BrotherTalarian

June 14, 2021

2 hours ago, Raptor_Jesues said:

bit of a bummer on the coven throne not being able to use its CA more than once in the hero phase. This, i am afraid, leaves it at the meh level. Probably gonna swap it for radukar or a tax VL to take another battalion i guess

Mind sharing the article that suggests this? Not the first time I heard about it and I’m trying to find the source

Good analysis @Neil Arthur Hotep.

I wonder if the palisade will change to block shooting, or they just need to be in range.

Bats were mentioned as a counter to shooting/UH. Could definitely work! If you can only use a CA once a turn as has been mentioned, you can either force its use from your opponent on cheap chaff, or tie them up and charge them with your big unit after, win win

June 14, 2021

8 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

As opposed to being super chipper while dismissing legitimate concerns of people?

Lol, what? Not sure if trolling, or…

I don’t know if you’re making a general statement or targeting that at me? If it’s the latter I question if you’ve actually read what I’ve written? I’m not dismissing anyone’s concerns, rather asking what they find concerning so I can understand? Meanwhile I myself am looking forward to the new edition, so I guess I’m chipper, sure?

June 14, 2021

21 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

I won't repeat what @Ganigumo said about coherency as he summed that up very well. Tighter coherency makes it more difficult to move models without trays, it slows down piling in, and it makes it so fewer models can attack. It also has bizarre effects like how you can get more attacks with a 5 model unit than 6 (for example, a reinforced unit of Mighty Skullcrushers), so it might actually be desirable to pay for 6 models and just leave one model at home. I see absolutely no benefit to having coherency written in this way. Even conga lines won't go away as 25ml bases can still do them.

I do have some other problems with the rules. A large part of them source from things they could have done to improve the game but chose not to. They didn't improve the rules on terrain, which is a massive missed opportunity. The rules in 40k are right there and hugely improve the gameplay experience, but they weren't ported over. They didn't port over the combat ranges for 40k either. They're a critical component with making the coherency work in 40k, but again they weren't used. They didn't fix the issue with low drops deciding first turn in matched play. It works with the roll off in the other two styles, why did they leave it busted in matched? Now players are just bound to chase after the Battle Regiment instead of creating interesting and diverse compositions.

My other main complaint comes from the things they added to missions. The Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics sound like great ideas on paper, but in practice they're shockingly underdeveloped. Of the 3 Grand Strategies they provide in the book there is one that is totally situational and based on your opponent and their army (but you have to pick it before you see their army), one that is very difficult to achieve, and one that is mind-numbingly easy. Of the 6 Battle Tactics they provide, 4 are just some variant of 'pick an enemy unit and kill it', one is based on objective play, and one is to get near the middle of the table. These aren't incentives for creative tactical play that make the game more interesting or challenging. They're just basic things you should be doing anyway. I can only imagine that they'll add more of these to battletomes going forward (like they did with faction specific objectives in 40k), but the basic system could have been so so much better. Also I can hardly imagine an easier Grand Strategy than 'keep at least one battleline unit alive', so any faction based strategies would have to be shockingly trivial to warrant use.

In the end I'm just not seeing anything that makes me go 'Wow, what a great change!'. Like I do think the rules for monsters and heroes are cool, but if they're just going to re-balance the cost for those units (ex. like the rumors say for Archaon) then I don't see the attraction. Sure you can do more cool things, but it's just more book keeping and more effort to remember just the right rule for just the right occasion. Mission tweaks are cool, but when the choices are so obvious and everyone can do them without thinking, then what's the point? The only thing that's actively exciting for me is Path to Glory, but that could've been a campaign book instead of a whole new edition. This is probably the most aggressive set of changes in an edition shift I've ever been a part of, and in the end I really don't see any improvements. The game isn't unplayable or anything, I'm going to try it out and see how it goes. I guess the one positive thing I can say is they've set a fairly solid foundation that could definitely be built on and improved. Maybe we'll see it start to get fleshed out with the GHB?

Good points. I see how coherency can certainly be a nuisance for several armies. I imagine the change in points (things seem to be going up?) and unit sizes (MSU) might change this.

I’m PUMPED for PtG!

8 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

Let me guess, you play armies that got boosted by the changes.

