Beer & Pretzels Gamer

That is a good addendum as rate if attrition also gets at how much is left over. So you can have a relatively even rate of just under 20% a round and have only a few models left or, what you’re getting at, something closer to 10% and both sides have decent chunks left.

To be clear this question is about ALL the models on the table. So the answer is not my opponent’s as fast as possible and mine not at all... 😎 I put this question out to a poster in another thread but given the content of a lot of recent threads I thought I’d ask the question more broadly. The basic tension I see is between the time that it takes us to build and paint all our models, which makes us reluctant to see them leave the table too quickly. On the other hand this is already a time consuming game and the longer models stay on the table the longer the games are going to take. As someone who is mainly starting games these days at 8:30 PM going too long, it is fair to say, can start to be detrimental to play quality. As I referenced in the previous post I like the original Space Invaders arcade game theory. It was actually programmed to go faster, making the aliens harder to hit, as you destroyed those colorful pixels but due to the chip design which sped up as there were fewer pixels on the screen. I enjoy the pace of the game picking up as the game progresses and models fall by the way side meaning we are moving fewer pieces and rolling fewer dice. That, like Space Invaders, this also increases the difficulty and thus “drama” compliments this perspective. But I think players perspective on this question underlies a lot of other issues that pop up in these threads so I am curious to see where people’s opinions fall.

Stepping back a minute - @OkayestDM where do you think the right balance is between models staying on the table vs being removed? I often think back to the original Space Invaders. It was not programmed to run faster as fewer aliens were on the board it was just a side effect of the processor design that with less on the screen it sped up. Given the time ranges GW puts out for how long games should last and battleplans suggesting 5 rounds to me the equilibrium between those two comes with a relatively steady attrition of forces on both sides which allows the game to speed up as fewer models are being moved and fewer dice are being rolled. A side effect of the power creep here is that we seem to have two extremes. Either too much is getting erased in R1&2 and thus the game is over quickly. Or nothing is dying in those early rounds and you’re struggling to finish R3, nonetheless R4&5 in the time “allotted”. I saw the inability to stack Wound and MW negation abilities as a positive step in GH20 but recognize that others seem more focused on the other extreme of MW spam.

Think you’ve nailed it on the head here. The way I’ve come to look at that distinction is the difference between trying to EXPLORE AoS and trying to SOLVE AoS. Simply put I think GW has designed a system far better for exploring than solving. For one, we don’t truly have a 2K point Match Play System. Maybe I’m missing an exception somewhere but points jump in 10 point increments which means we actually have a 200 point system. Simply put 200 points is not enough to cleanly and clearly distinguish “relative fair values” between units in as massively multivariate a system as AoS. And that’s before you even start considering that each WS gets only one point value regardless of how many options to kit out that unit the WS has or how the value of that unit might differ in one faction or sub-faction vs another (given how many WS can be used straight up in multiple tomes). 40K with the option of a far closer to a true 2K point system and much more detailed pricing still struggles with this so we should not be surprised by the vehemence and virulence which every points update is met. While the points range does technically go from 4(0) to 88(0) for non-FW the reality is that the vast majority of points fall between 10(0) and 20(0). So really there is only 10 points worth of cost to distinguish a majority of the range, once you recognize GW’s strong bias for even numbers that ability to differentiate is cut not quite (as there are some units at odd #s) but almost in half. Which is seriously limiting if you view AoS list building as a problem to SOLVE. In other words if you are trying to maximizing the arcane algorithm so that those 200 points pump out the most of whatever X, Y and maybe Z you’re trying to build around. If you’re a solver you start arguing that it is totally unreasonable for GW to expect you to take unit X over unit Y because for their points unit Y is clearly the superior choice, no matter how much they might like unit X for aesthetic purposes or how much they claim to want to diversify their list. Top tier competitive play will always requiring some degree of solving and for those who enjoy it I will never begrudge them that pleasure. But they’ll always be chasing as, again, in a massively multivariate game such as AoS in such a limited points range the balance will never achieve equilibrium nonetheless with all the changes to points and battle tomes. So go ahead, chase meta and try and SOLVE AoS to your heart’s content, just realize it’s about the journey, not the destination as you’ll never catch the meta for more than a moment and no solution will hold for long. What a 200 point range can do, very effectively in my opinion, is allow for a lot of exploration. I actually find points MOST helpful in Narrative play (my primary focus in non-Covid times) as the points are “good enough” to let me set up the matches I want in an enjoyable manner for all involved. Do I want a relatively balanced contest? Okay, keep points relatively close and make sure sub-factions aren’t skewing things too far? Want to create an AoS version of Thermopylae? Okay I might take 1K points of fully buffed Hermdar Hearthguard Berzerkers with Support units but 2K of Khorne Mortals (no summoning) and play it out on a narrow playing field. But I’ve also found the points are more than adequate for casual Match Play games where players want to explore lists as they provide an easy point of reference to frame the conversation. For example, when we were starting up Zoom League it became apparent that the only way to really scale up to 2K was if everyone agreed to bring a MONSTER or two. It was a simple text along the lines of “2K but at least 400 points in Behemoths” that everyone was able to understand and resulted in no lists being too unbalanced. And I agree that GW is probably biased more towards the explore than the solve. I think this comes from a desire to further distinguish from 40k but I also think fantasy lends itself more to that style anyway.

