tripchimeras

Bed might work pretty well, or a big coffee table if you don't mind sitting on floor. I actually have found it pretty sturdy so far for what it is though, and I just put it on a kitchen table usually, though while my table is a bit thinner then his, it is longer which probably helps with stability. Only thing I have to worry about is a cat realizing it is a terrible place to sit, and thus deciding it is, in fact, the perfect place to sit; needless to say they are usually banned from the area while its in use, though cats are always a model's dire enemy so this isn't unique to the insulation game board. Even putting all of my books and gaming materials on the edge doesn't unbalance it. I think its really just small animals who enjoy destruction and feast on human misery, and forgetful elbow leaning during drunk hammer sessions that you have to watch out for haha. Overall its worked pretty well for me, you do have to be a little more careful then with the more expensive solutions but for a $20-$30 option at least in apartment living where you have a SO to keep happy, I think it is honestly one of the best solution.

Hope this is the case, I am not a huge proponent of alternating activations for AoS, but think its necessary in skirmish games. Yeah that is interesting on the no armour or ws front. I think that's a bit unfortunate, but I guess in the name of speed might be worth it if other game rules compensate for the lost diferentiations those can provide. Agree the multi weapon profiles prob aren't useable simultaneously, though if the game is activation based as @Swooper picked up on, its entirely possible you can make multiple actions of the same type within your activation like, each activation you have x number of actions, but those actions can be any number of things, like movement, attack etc.

Not sure if this was already known, or is new to the reveals of the past 2 or 3 days, but its interesting that it appears they are bringing strength and toughness back for warcry. I'm happy to hear that honestly, I think the simplification works fine in AoS due to model volume and I never really missed it, but in a skirmish game you really need more granularity.

Sounds like original poster got what they were looking for, but I recently had this issue in my apartment needing a super easy playing surface I could carry around between myself and my friends apartments and was also looking for a SUPER cheap, super light weight/portable option. Found the solution of using insulation boards with duct tape hinges somewhere online (can't remember where or I'd link to it to give the person credit) and honestly its pretty amazing. You can either get one of those pink 4x8 insulation boards for ~$20 and cut it yourself into 2x4 sections, or if you are lazy like me and want to do absolutely 0 work, there are pre-cut 2x4 boards as well, which at least around me were $10 more for 5 sections, which allowed me 2 extra to also make a 4x4 board for smaller games. Either way once you have the 3 pieces you can just create hinges with duct tape by putting 3 strips cross wise, followed by a strip lengthwise across both sides of the "hinge", then doing it again in the reverse direction on the third piece. Its surprisingly durable, extremely light weight and portable, and all you have to do is throw it on top of any small table you have lying around your house/apartment, and put a gaming mat on top to retain game aesthetics. And vwala a $20-30 "foldable gaming table", your SO will not kill you for taking up too much storage space in your small apartment, while also being able to very easily transport in my tiny and already cluttered car. EDIT: Found the source I stole this idea from: https://creativetwilight.com/diy-wargaming-table-terrain/ Personally though, I think buying a real gaming mat for another $30 to put on top of the board, is probably worth it, then the solution they came up with, which personally I am not a huge fan of, aesthetically.

I agree with a lot of the comments above that there is really only 1 way to use morrsarr, and that one way really requires 9 of them per unit (though 6 isn't terrible). Ishlaen have been doing amazing for me in units of 3, they can road block most anything that doesn't do a lot of mortals, and provide a lot of support utility, and given the cheapness of the min unit there is really nothing wrong just plopping them on a backfield objective for a while if they don't have anything else to do. Undecided whether I want to go 3X3 Ishlaen or 1X3 and 1X6, either way I'm excited with how well they have been doing for me, and that they present an alternative to pure morrsarr spam. I think if you want to go competitive at all you still really want at least 1 unit of 9 morrsarr, but now for my fliptide list I am toying with only using 1 unit of 9 instead of 2, and replacing the second with Ishlaen, which gives me the extra points to put something fun in my army I might not normally include, without completely killing the competitive ability of the list. The pure offensive power is definitely much lower without the second unit of 9 morrsarr, but I think the versatility goes up quite a bit, whether that actually is enough to compensate I don't know, but it definitely makes it more fun!

