tripchimeras

Magnets are totally viable and per @Acid_Nine, probably the most common solution. However, I never quite got them working for me the way I wanted (had issues with them falling off and models seemed to be always moving to wierd angles on the bases, totally probably a me problem with glue or mags I was using) so if you find yourself looking for an alternative there is copper rod which is my preferred solution. Very easy to drill hole in base slide in coper rod and secure with combo of glue and greenstuff, then drill hole in eel bottom and stick on the copper rod with glue. That baby is never falling apart again. I actually really like the aesthetics of it too, but if you prefer transparent or don't like the visible copper maybe not for you. Though you could always mask the rod with a wave like water effect. The other thing I really like about using copper rod is that it makes it really easy to introduce height variability into the eels. So you can make it look like they are descending or ascending to give really cool effects and to give them a more dynamic look (also can make putting them base to base a bit easier as well).

Yeah I definitely think it is one of the things in our army that takes the most practice. It is really easy to turn into a crutch. I would say that generally when I use it I take 1 unit of eels and maybe 1 unit of thralls depending on circumstance, often I take nothing. With the battalion it really just depends on the # of drops your opponent has. I usually try to string out my battalion drop as long as possible based on opponent drops. If he is going to win deployment there is 0 reason to deploy them together, and if you are going to win by 2 or 3, string them out into 2 or 3 drops with whatever you plan to deepstrike included in the last drop. Also remember that sometimes it can be good just to use for objective gathering. Teleporting a thrall and/or small unit of eels across the table for a charge into a lightly defended objective can be just as if not more effective then brutalizing an important unit. I think it can be particularly effective, and far easier to use in MSU eels, just because taking a couple of small eel units across the table is far less dangerous then a unit of 9. But even when we play big block eels, I think as long as you have 2 blocks of them taking 1 block still frees the other to be somewhere completely different at the same time. Its definitely a balancing act, but one that I think is worth while. As for surging tide, that can certainly be useful, but unless you are going namarti heavy, personally I find myself rarely running into movement issues with eel heavy lists. I think the ability to free up an eel from a potentially dangerous counter charger can be game changing at times. Its a close call, but I tend to lean towards cloud of midnight, but surely both are viable.

Also remember that charging doesn't mean you have to complete it in an optimal way. Note that it says the charge will fail if you do not complete it within half an inch of the unit in question. It doesn't say you must complete it within half an inch if able, just that for it to be successful it must end within half an inch. So you can absolutely roll the dice for the unit hoping for a high number and then "fail" the charge if it doesn't get you where you want. You've lost nothing by trying. In general the soulscryer is a 100% double edged sword. It is an extremely powerful tool, but it is very easy to be tempted into abusing it. So many times have I used it to bring the bulk of my force into misguided T1 charges only to slowly get grinded out over a turn or 2 and lose the game. Use it sparingly and situationally and it extends the versatility of the army greatly. Use it like its a requirement and over-indulge and you will find it betraying you constantly. What I like to do is declare the soulscryer is deepstriking as my first deployment move, then delay a decision on key units until the last possible second to keep my opponent concerned and trying to cover their backfield. Sometimes I won't deepstrike anything else at all. I like to give him cloud of midnight so occasionally I can charge him alone into something on their flank just to hold it up for a turn to prevent it from charging the flank of a unit of eels currently engaged. It is situational, but with our relative lack of need for artifacts I find it a lot of fun and use it often enough I find it worthwhile.