Absolutely agree with the book keeping issue on this one and would be happy to see it go. (Would be fine for the Wound version to go as well but you’re right it is at least less book keeping.) As regards the rest I admit I am torn. On the one hand I agree that there is a bit of an arms race where units get Save bonuses (whether positive modifiers or Rend reducers) or Wound/MW negations making them that much harder to get off the table so then more Hit, Wound, Rend and MW modifiers get dolled out. This leads to a weird pillow fight stalemate for certain well buffed units where one side is dishing out a ton but the other side is Saving or negating much of it. Yet it also limits the utility of other lesser buffed units that now “evaporate on impact”. I can understand the appeal of breaking out of the feedback loop escalation. On the other hand I also see the need to better differentiate between units or weapon choices within units. Since I just started playing them I’ll use Fyreslayers as an example. Vulkite Berzerkers have only an okay Save, with an internal buff that comes at cost of reduced offensive firepower and a couple Hero and Prayer ways to buff, and no negation but get a once per battle pile-in on death ability, which benefits from their ability to be taken in larger numbers. Hearthguard Berzerkers on the other hand have a very powerful negation and access to all the same external buffs so I believe that for one turn a game I can get them to a 2+/4++ rerolling Save Rolls of 1. This is at least partially offset by their being taken in smaller units. While many would argue that the differences between these two units is so heavily favored towards the Hearthguard Berzerkers as to limit the utility of Vulkite Berzerkers at a minimum it is very clear that these are very distinct units despite starting at very similar 2W/5+ Save/4” Move base profiles. Then within each unit you get a choice of attack profiles. Within Hearthguard Berzerkers you have to choose between having the MWs on unmodified 6s but no Rend and lower damage vs no MWs but Rend and higher damage. This gives you two different tools for your army allowing you to choose targets that maximize the weapon choice’s characteristics. Similarly the Vulkite Berzerkers offer a choice of distinct weapon profiles. Now Fyreslayers are notorious for having a limited model range but still show how these are tools for differentiation. As soon as we switch to factions with a lot more units the need for tools to differentiate beyond the rather limited space of 3+ to 5+ to Hit and Wound (as 2+ and 6+ are both relatively rare and should remain so). If differentiation was the only point of these buffs and they were used relatively discretely I’m guessing you wouldn’t have as much an issue. But of course it has gone beyond differentiation of units to differentiation of factions or sub-factions, increasing not only the proliferation but also the extent to which buffs stack. Trying to find the Goldilocks here where there is distinction between units but every roll doesn’t have an arcane mix of modifiers constantly in conflict with each other is a tricky one I’ll agree.

As soon as I get ahold of 300 painted clan rats (still can’t believe you painted that many, props again) and a Doomwheel my friend we’ll give it a try! 😎

Used a Soul Grinder this way in a TZ Arcanites centric list exactly this way against Mawtribes at 1.5K and it won me the game as my opponent threw everything at it on the far side of the board where I’d placed it. Meanwhile the rest of my army either cast spells, building up points to Summon, or claimed objectives. By the time they got their heavy hitters back in the game I’d degraded them with spells and shooting and wracked up a solid VP lead. But I’d agree with @Salyx that if I was going to try and run them as more than a DC I’d be running them with Khorne. As noted not as good as a Bloodthirster but can add some nice ranged attacks to an army largely lacking them...