Their strongest build is horde, but it doesn't mean its exactly doing great... They have 1 top 3 finish in a 30+ player tourney reported to honest wargamer since april. Given how high the player rate is, you would also expect that to translate to more player wins. Now like a previous poster suggested I suspect at least part of this is due to the type of player the army attracts (fun loving, less competitive), but still you can't confidently say horde gits is super strong, when there is exactly 0 evidence to represent this in the tourney stats we have. They are just not placing in tourney's, far and above their win % that means that their hordes are by no means dominating the meta. The only true horde army at the top of the meta right now is Skaven, and again we are talking about an army that SHOULD function as a horde army.

How is that what you took from my comment? Magotkin a most definitely not horde army, is doing as good if not better then the gloomspite gitz horde book that came out this year, while deepkin foot "horde" lists suck and their elite eel lists are top tier... Like I have been giving you tons of examples of elite non-horde armies that are wrecking face right now, and you just keep going to bottom tier elite combos, while ignoring the bottom tier horde armies that exist in the same space.

Sure, and it scews there stats, every army has sucky combos you wish worked (I personally wish a namarti morr'phann horde deepkin list was the height of the meta right now, but its never going to happen), but I don't see their horde armies storming the tourney standings either. They have had 4 top 3 finishes since April, and of those only 1 of them was in a tourney with more then 20 players, and of the 3 that had 20 or less players, skimming the other top 3 armies for those events tells me the army representation at those events was... lets say interesting. Of events with 30 or more players, I see Magotkin having as many tourney top 3s as gloomspite, so yeah...

BCR hasn't had a 2.0 tome. Most of the low model count armies havent had a tomb. Name 1 low model count army with a tome that was released with 2.0 in mind that is below 45% winrate? In fact scanning Honest Wargamer I could only find 1 modern tome of any kind that has below a 45% winrate, and that tome is Gloomspite Gitz, the horde book.

No, you misread my post if that is what you think. My point was that if you think 10-15 model armies should be the STANDARD you are playing the wrong game.

What relevance does this have to anything? BcR are bad, it happens. 1 book no one takes, cannot be used as reasoning for a topic on the entire meta of a game... Like I'm sorry your army is bad, but it has nothing to do with whether hordes are too prevalent.

As others have said, this is the first mistake. This is not a horde. Wanting a 10-15 model army as the standard just tells me you are playing the wrong game, sorry. That is skirmish game numbers, AoS is not (thankfully) a skirmish game. There should be large armies out their, and standard troops should be common in fairly large numbers, its kinda part of what makes a massed battle game, a massed battle game. Additionally, with the exception of DoK and plague monk spam (not even the best skaven build), the hordes are never the point. Screening in AoS is extremely important. Between deepstrike and double turn mechanics screens are a must have in this game. Horde units make amazing screens. That is why you are seeing them, though again I don't even really think there are that many horde armies. Skaven are supposed to be a horde army, if they aren't bringing 100+ models to the table, the tome is probably designed wrong. And even with that, Skaven's best builds use the hordes as little more then a delivery device to transport their monsters safely into combat, and screen their casters as they mortal your army into submission, they are not the point, they are the wrapping. Gloomspite gitz are the same way, massed goblins is kinda the point of their lore, and they are not even near the top of the meta either, so I'm unclear where all these hordes are after that? Whats left at the top of the meta? Slaanesh, FEC, Fyreslayers, Deepkin, legions of nagash. Slaanesh, FEC, Fyreslayers, and Deepkin are not horde armies, FEC and Deepkin play strait up as elite armies practically, Slaanesh if they bring hordes they are mostly just being summoned (there best builds are not the daemonet mash at all from what I have seen, tons and tons of characters with screeners to wrap them up), fyreslayers have A horde unit and that is it. Legions of Nagash, literally have legions in the title and again in fluff should be all about masses of skeletons and zombies being continuously ressed up, so again they SHOULD be a horde army. So top of the meta of Slaanesh, FEC, Fyreslayers, Deepkin, LoN, DoK, and Skaven we have 3 horde armies and 3 elite armies and 1 army (fyreslayers) that kinda fits in the middle, and functions mostly as an elite army. Of the horde armies 2 of the 3 functionally are SUPPOSED to be horde armies, only DoK is not functioning as intended, and we are talking about the single biggest problem book of over the past year and they got smacked by far the hardest of any of the top tier by the GHB and faqs. This is what I think, 2 of the past 5 books to be released are horde narrative books, and very popular armies that have gone a LONG time since a real update, each being popular armies from the WHFB days when army numbers were much higher in general then AoS. So a lot of people not only have owned them for a long time, but have horde armies from WHFB for them. That is why you feel inundated with horde armies. Additionally I think your fundamental definition of what constitutes a horde army is flawed, and even more so your expectations for what a massed battle fantasy game should be seems odd to me.