Yeah I agree with this. I think the CA is usually the determining factor on Special Characters with the lack of trait access, with a few exceptions. If they have something unique to them that is really big deal in terms of synergies they are going to get used, but without it 90% of the time Generic is going to just be better. Morathi is one of few exception to this where she doesn't have any really unique synergy abilities, but is still crazy strong, but being impossible to kill in less then 4 turn phases will do that... Baring crazy stuff like that, the trait/artefact + reduced point costs of generic characters usually outweighs any other benefit from a special character, and I think that is the case here as well. I don't think he is bad enough he has no viable place and seems like others have mentioned, he may be easily redeemed with point drops, but I think he is bad enough that he is going to be relegated to a few niche hyper aggressive Big Waagh! lists, and largely unseen at most tourneys. Brutes unfortunately have a much bigger problem. Where I think Gordrakk has a clear niche in Big Waagh! where if the points are right he is worthwhile without making generic Maw Krusha's completely redundant, Brutes and ardboyz fill identical voids and are never going to be simultaneously strong imo. They are just too similar. I think point edits can reverse the position of Brutes and ardboyz but never truly bring them to balance. Brutes are in an identical situation to Sharks in deepkin imo. They share a nearly identical purpose with another unit (eels for sharks, ardboyz for brutes) and there is no differentiation to make both consistently viable. In both cases the statistical variation is not huge, but without distinct roles that statistical variation, however small, is all that is needed to relegate one to shelves and the occasional "casual" game. In both cases the aesthetically superior models are objectively worse and have no clear path to relevance save point changes extreme enough that the more efficient unit is simply reversed causing the problem in the opposite direction. Brutes need a distinctive place in the army to thrive, and that is not something a faq can change. GW needs to expand the variations in elites in particular, to support the small elite larger base size units where a larger unit fills the same niche. Doing slightly more damage in the case of the brutes, and having an afterthought shooting attack in the case of the sharks is not enough. They need some function unique to them. I don't know what function that is, but GW needs to think of something because this is becoming a consistent problem, where there are just not enough roles in an army for even very limited ranges like Deepkin and Ironjawz to avoid this issue of identical roles. In big tent books like Cities this isn't as big of an issue, but in limited ranges this type of duplicate role issue is really annoying, and really highlights the limited range of unit functions that currently exist within the game. We need a ripple of some kind. Maybe it is objective based, maybe it is synergy based idk, but these types of units desperately need something.

I think Gordrakk is overkill even if you do want a maw krusha. I've found so far that I consistently have all my buffs by t2 regardless, which is in plenty of time imo. 2 warchanters, and a prophet are getting you 8-9 per turn on average, charging your stuff in on T2 will have you at 20pts in t2 combat. The only reason to have Gordrakk is if you have a way to get their t1 and I don't think there is a practical way to do that with or without him. If I'm taking a maw krusha in big waaagh, I am going generic for the mighty destroyer access personally.

Fair enough, but I guess what I am saying is that in the limited sample size of tourneys since the book came out I have yet to see many ardfist builds place well. Surely it is early goings, but it doesn't seem to be the first instinct of those placing well with Oruks. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but it hasn't yet from what I can tell. I'm not trying to argue it isn't a competitive ability, just that it doesn't seem to be out of balance with that presented by the ironfist, which as strong as it is has yet to put Orruks in a situation where I think most would argue serious rule changes are needed. In my opinion why fix something that has yet to present an issue? There is only anecdotal evidence thus far that this build is a problem, we have a mountain of evidence that depravity needs to be reworked as an example. I don't see value in nerfing a rule that is not currently being overused when an arguably stronger one like ironfist already exists in army. Its still very early in the lifecycle of a book, but I think its too soon to be making changes to a rule like this. I agree that either your half-measure or the one limiting its use to units of 10+ are probably the only ones that work without rendering it competitively unusable, but it still feels too early for that to me. Yes, anecdotally it seems very strong, but our book is very strong in general, and generally you aren't going to see ardfist and ironfist in the same list its more likely going to be one or the other I think. So keeping them in line with one another is going to mean a lot for the book's internal balance but I think less towards external. I hope whatever action GW may end up taking keeps this in mind, though like you I would not be surprised if they kill its usefulness.

In fairness I think only being able to use it once per destroyed unit also nerfs it pretty hard. It becomes extremely unreliable at that point on top of the built in unreliability factor that the ability already hinges on a singular 6 wound model in a game where character sniping is becoming increasingly common and easy. I don't think the ability as it stands is competitively problematic to begin with so long as it must adhere to the battalion unit restrictions. To "abuse" it you basically have to build your list around that fact needing to both generate and then expend a massive number of command points very early on in the battle which has sizeable drawbacks for an army that runs on command abilities in general. Especially given that even if you manage to pump out 3-4 command points into it at a very early stage there is a non trivial chance it does very little at the expense of your entire command pool and a key strategic part of your army. Especially with the versatility and guaranteed nature of ironfist if you want any diversity in your ironjawz battalions reducing the effectiveness of ardfist is going to hurt that a lot. Not to mention that the whole premise of the "abuse" use case everyone seems to be worried about hinges on your ability to destroy a unit of 5 ardboyz quickly, when in reality doing 10 wounds to yourself is not exceedingly easy, and is going to require a full magic phase and likely taking some endless spells you very well might not have otherwise to even give yourself a chance of it. I just don't find it particularly appealing or strong, nor does it seem to have been born out as a serious concern so far in tourney play from what I can see. The stronger play as several others have mentioned above I would think is to use it as a support threat in a non cheasy manner, supporting normal strength units of Ard Boyz with the threat hanging over your opponent of units coming into their backfield at an inopportune moment at any stage of the game. This, to be worthwhile and effective, however still requires reasonable reliability of success, which requires the ability to use it multiple times in one go to account for 50% chance of success. All of the "solutions" I have seen in the last few comments imo would make the ability non-viable competitively. Perhaps the only small tweek mentioned so far on top of battalion size limitation is to maybe prevent it from working on units of 5. This restricts the early game "cheese" we have seen associated with it, that prevent "that guy" from making a lot of casual games nightmares for ppl. But honestly I'd be fine with nothing changing unless we start seeing a lot more competitive abuses. This really does just seem like one of those rules that is terrifying on paper, but just good on the table.