Savage Orruk Big Boss Proxy: Look Behind You! Irongut: Not Falling for That One Again... This encounter ended how you’d expect it to but the overall game had lots of twists and turns. Had been hoping to get more votes into the poll before posting but oh well. Don’t want to get too far behind on these reports. Starting with Bonesplitterz deployment and decision to go first. While the Mawtribes frontline deployment is consistent with their desire to get out and into the thick of things we were a little surprised to see the big block of Arrowboyz right up front instead of screened behind the 10x Savage Orruks. This was partially explained by the Bonesplitterz player deciding to go first and using their Hero Phase movement and regular movement to get that big block into range to shoot AND claim the primary objective in the middle. The BS player was hoping to do more but the Butcher successfully unbound one of the spells they were counting in to buff that unit so while it did put some damage into the Stonehorn Beastriders they are still Stonehorn and thus shrugged more damage then maybe BS expected? On their turn the Butcher would empty the Mawpot, further reducing the impact of those opening shots. (The incline on the terrain piece made the sideways position untenable hence the Big Stabbas temporarily in sides..) The other big BS gamble was charging the Maniak Weirdnob into the Mournfang on the Flank. Damage was done again but not enough to prevent moving parts unit past the Maniak towards the objective on Mawtribe’s turn. Meanwhile the Arrowboyz were incredibly exposed to a Stonehorn Stampede in the middle (Our Huskard on Stone Horn Proxy is on left). Fair to say this went very well The Ironguts were also moved up enough to take the objective on the other flank while Icebrow Hunter and Frost Sabres popped out of ambush to screen the Western objective. If Mawtribes had won the initiative this one might have been very short but BS got it and ran away... sorry, Kunningly Retreated, from the middle. One unit of the Savage Big Stabbas made an end around onto the Stonehorns though. They’d do some significant damage, killing off the Stonehorn Beastriders but the Frostlord would drop kick their carcasses back into the Mawpot, refilling it. This again would allow the Butcher to mitigate the damage done to the Frostlord by the Stabbas final fling. For the rest of their turn Mawtribes largely played for points leaving the Stonehorns in the middle but the did charge the Ironguts into the remaining Big Stabbas and the Icebrow Hunter and Frost Sabres into the Savage Orruks. BS again won priority and with the objective falling on the Eastern Flank again, Kunningly retreated in that direction. Pebbles (The Rogue Idol) was able to finish off the Ironguts (as shown in the picture that started post). On their turn though Mawtribes didn’t decide to challenge the primary objective with Pebbles and the small block of Arrowboyz on it but instead did clean up work in the middle wiping out the remaining Savage Orruks and the other Savage Big Boss proxy. Our initial reaction was that this was a lower probability play than charging the Frostlord (degraded though he might have been) into the remaining Arrowboyz with the probability of taking the objective if he survived given the counts as 10. But fortune ultimately favored the Mawtribes as when the primary objective shifted all the way across the board to the West at the start of the Fourth Round BS conceded the game as they were already behind on points and didn’t see a viable way to contest enough with all the surviving Mawtribes units still in the way. With the Butcher surveying his victory the Mawtribes start off the tournament 1-0. Can they keep it going in Scorched Earth against Khorne? Can Bonesplitterz get redemption against Fyreslayers?

