing? Sure, thematically. But as a game it just would be significantly less interesting/varied. If you want warcry, you have warcry. Why make AoS the exact same thing? It is a significantly more complicated and time intensive game for those of us who want that. It has already been significantly streamlined/simplified from the old world days. In my opinion they have simplified the rules about as far as they can, without removing much needed strategy and variety from the game. Personally I think AoS has very little rules bloat, we do not need things more simplified then they already are.

Yeah it is, I really like the concept of a monster that exists basically as a nuclear mutual annihilation deterrent, same with that 1 cities spell on like flaggelants or whatever. Its a cool idea, but capping it at model's max wounds on a 4+ cripples it. If it was a 2+ 140pts wouldn't be too too bad, ~8 mortals nothing to sneeze at, but again so easy to shoot off a few wounds still not great. It would really need to be uncapped to be worthwhile.

gotcha, simply checking faq would have solved that, duh. Never see beasts and this one of many reasons why clearly haha.

Isn't the only ability that matters spurting bile blood? Not sure why double turn matters. Maybe I am reading the ability wrong, I've honestly never seen one on the table (probably a hint that I am), but it seems like since the mortals apply to allocated wounds you aren't even capped at 10. Throw him into something like a pumped up maw krusha that does 20-30 wounds a turn, and you have a decent chance of killing the monster for a 140pt investment. Seems like an okay trade off to me. With a big base too, you can potentially force a decent number of models in a normal unit into combat with him too. Doesn't make him amazing, but aura of madness seems superfluous to why you would take one no?

Always go 90% ironjawz with my lists but I've been thinking that the ideal situation is having a bunch of giant bonesplitters units as an anville, with a hammer of high rend units to hit against them. The issue I keep running into with my armies is that whenever I do this I find myself left with 1 of a couple of things: 1. Relying on rend 1 to handle the broadening horizon of high armor armies 2. not very many bodies and relying on a Maw-krusha to do my work hoping he doesn't get shot/mortaled off board before he can do his thing Below is a list that I try to alleviate this problem with, not only do I have 1 source of high rend, but I have 2. I have over 180 wounds in the army, and plenty of bodies for objectives and absorbing damage. The big downsides are: A. No Battalion. This is the biggie, not only am I down on command points in a traditionally command point heavy army, but crucially I am stuck with 1 artifact. Meaning my prophet isn't as effective as he should be. I make this up a little with the extra command point (the alternative is a vanilla unit of 10 ardboyz that are never going to be benefiting from any buffs), but the magic frailty is an issue, with potentially 6 waagh points a pop I can potentially use my extra command point turn 1 to get the extra waagh points necessary to allow me to augment a couple spells that way without preventing me from going max waagh on T2, and at least T1 I can use the rogue idol to buff my initial phase, but it still stings. And B. I am sorely lacking augments to go around. I can only augment one of the maw-krusha or the Rogue idol's damage output at any one time, and I can only modify the armour of 1 out of the 3 desirous targets with armor buffs each turn. Allegiance: Big Waaagh! LEADERS Megaboss on Maw-Krusha (460) - General - Command Trait : Brutish Cunning - Boss Gore-hacka and Choppa - Artefact : Metalrippa's Klaw - Mount Trait : Weird 'Un Wurrgog Prophet (160) - Lore of the Savage Beast : Kunnin' Beast Spirits Wardokk (80) - Lore of the Savage Beast : Breath of Gorkamorka Orruk Warchanter (110) UNITS 30 x Savage Orruks (300) - Stikkas 30 x Savage Orruks (300) - Stikkas 5 x Savage Boarboys (130) BEHEMOTHS Rogue Idol (400) TOTAL: 1990/2000 LEADERS: 4/6 EXTRA COMMAND POINTS: 1 So the question I am wondering is if it is worth it... Normally I'd say no, but looking at exactly what I am replacing with the mawkrusha, 30 savages, or the rogue idol the alternative doesn't really feel better right now. The alternative satisfies my psychological need to have all of my units 100% buffed, and have the requisite battalion to keep my drops in the 5-7 range, but thinking about the game impact, I'm having trouble thinking of how they do better in more situations. Maybe wanting 60 savage orruks instead of the standard 90% ironjawz builds I've mostly been using up till now is an overreaction to meta conditions that won't be around much longer, but it does feel like it might be stronger.