If my opponent is about to go twice I am going to leave space if possible to put any hazardous (for me) charges in doubt on t1, while forcing them into screan on t2. It's not what they would naturally do that changes, it's how much of what they want to do that they can achieve and how much of it do I try to prevent without playing too passively for my own purposes. It's much harder to balance randomly. Surely I can screen, but do I leave an easy counter charge for myself open assuming I will go next, or do I leave the distance I need to protect my counter charger. Do I charge his chaffe assuming I can then go again to get behind them, or do I hold back to avoid risking the counter charge from them instead. Do I turtle around objectives I have to protect them for enemy on the next turn, or do I I try to strike at the next objective up with an important unit without a screen and hope for a double to better secure my position (or push up even further). With an uncertain turn order all of these things are debatable, and my ability to best balance risk mitigation with appropriate pressure is going to go a long way towards determining the result. If I knew turn order these difficult decisions would be significantly less difficult. I don't need to balance my reward with conjecturing up to 2 turns of opponent action (or my own), I only need to plan for 1 before I can maneuver again. It's far more strait forward strategically, and in a pretty basic rules system that takes a lot away imo.

See I think this is where I think the "get rid of it" camp misses something here. If anything it should be the opposite. Open play should remove it and it belongs in Matched Play. Because Double Turn is a huge barrier to entry for a casual player. The game swings and is almost completely dependent on the whims of the double turn. But in competitive play its impact is very different. I think in a competitive environment it makes the game MORE strategic. It puts more emphasis on thinking several turns ahead, and requires more vision over the battle field and precise understandings of the core game mechanics to deal with. AoS at its core is a very simple game. There are a few core mechanics that generate nearly all of the tactical ripples that make this game work competitively. Double turn is one of them. You strip it away and you have a game significantly less varied with far fewer strategic considerations. That was fine in WHFB because of complicated mechanics such as line of site, flanks, charge denials, make way etc etc it had tons of tactical ripples to occupy your time even in a game where turn order was a known quantity. Some of those tactical ripples (like make way shenanigans) were justifiably criticized but they required forethought and strategic planning none the less. Double turns and objectives are what AoS has to replace these mechanics. Combined I think they more then make up for it, but when I play a game of AoS, a significant portion of my game time is spent trying to foresee and prepare for the uncertainty of the next turn; without that uncertainty the game becomes a whole lot more simple. Particularly with the extreme movement within the game, I think many underestimate just how key the mechanic is to the game as comprised. It is not so simple as just removing it, the game wouldn't function right. They would need a complete re-write and new edition. The power swing would be tremendous as well.

...But you CAN plan for it. Like either you eventually learn how to deal with it and you learn to like it or you never learn to deal with it and you hate it. Like I don't know what else can be said. Either you live in the world the game has created and you play under the assumption you will never get the double turn and your opponent always will, or you are going to get shocked every couple of turns and be continuously pissed at the game. I admit it has an exceedingly steep learning curve, but I can confidently say that I don't find myself losing to the double turn any more then I find myself losing to any other roll or chance proposition in the game, nearly all of which I could have avoided or mitigated had I decided to play differently most of the time. There is a reason to play making an assumption on who is going to win the roll off, but playing those odds come with inherent risks that you need to be prepared for the consequences of. If you positioned as if you are getting first turn next round because you have a slightly higher probability of getting it then your opponent, and that decision turns sour on you, consider that the double turn is not what screwed you, but your decision to ignore it as a possibility did. That can be a hard pill to swallow, which is why I think its such a divisive game mechanic. There are so many dice rolls in the game, with many opportunities to blaim luck for a loss, but few are easier to pinpoint blame towards then a single dice roll. As far as how you plan for it? Screens, movement, counter charges. screen the units/objectives you can't afford to lose, force ranges on your turn that force your opponent into poor probability plays ( ie expose themselves gambling for a double turn charge or don't and the double turn is less meaningful), and lastly set up the counter charge. "Ok, you can take my queen on the double turn if you want, but if you do I'm going to take yours as well on my turn." Lastly always understand what you can and cannot afford to lose. The answer is not always obvious. I can afford to lose my 9 eel block more then my 130pt unit of foot sloggers sometimes even if it seems they are essential to killing my opponents big meanie if it means allowing my fragile foot unit to get another objective that would put the game out of reach, or make it very difficult for my opponent to come back. Too too often I find people playing the game to kill and not on objectives, and this bleeds into opinions on double turn. I have seen (and personally been guilty of) plenty of situations where someone basically gives up after receiving a beating on a double turn when the game is not even close to being over just because their best unit or 2 bit the dust. This is not WHFB, combat does not decide games, kill points do not decide games, you can win with essentially nothing left on the table while your opponent is almost unscathed. I think AoS is a game that requires a deceptive amount of skill. Its a game I know I was guilty for quite some time thinking was little more then a pushfest contingent on the priority roll. It is just not, something I repeatedly forget in moments of weakness and subsequently get crushed. I think double turn makes low skill beer hammer harder to enjoy, I think it makes tactical play far more rewarding.