I'll give you a quick overview of what its like from one of the bottom of the barrel armies that just got demolished even further, Beasts of Chaos.

The changes to coherency means that not only is one of our few viable strategies, speed bump screens as board control, got harder to pull off but now our already lackluster melee took a huge hit since all of our actual combat units (bestigor, bullgor, and the one dude in the universe that actually runs dragon ogres) are all on 32mm+ bases with 1" reach.

We actually had good battalions that gave us one of our few advantages in controlling the first turn, and our ability to be marked and souped into other chaos armies is gone now too. Keep in mind this is a faction that has to fight tooth and nail for any little edge we can get just to not get blown out.

Smaller board sizes reduces our movement advantage, another kick while we're down.

I'm still waiting to see how bad we get nailed in the GHB before even trying to come up with a new list, the loss of max discounts and the reinforcement rules aren't going to do me any favors.

So yeah, as a horde-based melee army general pardon me if I'm not all sunshine and roses about watching the rich get richer while I get a sewer tank dumped on my head. I'm sure we'll get an early army book written by the bin guy again guaranteeing we stay at the absolute bottom.

I don’t think your passive aggressive tone is needed. I'm asking a simple question.

For the most part people complain without giving context, without knowing the full story, and without having tried the new system. Some don’t bother to think of new ways to play, or discover strategies. They just complain.

I'm curious what people that dislike the new rules have to say, and why they're unhappy and create a discourse.

I play a random mix of WE/DE/Empire/Dwarves from fantasy, so CoS, and SBGL, primarily Bloodknights. With the new rules I’ve been taking a look at new list building and synergies, as I find that aspect fun.

June 14, 2021

4 minutes ago, Sharklone said:

Coherency isn't the same. 40k is 2inches. 1inch affects every model above 25mm.

In a game that's dominated by shooting. They've hurt melee and just made shooting better. Unleash hell is an ability that seraphon had, and GW erratad because it was too strong. Now everyone can do it. Units that do mortals when shooting don't care about -1 to hit. I know it's the crutch example, but 20 lumineth archers on average do 6-7 mortals to a unit that has charged the screen in front of them. Then they get to shoot them again in their turn. Then if turn order stays the same they get to shoot again. That's 18-21 mortals. On average. Before you can even get to the unit causing you problems.

Edit. For the third shot. It's regardless of who goes. Either you charge them and get shot. Or its their turn and you get shot.

Thanks for the reply, man.

See my previous (3 min ago) post about coherency. Sure the distance if different, but what about it do you not like? The principle is the same.

As for lumineth, I guess your gripe is that they haven’t made shooting weaker, or melee better opportunity to get closer?

We might see points increases for them, perhaps not.

I agree, shooting is strong, and UH definitely seems to help strong shooting armies even more. I suppose that’s where increased armour saves help. We can also use redeploy to get in a better tactical position?

hard to tell how games will play out without actually playing.

overall though, as mentioned just above, I love how the player has a lot more decision making power. There’s more flavour for epic monsters and heroes.

The game just “feels” mor magical and mighty.

Who knows, I might come back in a month or two from now and say the game is ****** and shooting needs a nerf. But right now I’m enjoying the previewed changes

oh yeah, I think the lumineth range is more of a lumineth problem, than a AoS 3 problem. Points increases might change this, so don’t lose hope

June 14, 2021

21 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Coherency isn't the same as 40k. 40k is 2" and the new aos rules are 1" which is a HUGE difference especially in a game where melee range is a thing. 40k allows 10 models on 32mm bases to stand shoulder to shoulder, aos 3 doesn't.

The battalion change isn't a good one. Battle regiment required an entire system (reinforcements) just to try to keep it in check and its still going to show up in 90% of lists. There are only 6 of them, half of them are awful, all of them are boring, and it doesn't inspire listbuilding. They should've either put this on top of the old system, adjusted the old system to make battalions less important, or just scrapped the entire thing. It also does nothing to actually solve the original issue. Before it was based entirely on your armies' access to good battalions, now its about how well the units you have access to fit into battle regiment.

regroup makes engaging difficult, since it has the potential to add an extra d6" on top of any important charge thats under 9" (9" charges are unreliable most of the time)

Save bonuses are everywhere, and while you cant go higher than a +1 you can negate rend, which will slow combats.