Makes sense. I forgot nagash version was so body light. Yeah I've been going Big Waagh with a Mawkrusha with metalripper claw specifically for OBR, but then ofcourse I now feel I am inadequately prepared for the shooting meta, so thus why I was looking to bonesplitters for some solutions. Its just really hard to fit everything in. If you go Maw Krusha it becomes really difficult to fit in enough bodies AND keep all the buffs you want, but without maw krusha, idol isn't enough on its own, and fitting in idol ironjawz rend 1 AND bonesplitters for mass doesn't quite work out either. Assuming a nerf comes in for Tzeench maybe Mawkrusha may still be the way to go, but I still worry about the Skaven and hallowheart matchups in that case. Seems either way I build there is 1 glaring matchup problem, which probably just means we aren't completely OP and should be happy with where our book is haha.

Seems quite strong, how did you manage the petrifex matchup with so little rend? That's been my concern with going more bonesplitter heavy. I tend to focus on ironjaw units in my Big Waagh army specifically because I worry about going heavy into bonesplitter and having no answer to petrifex except fist of gork.

Yep, I def think this starts to get to the real issue here. The biggest problem continues to be that GW hides behind the guise that they are a model company, and that the rules they provide are basically superfluous bonuses that we should feel lucky to have at all that are simply designed to make the use of the models more fun. And certainly if you tilt your head and squint this is more or less true, but the spirit behind it is not what it should be. Yes, GW is a model company first, but as was demonstrated with the release of AoS without a decent set of rules or a pt system, their existence as a model company flounders without a decent set of rules, and many gamers derive their enjoyment of said models with the accompaniment of some level of competent rules writing. Until GW is held to account for their own rules, nothing is going to change. I think most in the AoS community more or less agree that the hobby comes first and the game second, and so are predisposed to give GW their support when it comes out with statements like "we are a model company first," but its a statement that is false in spirit if not in letter. No one is arguing that they shouldn't design models and lore first, and rules second. What we are arguing is that the rules are essential to the enjoyment of the game, and that it is entirely possible for the rules to come second and still be competent and enjoyable. We've seen that they are capable of it, because about 70 percent of the time, the rules ARE competently written, if not always inspired or amazing. The complaint is that there are clear and systemic flaws in the process by which GW designs their game rules, that cause repeated and egregious errors in mechanics and judgement, to the point that every quarter or so we have a completely avoidable flair up like the one currently occurring, to which GW's responses and fixes have been spotty and unreliable at best, and are always accompanied by a slew of apologists, who mistake the criticism of the company for criticism of the community or hobby. No one is asking for perfect balance, or for a tournament first approach to the game and hobby. GW and AoS will always be hobby first, and that is OK! I just don't think its too much to ask for the company to take them a little more seriously, implement some in house play testing procedures that don't rely exclusively on overworked volunteers, and take a more proactive and driven approach to addressing obvious rule issues. It would also be nice if the company stopped acting like they had no responsibility to the rules of their own game, and that they were JUST a model company. They are more then that, and they need to stop hiding behind the idea that they aren't. This long rant isn't to say they haven't made some improvements over the years. Their more frequent faqs, the 2 week ones in particular, and bi-yearly point reviews are a start. Its a start, and aside from Tzeench, at this moment things seem pretty okay. Its just frustrating that this keeps happening over and over again, and the community response and divide over these issues are the same over and over again. It doesn't need to be like this.