Think thralls are pretty great as 10 man support units. They are pretty terrible as the core of your army. I always take 3 of them as my battleline, and always find them a great investment and not a battleline tax for fliptide. Defeated a horde gloomspite army largely on the backs of Thralls just tearing through things. Lost all of them, but they ended up being the difference. That being said can't imagine including more, I'd probably take more reavers after that if really wanted more foot. Too vulnerable to work as the backbone of a list, and as others have mentioned too unwieldy in units of 20+. Reducing base size to 25mm would work best, but as I don't see that happening I think extending range of their blades to 2" would do the trick almost as well. While you are still going to struggle with buff ranges, reliably being able to get all 20 in to attack would be a strong enough incentive for me to at least consider taking 1 20 block. I think with their damage potential though they are still amazing support units/screaners. Screens in AoS are so freaking important, that even as pricy as they are being too expensive to effectively do it, I end up needing them to screen against alpha strikes/flyers from my opponent until I can get my eels in correct position if I'm not deep striking them myself. Soulrender ability also shouldn't be wholly within imo, should just be within, its just not good enough as is even at 80pts. Alternatively if they could use their ability before battleshock, instead of after, OR they could use it after every battleshock phase, not just friendly they would become potentially decent. In fact the very first game I used them in, I mistakenly thought I COULD do it after every battleshock phase and did not find it to be remotely overpowered. My opponent was (turns out rightfully) incredulous initially, but they still melted away far faster then I could resurrect them even taking morr'phan, it really was only any good at preventing losing units to shooting and magic, the second they entered combat they melted away with or without the soulrender (though after doing significant damage themselves) and I lost handily, granted it was like my second game of AoS ever.

Nice perspective, makes sense. I do see the value of Meeting Engagements, I just don't like that they advertised it as a tourney game. But everything you said here makes sense to me, I'm happy how things stand now, and I think you make a lot of good points. Sometimes its hard not to get reactionary with GW, trusting them is a very painful activity lol.

You're right, I just am grumbly I guess because GW is the last bastion of the massed battle game, there is just no where else to go, meanwhile I have 5000 skirmish games to choose from, most of which have tighter rules then GW could dream of. Meeting Engagement's are fun, but they weren't what I signed up for 20 years ago, and they aren't why I dived back in a year ago. I guess I just gotta hope that I am not quite in as big of a minority as it seems I am, and GW doesn't destroy the moderate balance of 2k to cater to 1k. It seems strange that they would leave the one market they own a complete monopoly in behind, so hopefully they wont.