I'd say it really depends on how competitive you want to be. I don't think the drop-off between ard boyz and brutes is enormous, but ard boyz are definitely going to be the core of a competitive ironjawz list I suspect, though certainly don't take my word for it. If you hate ard boyz and have all those bonesplitter models as well, I really think your best solution is to just play Big Waagh! That will allow you to use large blocks of savage orks in the role you would normally be putting ard boyz in, while you can still take your ironjawz fun around them. Id start with something like plopping a big unit of 30 savage orruk walking guys down, then you'll want 1 shaman and 1 wardokk to support them with +1 armor buffs to get that sweet sweet 3+ armor (or the +1 to hit bonus spell, if they have bows) on them. Include a Mawcrusha and 1 to 2 warchanters, then sprinkle in the pigs and brutes to taste with whatever is left. Feels like a good starting point for you to tweak from there as you go. If you really like how savages are playing, you can always expand to a kunnin ruck of 2 units of 20 shooting boyz with that savage big boss. If you are dead set on solo Ironjawz, I am sure you can make solo brutes work, you'll just want to keep their leadership issues in mind as you list build, and be prepared to design ways of compensating for their super low body count in how you are going to claim objectives during your games. At end of day I think the army is strong enough that unless you want to be tourney competitive, an all Brutes army is prob not going to hold you back in a semi-casual setting. But if you do want to go competitive, or you are struggling with the Brutes and still want to use a lot of Ironjawz Big Waagh is def the way forward for you.

Anyone else thinking about how fun it'd be to take a 1 drop Brawl list at 2k. I am sure there is another army that can fit a mega battalion into 2k, but can't think of one off top of my head. The funny thing is it actually intersects perfectly with the msu wrath of gork gimmick. You can afford everything you need for the wrath of gork spam and get all of the msu units to make it roll. Plus how many 1 drop lists are still roaming around out there, old ironjawz was pretty much all that was left right? Again not saying it is remotely optimal but now that I have realized it's possible I really want to try it some time: Aqshy IronSunz 1 Weirdnob shaman (General) - Wrath of Gork Master of Weird, Shamanic Skullcape 1 Megaboss - Sunzblessed Armour 1 warchanter - Ignax Scales, Fixin Beat 3x5 Brutes 6x5 Ardboyz Battalions: 3 ironfists 1 Brawl Endless Spells: Balewind Vortex Maelstrom 2000pts. edit: you are looking at 5 command points turn 1, 3 free mighty destroyers, and wrath on a +2 that is going to kill a hero nearly every single time it is cast. For a super battalion list that is barely possible, and gives you essentially no flexibility at 2k it seems surprisingly not terrible, not amazing, but not terrible.

The thing with instant death abilities, like in the case with the crawler, isn't that they are OP. In aggregate they usually are not. They usually unreliable and difficult to achieve, which is not something you want competitively. The issue is that when they occur, they are not fun. Will a crawler insta-kill a morathi type character on turn 1? Probably not, and the probabilities are certainly not high enough to have a huge "competitive" impact on its own. HOWEVER, when it happens it is the worst kind of feeling for your opponent, which generally also means a not amazing feeling for you. You were both basically robbed of a game by a high variance roulette wheel. It's not fun. Not to mention that these abilities open themselves up to gimmick lists that make them more likely (do damage to yourself etc), again likely competitively limiting, but THAT guy will love it, and it would be super dumb to deal with. Things like a Terrorgheist's 6 mortal wounds on a 6+ are one thing; they can be accounted for, they are counter-able, there are ward-saves and protections, adjustments that can be made. Insta-death abilities and their ilk are really not. They are rarely strong in competitive play, but they are one of the worst ways for a new or inexperienced player to be introduced into the game when they happen. I do not find the crawler to be OP, I find it to be stupid and poorly thought out from GW's perspective. Its an anti-fun model, which sucks because it looks amazing.