Do rules have an effect on model sales, ABSOLUTELY. But as those of us who participate in forums, and/or consider ourselves "competitive" players of the game must often be reminded of, we are in the minority. The percentage of tournament attendance to the wider community is very small. Now that being said I often know from personal experience, there was a time particularly in my youth where I was absolutely obsessed with hearing about and the thought of one day attending tournaments, but never did so myself. I approached the hobby from a competitive perspective, yet only played the game with 1 friend, I did participate in the forum community a bit, but still I think as little data we really have on the makeup of the community, if there had been data I would have likely been included in the "casual" data point. Point is while we have no real idea about people's buying habbits when it comes to this game, we can be pretty sure the competitive side of the game does not cover the great majority of aos purchases. So while surely the competive crowd is large enough to create a spike in sales for one thing or another, it is by no means large enough to represent the driving force of sales across the board. Speaking as a competitive player, a models beauty despite terrible rules has driven me to make purchases on more then one occasion; this despite my complete lack of painting talent. When the plastic dragon ogres got released in 8th edition, I immediately discovered the rules were truly terrible, but it did not stop me from buying 12 of them day 1, and making it my lifes mission to make them work (spoiler I never managed to make them work). However, it didn't stop me from painting every single one of them with a vigor I had never had with any other model before, and to this day they are the best painted unit I have ever done (not saying much). My point even in the competitive crowd pretty models can drive sales as much as good rules, so I would bet that while rules certainly can improve the stock of an ugly model, good model design and faction lore is always going to be a huge factor in sales. The other point I would like to make is that, while OBR certainly had a mixed reception aesthetically online, one thing I noticed VERY quickly was that once painters and hobbyists I follow got their hands on the models opinions seemed to change rapidly. Turns out they are extremely detailed and hella fun to paint, with a ton of variety and opportunity for creativity. Turns out, and this is very much something I have found, the promo shots of models often do not do them justice. Sometimes the paint schemes chosen are boring, or poor choices; sometimes the angle is a poor one, and sometimes the models just look better on the table then they do on camera. Teclis is a perfect example of this. While my group was largely indifferent to negative of his model when the promo was revealed, once twitter started showing additional shots and angles of the model, all of our opinions improved. I am now actually excited for the model after seeing it from additional angles. Lastly the subjectivity of all of this cannot be understated. I find it particularly funny that the OP specified the suit of armor as a model everyone loved. Because, I have seen almost entirely negative commentary on it from my group and those I follow on twitter. It is entirely dependent on your personal fealings and corner of the internet as to these things.

Because if you didn't charge you don't have asf and since it's his turn, he is going to strike first because that combat is 99% of the time going to be the most important for him to resolve, and thus the one he starts his combat phase on. Unless his luck is terrible he is killing your Terrorgheist in that situation. That's why doppleganger cloak is so good on terrorgheist, it gives them massive advantage against opposing 1 hit killers.

With FEC Terrorgheist ghoul king the way to nearly guarantee the crazy mortal spam, is A. to have the command point on hand to feeding frenzy so you can effectively double your attacks. If there is something that can go mono a mono with your Terrorgheist you always want to save a command point for that fight eventuality and B. to get off the +d3 attack spell. All of a sudden 3 dice becomes somewhere between 8-12. Insta-death to Maw Krusha if charged. If you go a step further and put doppleganger cloak on him you are even more advantaged in the matchup, as then he basically can't win the 1 on 1 without you first expending the cloak. It is not something I like to see across from my Maw Krusha, all of a sudden I'm the one desperately playing keep away and trying to screen and counter. Not ideal. Sounds like you went in under the least optimal conditions for the Terrorgheist to win the fight.

Didn't mean to come on too strong. Just seamed like the "That makes it one of the easiest models/ strategies to play against, if you have a well balanced army." was a tad hyperbolic, and since the guy had been hit a little hard overall in the comment section, I thought it was worth making clear that it isn't a picnick and while the advice here is sound, sometimes the nature of forum commentary can make it seem easy when its really not. I may have put too much emphasis on a single line in your comment, and given that you were indeed just making general observations, I apologize if it was a bit too much on my part. Was just trying to add some clarity that its not the easiest model to deal with, and while the OP was being a bit hyperbolic, its not unreasonable especially for a casual player, to struggle to deal with it. Screen and counter is certainly the best generalized advice you can give without knowing specifics, its just often harder to execute then it sounds.