I agree with you, I think that's maybe where we are crossing our wires. There is a reason AoS was designed the way it was initially, for this very reason. There is a reason they released no points, had no way to play competitively, and specifically stated they would no longer cater to competitive play in any way shape or form. I think WHFB, had a pretty high percentage of competitive minded players by the end (Still a huge minority I am sure, but quite high in comparison) and GW realized that the plummeting sales of their most competitive game just did not justify their focus on it (not that they really were focusing on it, but whatever). But if you look at the hardships of that rollout, the near complete loss of their competitive player base in those first months, and their (for them) extremely quick turn around in rectifying that situation, tells me that clearly the competitive community was more important to them then they thought post WHFB. I agree to you the majority of AOS is small scale games, I would bet that the majority of 40k is also smaller scale games, then are at their tourneys as well. So why did GW relent in AoS and publish competitive focused rules, primarily catering to a GW traditionally sized competitive game? Because however small of a percentage of GW's population Tourney players may be, they also represent a significant part of the most active and die hard supporters of the game. Tourney players recruit new players to play, watching a massive battle with huge monsters, or tanks, or whatever play out on a gaming table is often what gets people into the hobby. Many of those people end up never really playing at those levels, but the thrill of seeing that huge battle that first time is what plants the seed. A large percentage of the podcasts, even the hobby ones, are done by people who go to and enjoy traditional pointed tournaments, even the ones who don't take them seriously. They are gathering places, and people form friendships at them that build the hobby further. When they occur at a store, they are free advertising for the hobby. Tourney players, however small their sales footprint is obviously have an outsize footprint on the hobby as a whole, otherwise GW would not have ended up catering to them all over again. Even now 4-5 years later, from what I have seen there are fewer forums, podcasts, youtube channels etc dedicated to AoS then there were for WHFB at its point of steep decline, this could just be a function of the old ones all being replaced and I just don't know where the new ones are, but google searching 'AoS forum' or 'AoS podcast' or whatever gives me half the dirth of results then I used to get when looking for a new one to follow for WHFB. That hurts a hobby. The big 2-3 hour competitive game exists as an aspirational goal, something to capture the imagination of a new player, even if they quickly learn it is not how they want to play the game, they are invested now. It also caters to the most hardcore demographic of players, one that is not important to sales, but is important to the health of the hobby. I think all of this matters. So long as most tournament players want to play 2k, I think GW would be making a mistake to change the focus of matched play significantly, because I think even when pts are used, most people are not playing competitively, they are playing small narrative/ open play (at least in spirit) games. EDIT: also the lack of forums could just be because they have all been replaced by discord chats, and I am just too old/lazy to find them. But that is a me problem haha.

I think if this were really true they would just be playing KoW. This is over simplification. It would be great if tourney games didn't take 2 and a half hours per round, but you sacrifice much on the shorter game length. I think the sacrifices seem fine right up until they happen. Everyone would love AoS as is to take an hour, but I don't think they would like what AoS would need to become for that to happen. I don't know many tourney players who actually want to play smaller games in their AoS tourneys, I don't know many tourney players who actually want all interactivity removed from opponents turn, I don't know many tourney players who want unit rules to become flavorless and most abilities removed. These are the types of changes that would be required. You look at every game that plays fast and none of them do the things people love GW games for. If most of the people who played GW games actually wanted all of those things they would have switched to another system long ago. I constantly hear people complain about game length, but I've never heard anyone advocate for the things that would actually do that except maybe for smaller game size, which I think is antithetical to what makes GW distinct. In the US after WHFB died there was a huge void and a bunch of the top TO's and players had massive debates on what to do. This was an opportunity to switch to KoW, and you know what I saw? The vast majority after very little time found themselves turning on it, and most did not stick with it for any amount of time. And this wasn't because there weren't games, almost everyone was giving it a try after WHFB, it just wasn't as fun. It was nice that it took about an hour, hour and a half to play, but it wasn't worth the sacrifice. There's a reason 9th age exists as a game, internationally so many tourney players didn't want to give up their massed battle 2-3 hour fantasy game, that they retrofitted 8th to avoid copyright infringement and continue forward. Everyone wants faster games, but at the end of the day, in my experience no one wants to actually pay the cost, that isn't already a primarily skirmish or kow player. EDIT: This obviously is not necessarily true of the community at large and those who play casually. I am merely talking about the competitive scene as my experience within the WHFB 8th edition competitive circuit and what I have seen from AoS so far in the US and what it tells me about what keeps people playing GW games competitively.