Unleash hell measures distances after the move, and doesn't require the unit shooting to be the one being charged

Unique characters can't learn additional spells

Those were the biggest changes, the rest of it was pretty inoffensive and the priest changes were welcome.

The latter 2 issues will probably get errata'd

The rules in general seem to push towards making engaging in combat harder, which is a wierd direction to take a fantasy battle game. Melee multi model units are most negatively affected, while single models and shooting units are hurt the least or got better

Cool, thanks for the reply!

I fail to see your point about coherency. What makes it bad? Was standing shoulder to shoulder important? See my previous opinion about it, what makes it horrible for you?

You mentioned the new battalions make list building uninspired. The old ones legit gave you no option. “Take these things for X buff”. It forced the player to take units. Now they have the option, and can choose themselves what to take, and what battalion to built towards. Every army has access to them and puts the onus on the player to make a decision they want. I think it’s definitely an improvement to the old system.

I actually love this CA. If you get double turned and moved close enough to the enemy, you don’t feel cheated and have the chance to retreats and prevent being charged. It’s also a tactical choice the player need to make. Use the CA, that is precious and can now be used in a dozen different ways, and MAYBE move far enough, or hold on to it, get charged, and use it elsewhere. All our defence, perhaps?

UH I agree is very strong, I agree. I believe/hope it’s adjusting we need to do and strategize. Similar concept to using CPs wisely, though I feel we’ll see a lot of this.

Another good point. Seeing as the reinforcement rules indicate that several armies will be smaller, at least MSU, it might not be as big of an issue. The point arises again where the player needs to decide how to spend their CP.

Oh? Not familiar with the wizard thing, seems odd and not intended?

overall I think it gives the player more agency, forces them to think and make decisions. I think that’s important and healthy for a game.

39 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I am with you on everything here, I think my only gripes are around army compositions (reinforcements and possible unit size changes in particular) as I do find it a little vague and over complicated but the end result will hopefully be better balanced games.

I will find it frustrating if I have to track down additional Warcry boxes for my Iron Golems and Untamed beasts if their unit size goes up. I have already had to figure out what to do with my chaos warriors either if they go up or if they max at 15. But none of these are gameplay related and more of a meta gripe.

Yeah, unfortunately they seem to be shifting min unit sizes etc. Which is definitely frustrating from a individual/purchase perspective -.-

June 14, 2021

I don’t know, so far everything they’ve shown looks awesome.

Can people who have gripes with the new rules elaborate as to why they don’t like them, or what makes them awful?

Is it simply because it’s change and everyone is frustrated that they need to learn new ways of playing? Or do they genuinely think they’re poor rules because X/Y reason?

Coherency seems to be the biggest gripe, it’s a non-issue in 40K. Also, having a single file models spread across to grab territory, deny zones, screen etc. Looks super lame aesthetically, and mechanically is meh, IMO, as it doesn’t feel very “realistic” or the intention of the game.

Anyhow, I’m curious why those that are frustrated are frustrated.

Cheers

June 13, 2021

1 hour ago, Erdemo86 said:

Have them all but don’t know if im allowed to post them here..

I wouldn’t mind some PMs as well if able ^^

June 11, 2021

I feel like the smaller MSU armies (because of reinforcement rules) is an indirect buff to the Kasteli dynasty. Easier to wipe smaller units and drink their blood 🩸

I’m glad I bought three boxes!

June 10, 2021

Hypeeeeeee

i mean, that almost 100% confirms that, no?

make a normal move, mortal wounds, then charge back in?

they can’t mean charge the following turn…. Right? Right?

May 18, 2021

2 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Cannot speak for others. I'm down here in Houston, TX. We have this thing called "The Texas Masters" where the "Big Cities" (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) have local 1 day tournaments (3 games) throughout the year and then each city hosts a Major Tournament (2 day, 5 games) and you're ranked state wide. end of the year, Top 20 in the state get "invited" to play in the Masters which happens in January. Everything is based 100% of matched play.

Now that isn't to say there aren't several of us that will get together to play an informal game here and there and I'm sure several would be OK using these rules. However, for me personally I usually try and do 1 tournament a month for my "warhammer time" and thus it is Matched Play.

Oh damn, that’s cool.

Yeah, my LGS is full of friends where we play with matched play rules, but also run narrative campaigns etc.