Okay, so the Mawkrusha is not OP and prob doesn't need a nerf. The original poster is being hyperbolic, and is probably new and had a negative play experience. However, lets also not go too far in the other direction and oversimplify this to make him feel like it should be easy. Lets be clear; it is not EASY to deal with a properly played Maw Krusha. If it was they wouldn't be solid 4-1 bets at tourneys. It's easy to deal with a maw krusha that is haphazardly and violently thrown at your lines with no regard for strategy, just as a maw krusha appears OP when the opponent does the same against them. The truth is somewhere in between. All of the units mentioned in this thread as counters, can indeed 1 hit (or as good as) a maw krusha, but the reverse is also true in almost all of them. And given the maw krusha's superior speed and flight the maw krusha is only going to be coming in contact with the non shooting infantry varieties of these units for 3 reasons, either A. he charged B. the player made a mistake C. the player was okay losing the maw krusha for a different purpose. The shooting units listed have the advantage obv, but just as there are ways to counter a maw krusha with hammerers despite the disadvantage, the reverse is true with maw krusha verse shooting (at least against some of the armies, without a faq new tzeench change host is going to be an auto win against most maw krusha armies I would think). Deny him his targets and you are more then likely also denying yourself something. Maintaining perfect screens and target denial in MOST armies also means that you are denying yourself aggression and forward progress. You are also ignoring the rest of the army, and while a Maw Krusha is expensive, there is guaranteed to be other scary stuff in his army which you aren't going to be able to deny as well forever. It is going to be a complex situation of denials, counters, and sacrifices. There is nothing simple about the oversimplified strategy you have outlined above. All it tells me is that either A. you play a hard counter to Maw Krusha builds or B. you haven't been playing very good players using it. Its not an OP model, but it is a very strong one, and while the Maw Krusha builds are not S class they are certainly A tier. Lets not treat this guy like he is being totally dumb, especially for a casual player without a hard counter a Maw Krusha is going to present quite the barrier.

Yep, lots of baby steps to be proud of these days with GW. One would hope that eventually they would progress to children sized steps, and then one day become full fledged adults, but like any... *checks age of company* 44 year old... they are still just at toddler. Hang in there little guy, you'll get it eventually! No but joking aside, the past year has been full of positive signs for me. Still having their fair share of missteps, and they really do need to stop writing rules with such a casual voice, but I am cautiously optimistic about the direction things are going.

Thinking something like this flows really well out of the MSU eels base: Allegiance: Idoneth Deepkin - Enclave: Fuethan LEADERS Volturnos, High King of the Deep (280) Isharann Soulscryer (130) - Artefact : Cloud of Midnight Isharann Soulscryer (130) UNITS 2 x Akhelian Allopexes (200) 2 x Akhelian Allopexes (200) 1 x Akhelian Allopexes (100) 1 x Akhelian Allopexes (100) 6 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (340) 3 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (170) 3 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (170) 3 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (170) You end up averaging 8 wounds of shooting a turn, which should be enough volume to put holes in most basic screens (though less so when its a horde unit doubling as a screen), and depending on circumstance even allows you to do a little character hunting for wizards with just a 5+ or 6+ armor or wardsave if the screens aren't a problem (6 wounds average with look out sir is good enough to scare most wizards). I think there is definitely room for debate and experimentation on the construction of the Allopex unit sizes. My gut for this list is that in keeping with the MSU nature of our best build, that smaller is better. I think anything more then 3 has both serious footprint, and leardership concerns. I like the idea to have 2 sharks solo that can easily fit into semi tight spaces to catch out of place characters, that are fully free of all leadership concerns and bubble needs as well, while having 2 slightly larger units that can benefit well from Volt's turn 3 Command ability and grind a bit also nice. I could see deciding to go 3 units of 2 or 2 units of 3 after testing, but for now this feels good to me. Not sure when I will get time to test this out (or buy 4 more sharks for that matter haha), but I like the versatility.