Good points, and I agree that the massive number of models required in warhammer fantasy was a big reason behind its undoing, and AoS has gone a good ways towards undoing that requirement, even at 2k (the games are still smaller at 2k then they were in WHFB, even now with higher horde focus). I think an even bigger factor though, was the overly complicated ruleset, which as much as I loved it was often needlessly complicated without providing a ton of strategic upside. There were so many edge cases, and so many more ticky tacky things that were really difficult to understand unless you were truly invested in the competitive scene. The character displacement shenanigans within units alone were something so needlessly complex and abuse-able that half the strategy in top tier games went into the way in which you made way with your characters at the beginning of a combat phase, and whether your opponent could suss out exactly how it would happen before making a normally good charge that became inadvisable upon make way. Anyways, point is I think the complexity of the rules in contrast with AoS had as much if not more to do with its failings then the model counts. I think AoS initially took both of these lessons to a way too far extreme, I think large scale battles far too important to the die-hard GW fanbase for them to not put significant development focus on. Large pitched battles are the single biggest thing that differentiates GW games from every other wargame out there imo. I know they are what attracted me to the hobby, and I think it is that way for many. Even if you end up preferring smaller battles or more casual battles, it is the unique feature for GW games that sets them apart. I think it would be a mistake if it stopped being a big focus of their development time (see rollout of AOS for why). I think it is smart that they have made AoS a far more casually and low model count appropriate game then WHFB ever was. And the companies efforts to diversify into skirmish and improve 1k games are great moves, but I also hope they realize the attraction of the big 2k battles as a marketing tool and distinguishing feature of their game. I am looking forward to warcry, but the skirmish game market is extraordinarily saturated with multiple games superior in ruleset to anything GW has to offer, it would be a mistake to make that the companies primary focus. I think having that 2k "goal" game out their as the competitive gold standard, and visible fixture in the community is more important to their business model, then is probably represented in the proportion of players who primarily play it. But this all could just be my personal bias speaking. Enjoy Meeting Engagement alot, its just never going to be a primary play-mode for me, the balance just isn't there and I want bigger armies then it offers. This is a tangent to what we have been discussing with meeting engagement, so I apologize, but the big reason I was concerned when they announced Meeting Engagements, and after playing it why I continue to harp on its lack of competitive balance, is that I worry GW will start to turn away from big scale battles and 2k competitive play, and I think it would be a huge mistake. I've only ever rage quit GW once in the 20 years I have been playing their games, and it was after 8 specifically because infant AoS had no competitive support, and focused almost exclusively on smaller scale play. They learned their lesson quickly, I just really hope they haven't forgotten it again.

Yes a max pt limitation per unit would go a long way towards solving the problems at 1000pts in general, not just at meeting engagements. Combined with a curtailed summoning system (not exactly sure how you curtail it well without going army by army) and you are a decent way there towards bringing balance closer to 2k (such as it is haha). I think you are still going to run into more balance issues then at 2k, but its going to be much closer. But I think this change creates a new problem for GW and its player base. GW sells its game, I think, largely on he cool factor of giant armies and huge monsters. New players are as attracted to big monsters and crazy heroes as the next person and all of a sudden you as GW have just mandated that at the beginner pt level you cannot play with most of those monsters and heroes... Not a good marketing strategy, and it is going to hurt the experience for a lot of those new people, and make 1k games a lot less diverse then 2k. You are also putting an extra level of complication, however slight to list building. GW used to have a lot of these rules, x% of your army can come from this or that type of unit etc. And they went even farther with 0-1 and 0-2 choices on specific types of units if we go really far back. They stopped doing that stuff at least in part because no model company wants to tell its players they can't use x or y model under any circumstances, so unless its made mathematically impossible by min core requirements or whatever, I just don't see them instituting those kinds of limitations. This sounds like I am against them, I'm not, they are one of the only paths forward to making 1k balanced short of rewriting individual unit rules and pt values for the pt level. I also don't mind invalidating units at 1k, a lot of units don't make sense at the point level to begin with and it gives added reason to strive to get your list up to 2k and differentiate the beating heart of the game from the lesser pt values, while retaining balance across both. I'm just saying realistically its not a winning marketing strategy, and we have seen them leave these types of rules in the dust over the years in favour of a much more open force org system. I find it hard to believe they do such a drastic reverse course now, but would be pleasantly surprised if wrong.