With friends I’m not concerned, but from that competitive/tournament aspect...yeah, might be harder to convince the whole state haha

May 18, 2021

Could y'all ask your LGS/members if they'd allow these types of characters? Or are they rather strict?

You seem to be able to use the rules in matched play, as AoA, but with permission

May 18, 2021

I edited my previous posts with updates ***

Seems like most of the exciting new things.

Shame that it's really a house rule, thing. Wonder if it would be accepted by TO.

I imagine it should be OK at my LGS, and among friends, but who knows if "randoms" will be cool with it.

May 18, 2021

6 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

Could you ask for pics and send them via DM on here? Understand if that's too much effort haha

I'll see Both working atm as well so might be a while.

5 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Wow sounds like a dream that should be in the actual Gravelords book lol.... What is the spell lore? Is it that 2+ ward save you were saying?

If you're the acrane vamp you can select one spell of three, that's one of the options.

Another interesting one is that you increase(decrease) the armour save number by D3.

E.g. 4+ save, roll D3, (roll a 4) AS is now a 6+

Third I'm not sure, related to beasts and wounding

There are also 16 "unique"? abilities we can choose from. Which sound awesome.

Bat/Wolf transformation

+1 casting/unbinding rolls

Command trait in addition to one being given to your general

Making a unit fight directly after your lord/hero after they have fought

Pass off wounds on a 3+ to BK/BK/GG

6 = 2 hits

Can have a spirirt host as more attacks?

That's all teh exciting stuff, I think, rest is similar to AoA, mount/generic modifiers etc.

May 18, 2021

I have a friend who has gotten his paws on the WD and gave me a bit of into. There doesn't seem to any forum rules limiting what can be said, as long as I don't share picture. Let me know what you'd be interested in knowing until you get access yourself.

Some cool things he mentioned:

Can turn into a Fellbat/DireWolf once per game, if it dies, change bat/wolf model with your lord again.
There's a wicked combo you seem to be able to do that allows your hero + 2 other units fights first in the combat phase!

Some pretty awesome spells, 2+ ward save at the cost of a wound, lasts until next hero phase.

Standard AoA stuff, +1 save, wound, movement etc. Ethereal is not restricted to models that ahave a 4+ save, so no 2/3+ unrendable.

You can have a CA that summons a unit 3" away from an enemy, so cool.

-----

If I missread the rules, please remove and let me know, but my understanding is no pictures.

For those that have other questions while you get your hands on your own copy, let me know and I'll ask my friend

May 18, 2021

So, unfortunately they state in Anvil of Blood that it's strictly a house rule model, and you need the permission of your opponent. Same points, 1DP = 10 pts, 20-40 DP.

May 17, 2021

24 minutes ago, Liquidsteel said:

Alright guys unless someone else is faster, I will post them once I'm home from work.

It's usually the Tuesday before its in shops that I get it.

Awesome, thanks! If no screenshots then a nice DM would be great

May 17, 2021

Oh I fully agree that RAW you can’t, but RAI might be that as well. As you’re “moving through” a screen and don’t have to actually kill all the chaff that’s in your way.

I hope, and can see AoS 3 having a better distinction

May 17, 2021

Hmm, after read the riders of ruin rule again, I’m lead to believe that the RAI might very well be RAW.

And that’s it’s very much only supposed to be used to trample over your enemy to be able to charge a target hiding in the back the following turn, and not be able to charge again after.

x (O)

———

^

O

where O charges in to —

Following turn o moves to (o)

—- takes mortals

then on the last turn (o) charges x

(did this on mobile hope the image translates well haha)

May 16, 2021

1 hour ago, Zaerion said:

I would like some opinions on this i think is what i am going to build to start with and play with friends since i almost have everything, what do you think?

Kastelai

1 Vodrai 455
1 Manfred 380 ( possibility to pick from lore of the deathmages)
1 Vengorian Lord 280 -Rousing commander( the one that grants kastelai buffs) (Fragment of the keep -1 wound 6") -1 rend 3"

1.115

5 blood 195 ( since wolves are battleline i could do one unit 10)
5 blood 195
5 blood 195

585

10 wolves 135
3 vargheist 155

1990

The idea of the list is basically that i am tired of horde armies.