It is definitely an underrated benefit for Sharks, that I think before at their much higher cost was not worth much, because you weren't going to be massing enough of them for it to work. But 8 sharks reliably can kill (or as good as) a screen a turn, and even 4 can likely do enough damage to put a hole in one. Again I think its a role that opens up with the pt reduction. 1 or 2 was never going to do much (you are talking about killing 1 or 2 models a turn), but once you hit the point you are averaging 5 or 6 wounds a phase it starts to become a meaningful means of puncturing defenses before a charge. We KINDA had that with reavers, but the fact that the sharks can actually follow up those shots with a viable charge threat on their own, at 100pts a piece all of a sudden really is quite attractive.

Skaven warscroll was changed durring the bi-annual FAQ update, its not just a point adjustment time, rules were adjusted, and it wasn't just Skaven that got them. This is literally the first time they have fully revamped a warscroll like this, but it was absolutely done at one of the 2 times of year you would expect something like this to happen. Everybody should have been prepared to have to re-balance their lists come end of year, the fact that the re-balancing occurred in a new way as opposed to a 20-40pt adjustment or whatever doesn't really change the result. Slaanesh was released after the GHB updates were assembled, there is no inconsistency here. This was the earliest we could have expected a non-clarifying faq for them. Both changes were made in the same update, and in each case the book release schedules would not have allowed these changes in time for the GHB rollout. They needed time to determine the extent of the Slaanesh issue, they rolled it out at the first "scheduled" opportunity. I see no inconsistency here on their part. In both cases they stuck to their update schedule.

True, I was getting overly excited, good correction (not exactly a combo I have had in my army more then once or twice before, I've generally only played 1 or 2 "bad" units in army at once in past haha). As for the after the charge comment, what I meant was that in subsequent rounds of combat after the charge or when they are the chargee they are a bit more damage efficient then the eels when factoring in rend. @Acid_Nine its a concern. I think its going to be an experimentation thing. I really don't have experience fielding more then 2 at a time. Since GHB19 I've usually been putting a unit of 2 in non-tourney/non-tourney prep games just for the variety, and I've found them to do plenty to justify their cost, outside of the pure competitive efficiency comparison to eels, knowing they would do better ofcourse. I think the big thing is as long as you have 3 or less you will never lose more then 1 to battleshock without negative modifiers, and it will only ever happen (usually) on a 6. I think you are going to make efforts to keep them in range of a char more then you would for eels, but then again its not a bad idea for eels either, so the tactics don't change drastically. Their reduced movement also makes it easier for a foot character to stay within range to begin with, and I have found myself naturally taking a more conservative battlefield role with them then I would with eels so it hasn't been a huge issue (though has reminded me that I am usually too aggressive with eels). So yeah I'd probably guess the best plan is to stick to units of 3 or less, airing on the side of less is more. I think in all likelihood the rule of exponential growth is going to apply, where you either want 1 or 2 just to fill out points, or you want like 8 lol. WIthout that last 10-20 pt discount, eels are still def stronger, but I think the thought of 8 isn't laughable now, and might win some games... maybe.

Could you elaborate on this a bit?

EDIT replied before you expanded your post..... I mean that really remains to be seen and is purely speculative and anecdotal. We do not have statistics bareing that out at the moment, beyond a very miniscule number of events. You very well may be correct that right now those 3 are better then HOS, FEC and Skaven are, but my point is that 55% win rate is good enough for a top 4 army at the moment. So saying that a 55% win rate is competitive ****** is just plain wrong. We have no idea what the competitive win rates are going to be 3 months from now, when we have adequate data on all of this. But 55% would certainly be high enough to qualify as top tier, unless the game takes an unprecedented competitive balance dive. As to why GW consistently tries to use the carrot and not the stick? Its all about PR. People aren't going to complain about GW making bad stuff better. People are always going to complain about GW taking their toys away. Granted if GW doesn't take toys away people are going to also complain, but I am sure GW has decided that a carrot focused approach makes general hobbyists far happier then the stick. The stick is going to make the competitive community happy, but we are a really small part. The carrot shows them trying, without it actually effecting the casual player a great deal. That's what I think.