I remember back in 8th where everything was based off of Kill points, and objectives were only secondary pt getters, what you have been discussing with "running up the score" was always an issue. I was a competitive player and while I did my best to end wide margin games as quickly as I could, as someone in competition for a top spot I was essentially required to play through every last moment to get as many VP as humanly possible to secure that Massacre and get all my secondary objectives scored. It wasn't something I wanted to do, but it was a requirement of the tournament, and round 1 in particular getting matched up against a new player, and forcing them to sit through turns where the game was basically already over was not fun for either of us. I think the other aspect for this is that with a more sliding scale, the tactics can change. If I need to not just win, but utterly destroy my opponent in Objectives, the armies that are best changes heavily in a specific direction. Its no longer enough to just outlast your opponent, or to score a load of objectives early and cling to victory or whatever. You need to get to objectives early and then pound your opponent into submission to prevent them from getting any themselves. I think while the army preferential treatment this will create isn't quite as pronounced as it is when the means of Major victories is kill points, but it is still going to preference a certain type of army, while armies designed to win close or through attrition will become significantly less impactful. All of that being said I do really feel the pain of a close fought game resulting in a major decision. Minor wins are next to impossible when they essentially only occur in what is basically a draw. So I am very torn about how to position tourney points and how to crown a victor. I want a game that supports many different play styles, and an army that smashes face in 4 games and loses 1 should not necessarily be rewarded more then an army that wins 5 close games and never loses. That army that won 5 close games very much could be designed to do so (think the armies that win while losing most of their models; usually the objective score is close, but the way they played, and the army they chose you realize afterwards it was going to be extremely difficult to out objective them no matter how the game turned based on how they played). Should that player and army be rewarded less then the guy who deep striked in turn 1 and killed everything allowing him to claim objectives for 5 turns? I personally think the game is going to be much healthier if grind it out lists are rewarded just as much as kill everything and prosper builds. Back in 8th edition I remember occasions where a player came away 5-0 but only scored minor victories and didn't even place in the top 3. I want those lists encouraged, it makes for a much more diverse and tactical tourney scene. And in that way GW's current scoring system actually kind of thrives. All that matters for the most part is going 5-0 and total objectives scored and/or kill points are really secondary. I think I wouldn't mind a compromise where Wins are tiered into 2 or 3 categories, but placing is based first on wins and losses, and second on tiered win points + secondary objectives. That way you get some credit for a minor loss in the standings, but a lone 5-0 army is always going to win. Dampens impact a bit of strength of victories, while still making it a factor.

Ardboyz def seem to be the mainstay unit across most non bonesplitter builds (as they should be), and free mighty destroyer casts just seem so strong. I One thing I wonder about is if it makes sense to take Maw Crusha in an ironjawz list at all. Is the Maw Crusha worth its points with the Ironsunz requirements for example? Certainly -1 rend isn't nothing, but when comparing to +3 rend on your attacks, +3 damage, 4+ mortal ward, or ethereal gauntlet it doesn't seem very good. Alternatively Even if I am taking only Ironjawz models I think Big Waagh! is probably a stronger ability set then generic Ironjawz without a tribe which would be the only way to take Maw Crusha with its full ability compliment in Ironjawz... I am all in on taking a Maw Crusha in my Orruk army, and I don't foresee myself at least initially delving into the Bonesplitterz range. So does Big Waagh! just automatically make the most sense, or is it still worth while with the lesser artifacts of one of the clans? My feeling is I'm sure its not bad in any circumstance, but just thinking fully optimizing your list competitively it feels like a generic Megaboss is probably stronger in a mono ironjawz list, and the Maw Crusha is at its best in Big Waagh maybe? I could be putting too much significance on the command traits and artifacts, but if I am plopping a quarter of my points on a single model, it feels like you want to make it either the killiest killer possible or the tankiest tank, and Ironjawz seems to disincentivize that with the tribes.