Was going to stay out of this one as I am relatively agnostic about the double turn which seems to be the main focus of discussion. That said I think there’s been some good suggestions out there for retaining it but making it less decisive. Blade’s Edge is currently my favorite battleplan given the choices it forces so obviously favor more mission designs along those lines. But a simple fix does seem to be some basic cover rules that make it simpler to protect against Shooting Phase (and Magic for that matter as majority of spells seem to include visible to caster). That said, per @Televiper11’s request it would be nice if some of the mechanics that currently “make my brain hurt” were less headache inducing and Movement/Charging is definitely one of those interactions. What, for example, is the logic behind a unit only able to move 4” in the Movement Phase being able to Charge potentially 12” (or more w/bonuses such as drummers or horn blowers)? Similarly what is the logic behind a unit that can move 14” or more in the Movement Phase being restricted to a 12” Charge? I appreciate the simplicity of AOS so I accept this brain pain as part and parcel and move on but if we’re talking fixes I don’t think it has to be that complicated a solution. AoS already comfortable with tables so thus could be easily solved by a table along the lines of: - if your movement is 6” or less roll 1d6 to Charge - if your movement is 7” to 12” roll 2d6 to Charge - if your movement is 13”+ roll 3d6 to Charge I don’t think it’s that complicated but if you want it even simpler make a charge your move plus 1d6. I prefer the former but I’d accept the latter... ... Particularly if failing a charge became more consequential. Again, overall I prefer the straight forward mechanics of AoS to the abstractions in the name of realism that ultimately define (and ultimately break so many of them) but coming from a historical perspective originally having the only consequence of a failed Charge being you stand still seems a wee but paltry. Or maybe too binary is a better way to put it. My solution? If you fail a charge your unit has to move forward the distance rolled with each model moving that distance towards the nearest enemy model. How’s that for a coherency problem? But reflects the disarray a failed charge really would be. But, you might say, even a failed charge could still get you into combat range of 3”. Again, reflecting the disarray any unit that fails a Charge any unit that fails its Charge would “fight last”. This gives your opponent an opportunity to “counter-charge” with their pile-in. What I really like about this is it forces more choices by increasing the risk of trying for a crazy long charge. Plus I feel it keeps us closer to Generals, as opposed to Gods. A General can’t be sure the Charge will land before ordering it. Only a God can look into the future and then hold it back. My one concession would be I’d extend the Reroll Charge CA to alternatively allow you to stay still. Can’t have both (so either reroll and take your chance or call it off) but a strong leader might see how things aren’t going right and be able to call them back/restrain them. While we’re on the subject of mental mindbenders I am still baffled by the way AoS allows Shooting into Combat. My simple solution? If you are firing into a unit inc Combat with friendly units than on an unmodified Hit Roll of 1 you hit that friendly unit. (Ifmore than one friendly unit engaged the unit hit is the closest to the unit Shooting. If two units are equidistant it is player’s choice.). Make wound rolls and saves as normal for the friendly unit. All this said I’m not per se asking for any of this. If I could ask for one thing it would be no AoS 3.0 until Summer 2022 because darn it I want to get my Tzeentch army into a live game before they change everything on me! (Ironic with TZ I know...)

We do always enjoy it when Pebbles, as our Rogue Idol is affectionately known, gets on the table but you’re right that it does come at a cost of other models on the table (not that I’m complaining as the guy moving them all around...). As the Fyreslayer player hope you’re right!

Thanks for the Zoom League shout out from @Televiper11 and thanks @Kramer for a positivity thread. As I had put in a recent blog post I'd been getting more and more "flustered" with a series of negative threads that had been up and running over last few weeks on this site but all I did was try and bring my thoughts together on the issues in that post. Kudos to Kramer for taking it to the next level by trying to get some positive momentum going. Zoom League has been a great outlet during the pandemic. I've loved getting to try out new builds for old lists (FEC Grislegore), new tomes for old armies (Mawtribes), weird crazy stuff (can I piece together a SCE army out of the random rule of cool stuff my kids had bought?). And now in my own weird attempt at turning a negative into a positive I am building and playing a Fyreslayers list (which seems to be a focal point for a whole lot of negativity) which has included unique paint schemes and writing short stories about the unique history of each unit and how they have come together in this strange Fyrd. Most exciting for me is that I'm getting to do something that absent pandemic forcing us on to Zoom I might never have gotten to do. In our latest tournament in Zoom League we each submitted a 2K list that in the first set of games will play round robin style against each of our opponent's lists. After we've done that though we'll run back through the scenarios and matches but this time we'll swap lists. I'm curious if anyone will manage what I consider "ultimate general bragging rights" - as in not only can I beat you with my "amazing" list but I can turn around and beat you with your own list against said "amazing" list. If anybody is looking to make me even more positive and excited please make a pick in the poll for which list you think is going to win this tournament (link below). Want to make me even more stoked? Put your rational in the comments. Can You Pick the Winner Just from the Lists - An AoS Experiment - Zoom League - Socially Distant Gaming - The Grand Alliance Community Thanks again for this positive palette cleanser! Back to painting up some terrain for a set up I'm excited to see on the table using a combination of stuff that has sat primed for too long and stuff that has sat on the painted shelf too long since it was last used.

