NauticalSoup

Good point! I haven't tried to build a competitive KB unit after seeing how badly they seem to perform so it never even occured. There sure are a lot of factors driving the army into a monolist

I haven't had time to play my KB since I have two other Warclans armies but honestly? It doesn't surprise me as much anymore every time somebody drops some math showing a support piece isn't worth the opportunity cost of just bringing more combat stuff. I think people are very much still in the Sigmar 2.0 mindset where the winning strategy was to get a big chonkin blob hammer unit and then buff it to the moon so it can atomize anything it squints at. Characters are just really expensive now and without CAs don't tend to do as much, while coherency and the nuking of regiment discounts makes those big blobs less appetizing. 3 small units of boltboyz have more shots and are more robust than one big unit of 9, so the only way the 9 is getting there is with buffs - and there's basically only one buff worth caring about. The mathhammer just shows for the big unit to be worth it that one buff isn't enough, you also need to be taking full advantage of AOA or unleash or something (which tbf is standard but still it's all marginal increases).

I saw lol

Nvm I can't read

It's the same problem they had in 2.0, their utility is just too narrow to be worth the extra points investment. And in a lot of situations they're just worse than vindictors/liberators because their base save is worse for some reason. Their ward really should be something like 'always on until they activate weapons' and then it's off until the next time you make the choice.

I mean at a certain point you might as well just remove allies/coalitions entirely at that point. It's rare enough for it to be worth it as-is, and the problem is the units not Cities.

Gutrippaz get the standard 'one of each' for each block of 10. They add 1 bravery and 1 to charge rolls respectively, same as most. Boltboyz don't get 'em. If you don't own the book there's a website you can look all this up but my spider-sense indicates the mod won't like it if I post it here.

Oof this is going to be rough, but I straight up don't think CBs work in Cities. So the Lord Ordinator is a downgrade versus just spending those points on another ballista (if he's being used just with them). 3 ballistas and 1 Ordy == 4 ballistas in damage output. 4 ballistas + Ordy naturally pulls ahead, if you go under 3 you're better off just not buying the Ordy and buying more ballistas instead. So basically if you invest in an Ordy, you probably ought to combo him with as much of your CoS warmachines as possible. I haven't done the math but he needs to be buffing a lot of units before you break even on cost. The next issue is that CBs, besides being relatively ineffective just in general, really only perform with their close range profile (especially when buffs are involved). What this means is that in Cities you now need a way to get them up in the enemy's face since you don't have your stormcast teleport. Means probably living city or tempest eye. Honestly weak as they are I'd rather use the Ordy to buff exclusively CoS warmachines. CBs just aren't in a good place atm even by the low standards of artillery.

Yeah that's fair I was in a bad mood sorry if I made you uncomfortable

I mean the best army in 40k right now literally has its win rate propped up on the back of a single unit. That's pretty comparable to the mess that is the SDG. And not every 40k book is a sweeper either- GSC cults are weak and even regular Eldar are mediocre. We have a very small awkward sample for 3.0 but some of the new books like IJ and SCE have indeed seen massive buffs, it's just that more armies in sigmar have gotten arbitrarily dumped on than in 40k which I guess is a win in your calculus. It's also worth noting 2.0 Sigmar's balance was ruined about half way through the cycle more or less exactly like 40k 9th has been. Sigmar is fine(ish) today but so was 2.0 at this stage, so was 9th, etc. In a year or two will it still be? It would be a first not just for Sigmar but for GW to keep their foot off the pedal for an entire cycle, and the power level of the 3.0 books is so scattershot you should expect 40k level meta sweeps to be a part of the mix. Edit: it's also worth noting the Sigmar competitive scene is a lot smaller than 40ks. Metas are solved much much slower so it's harder to tell how the meta state is shortly after any release.

Playing IJ is like a dream next to stormcast. No wrong answers! A small range made up of nothing but bangers.