Do you mean at the start of the battle or in subsequent turns... Because at the start of the battle I would say that if anything I see players choosing to go second more often then not. Though it is army and scenario dependent and I think both get chosen fairly frequently. As for subsequent turns, yes it is fairly rare to forego the double turn or to allow your opponent to have a double turn, but it is not without situational benefit. Things like the orb scenario for example can encourage going second later on in the game. Really any of the scenarios that give extra points for stealing objectives will have use-cases at some point for purposely giving your opponent the first turn in a battle round. There are other use-cases as well, where units are momentarily trapped in combat and giving your opponent the next turn will allow them to break free for your next turn. Or you see that a T3 double turn is going to be far more valuable to you then a t2 double, so you purposely forego it on T2. All of these situations already exist in the game, and while I agree in so far that it is far more common to take the first turn in a battle round then not, I think mechanics already exist to break this up. I just think that people are so conditioned to take double turns that even when there is a clear advantage to passing on it, players will often take it anyway in the heat of the moment out of habbit. So I personally don't feel like this is a huge issue.

Based on all of the existing dark elf stuff + shadow warriors which have mostly been grouped in with them getting released in cities I would be very surprised if there is a Shadow elf release next year. The very fact that their predecessor units all got a cities release would make me think we are more like 2 years from Shadow Elves. The fact that the High Elves were almost entirely excluded from Cities, however, tells me that a Light Elf army, on the other hand, very much is going to be on the release docket for 2020. So I would think only 1 elf army gets seen next year and its the light variety.

I actually really like the Orruk book. I get that it doesn't have a huge unit selection, but nearly every unit seems takeable, all three subfactions are useable, and the army playstyle and lore mesh together superbly well. Now the concern on this one may turn out to be its power level. As of this moment it seems quite strong but not OP, but that may be in part due to the matchup with Slaanesh... More time may be needed to tell. But I think overall it is a very good representation of what a faction of its style should look like. It is internally balanced there is a reason to take just about everything from what I can tell. My only real complaint is that Brutes are not very well diferentiated from Ard Boyz and while I don't think there is a HUGE power level difference between the 2 units, I don't think there is a utility difference either making a case for including both, which really hurts for Ironjawz given how few units they have. Still I think its a good example of where GW should be going. Thematic rules that work, decent to strong internal balance, all sub-factions takeable, a real trade-off between taking a specific tribe and going generic, which is not very common. I think Cities as a release pairs really well with it too. I think they show 2 styles of army design that both work and should both be present in the game. Cities is a big tent book and has flexibility Orruk's lack. But the synergies are harder to nail and the army building is more difficult. Each book has drawbacks and bonuses, and are (for the most part) well balanced internally and strong but not OP externally. I think given how hard internal balance is in a big tent book, Cities nails it pretty well. There is only 1 truly terrible city, 2 mediocre ones, and 4 that are competitive. Most of the warscrolls have utility that makes them worthwhile in the right cercumstances, and nothing individually seems crazy OP. There are trade-offs in each. I think the one mistake Cities made is making a static gunline a little too attractive. The game was sorely lacking decent shooting, but they needed to make it dynamic, and while they tried with stuff like pistoliers and Tempest Eye, it looks like the best shooting build may be a couple stationary shooting blocks and a soulscreem bridge... Not exactly fun for anyone. But as a concept and compared to most releases the dual release of Orruks and Cities was a huge success showcasing very different but complimentary book design principals that do not massively diverge in external balance. I call that a huge success. Especially when compared to the current dual release of Mawtribes and Osiarks which in comparison looks like a book that was released as an afterthought combined with a book intended to be a "game changer". Very strange combination and while I don't think Osiarks are going to prove to be classically OP I don't think they are particulary well balanced internally or to the game around them. And Mawtribes seem very forgettable, I don't think they are quite as terrible as the initial reaction has been, but neither do I think it is a particularly inspired release.

This proves nothing in either direction other then that 3 of the top 5 played armies are above average and 2 are below. What he is asserting is that the more players you have in a faction the more it drags the win rate down, not that it instantly makes it bad. It is just going to be lower then if that army had only 5 players. Now is that necessarily true? Idk you can't determine that from these stats. In theory though the higher percentage of the meta an army comprises the more mirror matches you get. The more mirror matches you get the closer to 50% your win rate is going to get dragged to (in either direction). Generally speaking more data points also do not correspond to change in 1 direction or another, but instead simply to reversion of the mean. But that only is true when their are quality controls on a data set, which our AoS stats unfortunately do not have. There are no quality of play standards, or min tourney sizes for these events. They pull whatever they can get data for that is 2 days and a certain min size I suspect. This can effect the data in random ways. So I think using just these data points above it is undeterminable which of you is right. Statistically there would be a slight change the more people play it due to mirrors, but since no one occupies more then 10% of meta it shouldn't be huge. It should only make the data more accurate for the most part. However, like I said the data set available to us is not necessarily well representative of even mix of good and bad players, so none of this is necessarily true. I think anecdotally from my perspective, between mirror matches, and looking at some of these win % compared to podium's it seems that the win percentages do seem to be lower in some of these cases due to volume (maybe a lot of new players picking up army because it is good), or in the case of something like skaven (which should be over 60% I would have guessed) maybe a plethora of options resulting in more sub-optimal builds. But this could easilly be confirmation bias due to that 1 data point on my part and has no basis in anything tangible. Regardless you would need to do some pretty steep statistical acrobatics to come up with a remotely accurate answer to this question. All that being said I think this line of thought is veering off the main topic here (bonereepers and their percieved OPness) as interesting as it is.