Full Batrep will go up on the Zoom League Blog (hopefully) but after getting my army on the table for the first time last night wanted to give a quick shout out to the 5x Auric Hearthguard in my list for doing their duty as Bullet Sponge No Pants. Scenario was GH20 version of Shifting Objectives. My opponent had a two drop Khorne list with four Bloodthirsters and a bunch of Fleshhounds. My opponent decided to make me go first with the primary objective in the middle. Prayer of Ash failed even with Battleforge buff and decided not to eat the ur-gold so was knew I was taking a certain degree of chance by moving lower buffed Hearthguard Berzerkers up to control the central objective (taking full advantage of Vostarg’s first round movement bonus). The 20x HBs formed a double line in front with Battlesmith in middle behind them far enough to be out of melee weapon range and flanked by my two Magmadroths. At last minute I decided to move my 5x Auric Hearthguard into position behind the Battlesmith. There wasn’t a ton of ranged attacks so I hadn’t been too worried but decided better safe than sorry. I’d thought my opponent would take the flanking objectives, play for the double turn, and then hit me with a fully buffed Skarbrand... Instead they went all in trying to land a hard first hit with the Tyrants of Blood Battalion’s activation advantage. At first I was looking at it as a good test of the Hearthguard’s resiliency at their “mid-level” 4+/4++ buff but he activated RAGE first and I just hadn’t accounted for the Great Axe of Khorne’s Outrageous Carnage which was dealing 4MW to every enemy unit within 8” on an unmodified 6. He got two 6s and guess who was w/in 8”? Yup, my Battlesmith. Those 8 MW more than enough to kill him, costing me the +1 Save and forcing me to choose whether to lock my HBs in place for the rest of the game to defend the icon. Fortunately my Sworn Protectors ate 5 of the MW, costing me models but absorbing enough to keep my Battlesmith in the game. As I think losing him round 1 would’ve changed a lot of the game dynamics this was huge. They’d been the unit I debated over the most and if I’d had 10 more points probably would’ve dropped them for a Grimwrath Berzerker and the Runic Fyrewall but here think they showed their merit given how vital certain heroes are to this army. So while I’m not thrilled so far with how my color scheme is playing out (still sometime to fix) for this unit happy they’re in the list for rest of tournament.

I’m working on a conversion of this one for the anvil/make a Hero anyway but would absolutely love a Leadbelcher HERO unit, maybe carrying a giant cannon on his shoulder Bazooka like with gnoblars riding and reloading while he carries a cannonball headed flail in the other hand. This may just be because I want a true leader to March to war with my Leadbelchers but Gutbusters in general could use a few more Heroes...

I think the cost issue is likely inextricably linked for Fyreslayers in the perception that you can only play one list - the Hermdar 2x20 Hearthguard Berzerkers Lords of the Lodge. After all, if you’ve invested the coin to build out those HBs the sunk costs have to feel like a compelling reason to always include them. And if you are why wouldn’t you take Lords of the Lodge and pair it with Hermdar? Not sure this is completely unique to Fyreslayers (our gaming groups Nurgle player has built up a large collection of Putrid Blightkings, for example, and now it seems “crazy” not to put all of them in their lists every time they bring Nurgle to the tablegiven the investment in time and $$$) but I get it. How much though that cost is preventing branching out some other potential builds because it reinforces the mentality that Fyreslayers have been “solved” is interesting question to me. (Especially when TTS is lowering switching costs for so many players.) While I don’t expect to get the flexibility I got out of FEC I don’t feel like Fyreslayers have nothing else to offer besides that specific list. The idea, for example, of popping up Auric Hearthguard via Runesmiter and laying down an enfilade fire into my opponents key units has a lot of appeal.

