NauticalSoup

Some good some bad. There are a lot of stinkers in our army lists but we have some really solid allegiance traits. If you are willing to dip into stormcast coalition units you can actually create some pretty impressive lists right now, there are a few shells that are near the top of the meta. If you play Cities for fluff and want to have a list that's all freeguild or dwarfs (like me) you're going to have a rougher time. There are definitely worse armies. I can win more reliably with my fluffy dwarf force than with my bonezplitterz.

Especially knowing anytime a build like this gets good, it gets the unit nerfed.

This is actually really important- as a longtime 40k player I can't count the number of times I've seen an overperformer being nerfed resulting in an entire army being shelfed. This tends not to happen when the book has good internal balance, but many books unfortunately do not. An iffy book that's propped up by a couple units or specific interactions is at risk of being totally dumpstered if nerfs aren't coupled with points drops in other areas. As a competitive player once told me, 'you have to give me somewhere to go or I just have to eat the nerf'.

Dragons are good, longstrikes maybe not. They're extremely expensive and the entire reason for using them was to reinforce them for the double-shot. I dunno that I would ever use a longstrike over other options now. Edit: 45% is actually a very low win rate in most games that don't have ridiculous balance issues, so if SCE were dropped to that level they wouldn't be what I'd call 'mid-tier'. They were mid-tier before, when they were hovering around 50%. And as has been beaten to death there's like a hundred warscrolls in the book but most of them aren't even worth a second look. It's not a book primed to age well into 3.0. Edit 2: the beginner army thing is nonsense. People make this rubbish claim about Space Marines too, but they're one of the more complex lists you can play in 40k and generally very competitive. Are Bonezplitterz a beginner army because they have no rules and suck at winning? Do we get to label other armies, like Lumineth being the 'that guy' army so they're allowed to be awful to play against? Come on now.

Such is the way of things. I'm sure they'll get nerfed 6 months after they stop being relevant, if it makes you feel any better!

The points changes were extremely light in general. So light I almost wonder why they bothered at all.

What part are you confused about?

Think of all the stuff I could buy with 10 more points to play with!

Yeah same points. Everything I glanced at is unchanged but maybe there's a change hiding in there somewhere.

The fact that Seqs aren't even strictly better than liberators is also kind of annoying when it comes to justifying that price.

I would like to see more willingness to play without battlepacks, although the lack of diversity in the core rules missions is a bit unfortunate.

It's not really more of an identity though in practice because matched play is still going to be "that mode you play with a stranger", while also being more complex. This is what happened with 40k, matched got increasingly complicated and burdensome and now they're trying to find ways to reel it back with broad slapdash rebalances and stripping down access to CP. I don't want it to go in that direction, my experience with 40k's increasingly sophisticated matched play rules resulted in anything short of fully competitive event-level play just being a sad unfinished experience where my opponent was unable to successfully process their own mechanics without help. I already felt 2.0 was getting too complex so I haven't been a fan of 3.0's move to bring the game closer to how 40k treats matched play which has turned almost everything into a super competitive, super complicated mess inaccessible to people who don't want to think about warhammer every day of the week. I think people here have a vision that a proper competitive format will give people choice but in my experience, it just completely displaces most of the other options because a structured format is too necessary for pick-up games.

I just want a Sigmar version fo the tempest of war deck. I could not care less about GW's vision of a constantly evolving meta for AoS. It's hard enough as is trying to teach 3.0 to new players without wacky season rules forcing you to unlearn how to win every year.

Celestant Prime is a lot better as a coalition ally. The biggest element is he actually has his teleport written directly onto his warscroll so he doesn't become a footslogger in a Cities list.

Holy hell that's a lot of carriages

Should've been a core rules update. After this season 1" infantry blocks go back to bring nonfunctional trash. Lame.

So it's not a core rule it's tied to this specific season and will go away after Meh

Wait is this for real?? I've been waiting for this since 2.0 it fixes so many problems lol.

If you want your answer it's inherent to the way MWs work, as they are inflicted outside the attack sequence, while scaley skin (and all similar rules) only affects successful attacks. That wording is specific to failed saves during a standard attack sequence. Ergo, mortal wounds are not inflicted by successful attacks (even attacks that generate mortals do so regardless of whether the attack was successful or not). What @Orkmann said, basically.

It probably heavily depends on your local meta. Boltboy spam is ludicrously vulnerable to certain lists that can mist all your boltboyz before they can do the work, so playing into that it makes sense to lean more into a wound density list. The trouble is that KB don't really... excel at that. They can't even compete with the two other armies they share a book with

There's many many many many many (many) pages discussing this in other threads on this site. Having seen them in action and tested them myself I would agree with the general consensus that, played correctly, SDG can't reasonably be screened out without crippling yourself (compounded by the fact a lot of SDG are backed up by longstrikes, one of the notable units with an even longer arm). You can screen them, and it helps, but their range is too bananas to eliminate their threat just by good deployment. The best lists in the game right now are built around minimizing counterplay. You don't get consistent podiums with a list that's overcome simply by your opponent screening well. It doesn't mean they can't be beaten, it means that you can't beat them consistently without your opponent making mistakes. It's probably also worth noting that Sigmar wins snowball really rapidly, so even the best lists in the game can get slaughtered outright in a couple turns if luck turns or mistakes are made so crushing an opponent in a single instance says very little on its own.

I wouldn't take this as indication of much on its own. You almost certainly would've dumpstered old nighthaunt much worse, they were just so bad nobody brought them to games. On the weekend my buddy with foot ogors tabled a seraphon list in 2 turns, doesn't mean seraphon aren't a top dog in the meta right now or even that foot ogors are good.

Rockgut Troggoths are a shockingly diverse kit.

They're just too expensive for what they are and can't reach the heights of longstrike/judicator shooting. They also require a judicator general to do a big blob which is how most people get judicators doing work. But there are plenty of worse things you can bring.

It may be your opponent didn't know what he was doing or you got lucky. SDG are definitely a very strong unit for a whole host of reasons one of them being their almost unlimited engage range which can make it a real hassle to attack them on favourable terms.