Yeah that's a good point too. I'm a little surprised how little I have seen the combined faction as well in the tourney standings since the book release. I don't think I am going to use any bonesplitter units at all and I'm still considering going that way instead of Ironjawz. Some of those allegiance abilities are great, but those forced Command traits and artifacts for the factions are almost all bad. Obviously Ironsunz is strong regardless, but there are so many opportunities in the ironjawz Command traits and artifacts list that I don't want to lose out on, especially since its pretty easy to get a couple mighty destroyer's per turn in Big Waagh! Feel like if you want to go magic heavy or use a Maw Crusha it's the clear way to go, not to mention the double waagh potential the orruk warboss presents. The CA/artifact loss on general is definitely less of a deal on a normal megaboss, but still Big Waagh seems just as valid to me as Ironjawz proper.

Comparing artillery to artillery isn't a great metric, primarily because up till now artillery has not been strong, and it doesn't seem like Cities has changed that very much. If you are looking at the crawlers base output vs characters, on average you get 1.33 wounding rolls on 3 shots. This means that you really can only reliably target 1 character per turn (since it vs characters seems to be what the hype is about). Sure every so often you will have a game where you get super lucky target 3 seperate characters and all die. But realistically you are getting 1 wounding roll a turn. Most wizards are going to be screwed, but even they generally have a 5+ or 6+ which pretty much lowers the odds even further to almost exactly 1 wound through a turn or just under 1 wound through at 5+. This does not take into account ward saves, which while they are not universal among characters many armies have widely distributed 5+ or 6+. What this means is that if the character has any ward save at all statistically you are on average unlikely to kill a character (assuming min 5 wounds) with 1 catapult in a single turn. And if they aren't a wizard (generally meaning a 4+ or better save) you are looking at only about a 50% chance of getting the wound through to begin with. I'm not about to say its bad by any means, but for 200pts it is not going to reliably be picking off characters in the way people seem to be envisioning. Realistically you are also getting about 2 turns in only before its effectiveness gets decreased if you are fighting anyone who fears it and thus will be devoting resources against it. Again this isn't a bad thing you are forcing people to focus in on it, and with 2 phases of shooting you will definitely have killed at least 1 hero. And against low armour horde units or chaffe it seems particularly strong (probably preferable to going character hunting most of the time). What I do think it is, is a poorly designed model from a rules perspective, one with a super high variance where if it has maximum impact it is going to ruin the game for an unfortunate opponent. I am not a fan, and don't think its going to be fun for anyone on the table. However, if we are talking over the course of a tournament or spread of games I also don't think its going to be a classically OP unit either, though could be wrong.

I'm surprised more of the tourney list's I've seen don't include the Orruk warboss for Big Waagh. Having access to a Waagh from turn 1 and being able to double Waagh later on seems super strong, and having a reroll 1's to wound bubble is never a bad thing either for a fairly cheap price. Is the concern that he's going to get faq'd out once faq comes? Because he's addable in the app, so doesn't seem like it was an oversight.