This is incredibly hyperbolic. Aside from Slaanesh the only army with a 60% win percentage and any meaningful meta presence at the moment is DoK, and 3% BARELY qualifies them for "meaningful" status. Slaanesh is the only meta significant army at the moment above 60%. A win rate of 55% would place them exactly in line with FEC and Skaven. Even the most competitive of players would list that as being in a very competitive place.

Imo it doesn't really matter what was originally intended. The point is it went from being competitively viable and relatively well balanced internally in comparison to ironfist to being competitively marginal. Its a huge change, and means that the prevalence of Ironfist as the battalion of choice for ironjawz is pretty much going to go unchecked, and it removes one of our potential playstyles. I understand the concerns around it, but I wish there was a less drastic solution. A 50% chance of respawn isn't bad don't get me wrong, but the limitations are large enough that I'm just not sure you are going to see it very often competitively now. The bonuses that come with Ironfist are just much higher this way. I think there was a way to retain the reliability of the ability without it being crazy OP, it just would have been a rule wording that is not normally seen in the game, and GW seems to shy away from "uniqueness" in that way. Again understandable, but its limiting. If they had said something like "you can generate no more then 1 unit per phase in this way" it would have balanced out the rule much better. You could still use multiple command points to ensure success, but you couldn't abuse it to reliably ever generate more then 90pts more then you started with.

On the one hand I agree with you. I want books with internal balance, and this hurts it more. On the other hand, as a mostly competitively minded player, Slaanesh was a huge problem, and while this surely doesn't fully solve it, It is a bigger nerf to an army then we have seen in a long while, and should knock them back into the midst of the rest of the top tier at the very least (I truly hope). If this can knock them down into the mid to high 50's in win-rate I will be mostly satisfied. I think the locus change in particular is going to be meaningful... We will obviously have to wait and see though. GW likes a soft touch, and I have mixed feelings about that. But still I think we have seen them with this December faq show an inclination to do some things that they have generally been resistant to in the past. In addition to the Slaanesh change, I think the fact that they are strait up replacing the plague monk scroll, is something that bodes very well for the future, if it shows a willingness to do something so drastic again (as it has been needed on more then 1 occasion and ignored in the past). I also think we are seeing this soft touch with points in a few instances actually work. I posted about this in more depth in the Deepkin thread but this approach actually appears to be succeeding in the case of Sharks. They have come down 40pts in 12 months, and are now at a place where they are usable competitively. Not only that I think they are basically 10pts shy from being basically on par with eels, which is shocking. I think people have always said 80-90pts was the range where they met or exceeded eels, and I just honestly never thought they would get even close, yet here we are 10 pts away from true internal balance between them and eels. Certainly not a wide enough gap to prevent them from being usable competitively. Very pleased with that alone.

While I agree that it enforced taking three keepers, I think it is going to do more damage then you allude to here. First of all Locus was a pretty big deal, at least in some match-ups, and just got destroyed. Secondly, the biggest deal for me isn't so much that it reduces the number of keepers you will be able to summon in general, its that it is going to potentially push back the turn you start summoning them, and will make it easier for me to delay when you get your reinforcements. To me there is a big difference in you getting new keepers on T2 vs T3 or whatever, thats one more turn of objectives locked in for me etc. That being said, obviously it isn't big enough that the army is going in the competitive trash bins. They are still strong, but I do think it turns some of the really bad matchups into winable affairs, and makes some of Slaaneshes bad matchups even worse. Personally I think it was a good debuff competitively. Bet it drops them from 65% to 55% win-rate (that is my wishful thinking at least). As far as internal balance is concerned? Agree with you; not so great. But as I don't play Slaanesh, and they have been terrible for the competitive meta I am really only concerned about the former atm haha.