Hmm this suggests you lack even a superficial knowledge of what the 40k metagame looks like. 40k's balance problems don't stem from buffs to released books (which are rarely buffed and often nerfed), they stem from books and rules releasing in an overpowered state that requires reigning in, which is exactly the same problem AoS has been struggling with since the first busted book dropped in 2.0. People complain about buffs in 40k because they are rare and totally insufficient to keep old books in the game. Citation: every podium is currently going to armies that have exclusively come out in 2022, a pattern that looks set to continue. It's not even like every book comes out busted , GSC dropped and haven't even made a splash- it's just that all the best performing armies are always badly tuned new rules that just happen to be better than everything else out there which has already been nerfed into oblivion. And again, if the point here is book creep and not buffs (like kruleboyz desperately need for example) that's very much a problem with Sigmar since fairly early days in the 2.0 rebirth, and stuff like SDG show it hasn't really gone away. Obviously people posting on here like AoS more than 40k but can we at least not make up nonsense as to why this game is better? There are actual reasons, no need to go inventing them.

Y'all gonna get us nerfed DX Or more probably get kragnos nerfed haha.

Unit leaders giving their own units commands may also have been a mistake. It really makes the existence of these expensive foot characters questionable since the vast majority of units in the game really don't require a commander above their own to function at 100%.

The problem is that so many leader models lost their CAs and gained... nothing in exchange. The killaboss on foot isn't the only character 3.0 has left out in the cold.

Irondrakes never really seem worth it without access to shenanigans that allow them to doubleshoot turn 1.

They're one warscroll ability away from being useful. They need to do something to amplify the army's strength (venom?) and not just somewhat mitigate a weakness that the core rulebook already provides a solution for.

Better to spend the points on more of said troops and keep a CP back if you actually have a unit big enough to be worth saving. There's a reason it's extremely rare to see any of the three included in lists. It's a very high price to pay for less than battleshock immunity in a small bubble.

Mighty expensive for a unit that does nothing. I don't think... any of them are ever worth using? For some reason only the vulcha gets a CA benefit, which is unfortunate because monster leaders are mostly used because of the monster, and the sludgeraker exists.

Artillery is in a bad state right now. In general they represent expensive, less effective missile units that lack big unit synergistic buffs from command abilities. Until such time as GW either makes them a much cheaper alternative or gives them something they can do that missile infantry can't they don't really serve a purpose. Which is frustrating because I like them and own many.

Ally pool isn't really worth anything since taking allies is so rarely optimal. It's mostly evidence of how bad the state of KB is atm

Shootas too actually

Yeah but look at it this way: that's their job. If they do anything else it's gravy. Durability wise they're almost identical to hobgrotz (2 less wounds but a 6+ ward) and have a similar (slightly smaller) footprint. They cost the same. Neither are battleline. The difference is instead of an anemic attack profile they have 6 high rend high damage attacks at 3" range, and the unit can crack back with MWs when they die as a bonus. If your opponent kills them, great, whatever, that's why you brought them. If he ignores them they punch up really well. Solid unit, still one of the best in the BS range. Unless you mean grot stabbas which is definitely not a cost efficient unit for just about anything lol.

I mean both books are off in dumpsterland right now so doesn't seem surprising or notable. Actually big stabbas also do the same job at the same price (and aren't battleline!) but fit inside their faction allegiance and hit like a truck so even if we arbitrarily dismiss IJ hobgrots are still ass compared to similar options in the same release.

Since you're already forced to take squishy units as battleline, the 'not battleline for tactics' element doesn't matter. If you have KB you are bringing battleline that your opponent can one-shot, and that includes boltboyz. So ultimately it's just a downside since it means if you aren't big yellers you're stuck with gutrippaz and have now before buying a single hobgrot a quarter of your points are spent on chaff. You'd rather take them than gutrippaz as screens for your big yellers netlist but that doesn't make them good for the role. That, and scoring max on battle tactics doesn't seem to be an issue for most lists these days so I wouldn't make a list even a hair worse just to possibly deny a single battle tactic for an early turn. 25mms are good, but they don't single-handedly fix bad units. There are no shortage of good units on 25s to compare them to that show how mediocre the hobgrot is. And as a pure chaff unit just look a few pages over to see the Ardboy if you want to see something that's actually good at being a meatshield.