Personally not a fan of removing double turn, but if they are going to do it, it definitely changes the game significantly. Certainly makes it easier tactically (though that is going to go both ways). I think one thing it probably does (though I have no personal experience playing without double turn) is expands the advantage of high move models. In both these lists you are likely going to have a high degree of control over who gets charges and when against most opponents. Take advantage of that. Also as important as screens are in double turn games, they become especially effective in I go you go. You know a screen you set up properly will always work. For an army who's main combat units can fly this is extremely effective. My guess is that this format is beneficial to our army moreso than most others, though I can't be sure. I think for your purposes both lists are fine, given that you don't want to go full optimal and think it will be semi-casual. I think they are both in principal strong enough to have a good showing. One thing I would personally change, regardless of which build you go with I would choose the eidolon of the storm over the eidolon of the sea. It doesn't matter that you can afford the sea aspect in both, the storm is better in the way our lists are currently constructed and work. I love the concept of the sea aspect, but in practice he just does not work with how we need to play the game. If you are spending all those points you want something that can actually tilt a battle, the sea's spells are far too short range and do not have the casting buffs needed to be strong. I think Storm is better in both of your lists. I think either list can work, though they obviously each play a little differently. I would go with whichever you feel personally more comfortable with. The second may be the way to go with more objective holders, and because aspect of the storm fills a semi similar spot to the king, but I think for a semi-casual atmosphere both will be fine. If you are bent on taking the eidolon of the sea I think the sands of infinity are the way to go. For the storm ethereal amulet seems like a good choice, or maybe the 4+ ward vs mortals if your local meta has a lot of mortal wound dealing armies. Def share your thoughts on a tourney without double turns though after its over. Seems like it would take a little too much tactically away from the game for me, but would be interested to see how you feel afterwards.

Speed, mortals, activation shenanigans, summons, re-rolls, screens. A recipe for success. When reading a new book or warscroll that is usually what you want to look for. This is an objective game 1st and foremost, speed and mobility are the singularly most imporant thing to winning objectives. People will say bodies and that is certainly partially true, but if you can't ever get those bodies from point A to point B. or you get trapped on your home objectives who cares about bodies? This brings in screens. between double turns and objective protection everyone needs a couple of good screaning units to stuff up the enemy for a turn or two, and to protect your delicate/important units from unwanted double turn charges. Mortals are essential due to the relative low occurance of ward saves, and the speed in which they can kill monsters and the like. Activation shenanigans are perhaps the biggest deal of those here, because of how quickly combats resolve, going first (or outside of the normal combat activation) is a huge advantage. So ASF/ASL super important to success. Summons are obviously very strong in this game no matter the army, but obviously the easier and faster you can pile them up the better they are. Lastly anything handing out re-rolls is going to be strong. a 5+ ward is fine, but a 5+ rerollable is nearly as strong as a 3+ ward (which doesn't exist). Similarly with attacks rerolls are very strong. These are the types of abilities I would focus in on when looking at a book. In summary: 1. How are you going to claim objectives 2. How are you going to hold objectives 3. What is going to allow you to succeed in a combat phase with so many units that can 1 hit most things. This is obviously all super generalized, and there are exceptions and additional factors. But focusing in on these factors I think should mostly differentiate the strong from the not as strong. EDIT I should probably throw in reliability on this list. The more reliably something occures the better. That is why hallowheart has gotten so much hype for example. There are plenty of strong spells in the game, and several lores that are better then Hallowheart's. However they can essentially guarantee your spell casts, turning a portion of the game you can't count on normally into something that is almost guaranteed. This is very important. A high volume of attacks and low volume of attacks that result in the same average damage dealt may seem of equal value, but I will take the high volume every time (all other things being equal), because the variance is significantly less meaning I know what I am getting. Being able to plan for something is so much better then hoping for luck in a strategy game.

Think you make a lot of interesting points on the other stuff and I like the idea of using sisters of slaughter. However, the boats are free. 6++ may not make a huge difference, but sometimes it is going to help, why deny yourself that when it's free? Blocking movement lanes may be the wrong choice against some armies, but against others keeping your opponent bunched up on one part of the board may be exactly what you want. Particularly in the matchups where winning through combat are not likely for us, obstructing opponent's movement may be just what you need to hold that objective 1 turn longer. The do not fly ritual can be game changing depending on opponent, its situational and unlikely to succeed, but for free it could change a game or two. I also don't know if I agree that simplifying your decision making by not including them at all makes sense either. Simplifying the terms of engagement, limiting mistakes, and removing chance are what you want when you have an advantage. But when you aren't advantaged or evenly matched you want to complicate the scenario as much as humanly possible. If you have a plus match-up and want to keep it strait forward, throw the ships in a corner and forget about them, but if you have an opponent you don't know how to deal with, and you don't think you can beat easily, place those baby's in the most inconvenient place possible and hope it causes them to make mistakes. If you don't know how to win in a straight forward matchup, make the conditions of battle less straight forward imo. Again can't stress enough; they are free. Even if only 1 of the 5 games sees you using them at all, that was 1 game where you got use out of a free thing, you wouldn't have gotten not including them. Placement occures before you deploy your models, if a glance at their list doesn't leave you thinking Loss, toss em in corner and move on, but if you are concerned (like you are with Big Waa) seems like a good spot to use them.