Assuming 2k points and have decent objective holders and board control options in the rest of your list , I would say the second build. That is pretty much the standard. Morrsarr optimally want to be in units of 9. That being said I wouldn't consider this a universal rule, the rest of your list matters here too, make sure you have enough units to hold and defend objectives on your side of board while morrsarr do their killing etc. If the rest of your list is going into Eidolon, or turtles or whatever you probably need something closer to the coverage in the first option to make up for it. I think if you want to experiment with more ishlaen I would change the first build to be 9 morsarr, 6 morrsarr, 6 ishlaen, 3 ishlaen OR if you need the eels to function as your primary objective holders and they are projecting the vast majority of your board control, maybe something like 9 morrsarr, 6 morrsarr, 3x3 ishlaen. You aren't going to want 2x3 morrsarr much imo At 3 models you are looking at a support unit/ objective holder/ screaner/ hold up an enemy/ road block unit. I think Ishlaen function significantly better in this role. Morrsarr are meant for killing and charging with 9 as the optimal number, and 6 still worthy, while I think Ishlaen function more effectively as 3-6 model units, not to say 9 wouldn't work for them too.

Deepkin: The last battle in the Aquaman movie, yet somehow taking place on land... It is like the embodiment of how GW's has embraced the ridiculous and insane with AoS in a way they never did in WHFB. It took me a while to adapt to the tone change, but now I love it, and I feel like Deepkin are one of the armies that best embodies this insanity. Also that sea turtle, Eidolon, and shark are just the coolest models to me (too bad they aren't good). More practically I played flying circus high elves in 8th edition, and Deepkin are very much that same playstyle in AoS imo.

I think whether or not it is more balanced then the same point cost in pitched isn't really the important discussion here. The reason it was released was because 1k pitched was so very badly balanced. Based on their marketing material the point of this was not for a fun new game mode for casual play to allow new players to have fun while they build up and small shops to hold events that are still fun (this is where the new game mode excels imo). The marketing material specifically has advertised this as a competitive mode that can be used for tournaments to rival or at least present an alternative to 2k pitched. Thus that should be the comparison point, not to the broken pt level it was meant to improve. In theory it should be taken for granted that it is more competitive then 1k pitched. I think the fact that there is even a discussion going on as to whether this is actually true says something about its success as a competitive alternative to 2k. I think it is a failure as a tournament play mode. It is easily broken and gets incredibly swingy. There are many combos that as strong as they may be in 2k, a significant number of the tomes, in a good player's hands, have plenty of tools to mitigate, but at 1k there are just not the resources to do so, while the combo itself is still valid. I think its saving grace, and what makes it a success as a game mode people are going to use and enjoy is: A. however unbalanced it may be, it is a lot of fun and mitigates the feeling of "auto-loss" a new player so often experiences in the base 1k pitched battle B. it presents a fun alternative way to play on beer and pretzel nights when you aren't feeling like a competitive 2k game C. while it is incredibly easy to break I do think it is harder to accidentally do so than 1k pitched was. I think the tiered deployment and stricter org chart gives a very clear idea of what GW intended and thinks is balanced at 1k. Now they did far too little to actually ensure the "spirit" they were going for is followed, but at the very least in a casual setting people are going to get more enjoyable games, that feel closer even when they aren't, and accidentally tabling your friend, as you are both learning to play, on turn 2 is no longer going to happen nearly as much as it did in 1k pitched. I really like the new game mode, it just doesn't work how it was advertised. This is very much an introduction to the game, with some light buffers to prevent egregious shenanigans and more importantly accidental imbalance. The tiered approach is a great way to introduce the various phases of the game I think, and the clearer org chart provides a good template for new players of what GW thinks is a balanced list, and also what GW thinks is too strong for small games. But in competitive when you are trying to take as strong a list as possible, and are incentivised to try to abuse the tiered deployment as much as possible, it does nearly nothing in preventing any of the things that made 1k pitched battles so unplayable competitively to begin with.