Vodrai i think everyone agrees is a beast , he can combo really nice with manfred CP ( +1/+1) also he can combo really well with Vengorian spell (+1 wound to a unit marked), debuf (-1 rend -1 wound from the artifact) and also great with the CP +1d6 to heal, also all of them (manfred included) , if are inside the bubble of manfred CP gain +1/+1 and on top of that you can even use Vodrai CP to make this or Manfred attack in hero phase etc..

Then we have the bloods not sure if its worth 1 unit of 10 or 3 units of 5 , but they will have to be playing around the other 3 vampires, in order to take advantages of the buffs or debuffs etc... you can use the ambush on them from kastelai etc... and they could make really good pushes and then leave the combat to pick up objectives behind enemy lines...

10 wolves , for screen... pick up objectives and if it killed you could proc the endless legions thing to get another unit of 5 wolves on the table at 5+ ( if you don't kill a unit that turn)

the 3 vargheist are there for more or less the same as wolves but they take advantages of kastelai , you can deploy them at 9" or more than enemy , they can be very annoying in general.

In general is a high mobility list with a lot of +3 save that on top of that are applying debuffs and buffing themselves and almost everything heals 1d3 if kills something.

Being used to my 80 chainrasp , i kind of see almost no bodies on table but i really like this list , not sure if it will be a piece of ****** or not... but i really like it.

I was also thinking about the coven throne but.. i think vengorian lord is really nice with vodrai and manfred already gives the +1/+1 also the coven is not a good hitter and the vengorian is not that bad.

What do you think about it? any ideas to improve it etc.. are more than welcome.

I love it. I’ll be running “the same”. 1700 minus the vargheists and wolves. Still contemplating the 300pts.

Another Vengorian lord, more BK, what You have, skeles, zombies, wolves?

May 15, 2021

Maybe, similar to Fantasy, ranged weapons have a -1 to hit if it’s over half their range. Would reduce their effectiveness by quite a bit.

May 15, 2021

4 hours ago, Erdemo86 said:

I will go with 1000 points:

Vengrorian

3x 5 Blood Knights

1x 3 Vargheists

Alas, I believe that’s 1020

May 15, 2021

6 hours ago, Lucank said:

I`m trying the exact same list today
Think could be a good list

Let us know how it goes! I’m very curious

May 14, 2021

16 minutes ago, annarborhawk said:

Never been a death guy, but I'm about to jump in with both feet (or claws?).

Would the following be reasonable?

Kastelai:

Mannfred

Prince Vhordrai

Vengorian Lord (rousing commander!)

3x5 Blood Knights

1x10 Dire Wolves

1x3 Vargheists

Comes in a little shy of 2000.

....but I'd be buying everything tomorrow. gulp.

I’m thinking of a near identical list!

Should be fun.

On the wound discussion, then.

What takes precedence? Healing D3 wounds, or death of the model? How is that determined?

If it’s death to the model, rousing commander becomes less attractive of an option, though still good.

May 14, 2021

What’s the reasoning for everyone voting a single thread for all SBGL?

Very possible that the posts will cool off in some time, but it’s more or less what exists now (the rumour thread), no? I find that posts and questions are easily and quickly drowned out by other posts.

I’m not a vet of the forum, so precedence might indicate that it will calm down and be in order, but if it stays like the last few weeks...

May 14, 2021

16 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Yeah I'm a little excited for it. Our big competitive tournament group is doing a large scale narrative battle in July where each person gets like 3-4k points and it is going to be a massive (multiple tables/games at once) war. Anvil of Apotheosis characters ARE encouraged and "competitive" lists will be rejected. The point is for all of us competitive people to bring our fluffy BS lists, lol. Right now the plan is all Grand Alliances vs. Chaos.

Pretty sure he dies. Because he has a wounds characteristic of 4 and has taken 3 wounds. Then after the "buff" wears off he has a wounds characteristic of 3 and has taken 3 wounds, thus one dead Blood Knight.

Interesting, is there an official way to count wounds in AoS?

I’d read it as model has 4 wounds, takes 3, has 1 wound remaining.

i.e counting down, and not up (how many wounds have been taken)

I guess if it’s the latter, what would take precedence? D3 heal (provided they kill) or death... lol

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Store

Downloads

Blogs

Events

Posts posted by BrotherTalarian