I am really excited for these changes. I think in particular Sharks are FINALLY close to where they should be. I think at 100pt they are a no brainer filler unit at the very least that is going to be very easy to fit in. Which is great for aesthetic army diversity. But I think there is potential for them to become integral army pieces now. I've talked about this before, but the fact that they generally fill the same roll as eels has always meant that it is going to be exceedingly difficult for both to be useful at same time, but at 100pts I think we are closer to an equalibrium then we've been before. Were talking about roughly a .2 damage per point difference at this point, down from a .5 difference when the book was first released. And this doesn't factor in things like the sharks doing optimal damage until death, while the effectiveness of the same points worth of eels slowly degrades, or the fact that the sharks do more damage after the charge. I think another 20pt shark drop would actually tip things in the sharks favor, so seems like 90pts would basically be the equilibrium point where shark and eel value are essentially in balance. But at 100? I think its cheap enough that they are going to be great filler no matter what, but also that they are just about good enough to be taken in their own right as an important unit. Think eels still have edge, but I think at 100pts, and I can't believe I am saying this, but the sharks are cheap enough that I think the shooting actually becomes elevated from a complete non-factor to something that gives them a slight bonus. 2-4 sharks shooting aren't doing ******, but 8? All of a sudden we are talking about 10 wounds a turn pre-armor. 8 have potential to clear out a chaff unit a turn, that is not insignificant and can really help with clearing out screens. At 120 or 140, 8 was impractical, but at an even 800pts I think you can almost justify it. Its a substantial price drop imo that might actually alter army composition. And why not use them similarly to msu eels (or in conjunction with them) to clear out the leadership issues. I'm still not positive massed sharks at 100 make sense in a purely competitive sense, but I think we are VERY close, and we will 100 percent see sharks at some level in competitive lists now. I am maybe over-hyping this a bit, and am clearly over the moon about sharks haha, but I had basically stopped playing eels (er I mean deepkin) all together in favor of Orruks because I was so tired of eel spam. This gives me hope. The other changes are nice, I think at 360pts the Eidolon of Storm is still a bit Overpriced but I think he is now in the realm Sharks were at 120, close enough that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and worth experimenting with competitively. Similarly I think the turtle is in same place. The last point drop was basically meaningless, but 310pts is getting close. And I think if you combine the shark pt drop with the turtle pt drop, the Akhelian Corp goes from a competitive pipe dream to something worth experimenting with. Yes please, I would like my 100pt sharks served with a side of 3+ armor saves :). While I know some have had moderate success with the Eidolon of the Sea, I am still very sceptical. There might be room for a fun experiment with mage heavy Ionrach list, which could help offset their biggest weakness, but I am still very sceptical at 380. To make them work to full effect you basically need a tidecaster to get of steed of tides on them, then successfully cast both of your de-buffs in a row from close range, preferably one with sands of infinity enabled. Even at +1 to cast and having 1 reroll a turn, I don't feel super confident about depending on that on a regular basis, and even then you need to hope they don't then get destroyed due to their close proximity to the enemy. If there was a way to get them 3 casts a turn, so they could also cast the steed of tides themselves, I'd feel better about it maybe, but you are depending on a tidecaster without the re-rolls to do it, and on top of that I think Ironrach would be a must to get the reliable spellcasting, and then you are sacrificing all of the amazing Dom-heim and fuethen bonuses. They still feel like a flawed unit to me tbh. Overall though very happy, and this has definitely reinvigorated my enthusiasm for Deepkin a bit, though the experimentation may have to wait a month or two, while I still am experiencing the thrill that is steam-rolling people with a giant ork like cabbage, however blasphemous that may be :). EDIT: Also should be noted that at 100pts defensively a shark is .1dpp better then morrsarr due to their relative # of wounds. So while they are .2 worse on offense they are .1 better on defense. So the difference per point is actually .1 wound total. Illustrates how close they are to being competitive with eels. Voltaic blast outweights the sharks shooting still obv, but between their superiority on non charge turns, their greater damage efficiency damaged it begins to compensate for things like slightly lower movement. I really do think 10pts is all that is separating them from standing at an even position with eels on our efficiency charts. and that is pretty darn cool in my book.