Not sure what type of escalation occurs or what the point levels in question are, but I wouldn't be considering an eidolon or lev until well past 1k. Additionally the key to us being competitive in any environment is of course eels. In casual you certainly don't need a spam but as long as you have ~6 in 1k and ~9 in 2k I think you are going to find that whatever else is in your list (as long as it isn't completely random and haphazardly assembled) you are likely going to find yourself competitive in most casual game settings as long as you are playing relatively tactical. I like to include either 6 morrsarr or 3 morrsarr and 3 ishlaen in casual 1k lists, and 6-9 morrsarr and 3-6 ishlaen in a semi-casual 2k list. I think at those numbers they tend not to feel overwhelming, but can compensate for some suboptimal choices on your part otherwise. The more casual the less you need, but I think 9-12 eels of whatever combo you feel like is a good semi-casual spot to be, against balanced lists that aren't utter trash, but aren't necessary tourney competitive either. I think you can get away with either Eidolan, turtles, or sharks at that level without going super eel heavy. In competitive I think its definitely 18 minimum, most of which need to be massed morrsarr in 1 or 2 units. Yeah good point, I would not take both at the same time, as tempting as that turtle combined with an aspect of the storm armed with an ethereal gauntlet may be... Even in casual games, I would suspect objective control is going to be very hard with so much invested in 2 models that can only really function as support pieces.

Shouldn't that open up your options more though then? Why even be concerned with the fact they are less efficient in that setting? There are armies and options that are truly useless (mostly the ones without an updated battletome) and impossible to balance they are so bad. Of our list only real example I can think of in that space is Lotann where there is essentially no way for him to make a useful contributor to an army. The Eidolon, turtle, and sharks at their new points? They are over-costed, but far from useless in a casual game, so long as you have some semblance of army symmetry, at least a few efficient units, and a strategic vision to use the list through. Hate giving anecdotal evidence, but just the other day I beat a nighthaunt list without too much issue taking an Eidolon of the Sea and only had 1 of each type of eel unit, 3 in each at 1k meeting engagement (a pt level the eidolon of the sea has no business in). Got 1 spell off the entire game and it wasn't the good one. It would have been absolutely ****** against a competitive list, but he was running a black coach on his end and neither of us were under any illusions that the game was "competitive". It was fun. What kind of narrative games are you playing where Eidolon's and turtles are next to useless and make you "uncompetitive" for the setting?

I think that last part is the key though, if you are already taking 18 eels I think the efficiency penalty is significantly less. And none of these models inherently is too expensive to prevent you from taking 2 big blocks of them. As long as you have that, I think you going to be in the top half of a tourney field if you are skilled no? And as for your first point, lets be clear 30 namartii are 40pts more then a leviadon and 9 ishlaen guard are 70pts more , and in a vacuum that does not seem like a big deal, but again lists aren't made in a vacuum, and because you cannot buy individual models in AoS and have to buy a full unit, its just not as easy as it seems like it is to free up an extra 40pts, especially with deepkin where we have nothing worth taking for less then 100. In the previous discussion about the Leviadon for example we were talking about a flip tide list that in essence has 360pts not tied up in "requirements" for a competitive build. That is 20 namarti plus change and 6 eels plus change. In either case I think the efficiency loss is significantly less then before.