The IDK connection to me was the complaint of only one viable list that people didn’t enjoy playing against which, pre-Morathi, the Eel spam lists that had a very distinct style of play. Like @Malekith noted for IJ it is true they have more distinction across what WS they have (even if to get to fewer on Azyr IDK has to double up on kits a lot just like Fyreslayers - e.g. two Eidolon WS, two eel WS, two Namarti WS). The good news I guess in that is GW just showed how quickly the mono-list phenomenon can flip as with Morathi tweaks it appears you’re seeing a break from eels to see those turtles & sharks on the table more (with the inevitable complaint now that the turtles are now too strong...). So to your point re:Auric Hearthguard provides a simple possible way for Fyreslayers to break the mono tournament list funk a la IDK.

So is it the fact that they are so competitive that draws the ire? Because the rest is far from unique across AoS. Last night we debuted Bonesplitterz in Zoom League which has even fewer WS and even less differentiating between them. Yet I just don’t see the vitriol out there for Bonesplitterz. We’d kicked off Zoom League with Ironjawz, another limited range, albeit with more distinction between units. Again, I just don’t see the negativity out there for them. Now it’s nice that these two can be combined into Big Waaagh!!! with new tome but plenty still run these pure lists without ire. Coming from historical war games where uniformity can be a point of pride and thus Fyreslayer units look relatively distinct to me I’ll always have to chock up that issue to personal preferences. So I can’t and won’t really argue with that. But as far as narrow Fyreslayers have the same # of WS as my KO or my FEC and 1 more than IDK. So wanting more units isn’t unique to them by any means (heck Khorne and SCE still want more units and they so much more than most). Similarly at tournament level many factions gravitate toward a mono-list (pre-Morathi eels for example). But outside of tournaments there is typically more flexibility than acknowledged. So my confusion is less the details of it but why, given how common these traits are, Fyreslayers are singled out for so much angst and complaint? Can’t wait to play them this week.

I can't find the citation but I believe that you decide turn order first because if multiple players have pre-battle moves (say Stormkeep and the TZ sub-faction that is moving units before the battle starts) you alternate based on turn order.

I am not sure what games are out there as the historical siege games I played were all based on custom rules sets but that is what I would be most interested in trying to convert to AoS as it is an aspect where I feel the GW option is vastly undercooked but a style of play I loved. I would love to find a way, for example, to reflect Stonehorns eating of rocks and metals as a way to breakdown castle walls, or Arachnarok Spiders scaling Castle walls. I just haven't found a good historical siege game rule set to adapt nor have I had the time to customize my own.

Even for me this is a first, buying an army just to be contrarian but gosh darn it I've just been reading way too much negativity regarding the Fyreslayers lately. From the outside looking in I just don't get where most of the negativity is coming from. Sure, this isn't the widest range of models but neither was FEC and it has proven to be my most flexible & fun army. And when I look at the Fyreslayer options and tome I see a lot of interesting tools to play with. And in a different thread I already posted why I think the "they all look the same" thing is overdone. Anyway, I am super excited to put the army I picked up on the table soon as Zoom League kicks off its next tournament. The list is based around the units I have so I recognize it isn't the classic Double Hearthguard Berzerkers list but I think it has a lot of potential. I'm also just fresh off of a tournament playing SCE where I lost a lot of games due to lack of mobility so while I am eager to try out Hermdar at some point I wanted to start with Vostarg. With those caveats: Allegiance: Fyreslayers- Lodge: VostargLeadersAuric Runefather on Magmadroth (270)- General- Command Trait: Fiery Endurance- Artefact: Vosaxe- Magmadroth Trait: Coal-heart AncientAuric Runesmiter on Magmadroth (250)- Forge Key- Artefact: Ash-cloud Rune- Magmadroth Trait: Ash-horn Ancient- Prayer: Prayer of AshAuric Runesmiter (120)- Forge Key- Prayer: Searing HeatBattlesmith (140)Auric Runemaster (120)- Prayer: Searing HeatBattleline20 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (400)- Poleaxes20 x Vulkite Berzerkers (280)- War-Picks & Slingshields10 x Vulkite Berzerkers (140)- Handaxes & SlingshieldsUnits5 x Auric Hearthguard (120)BattalionsLords of the Lodge (150)Total: 1990 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 154 First match will be Shifting Objectives from GH20 against a Khorne list built around Bloodthirsters (one of each, inc. Skarbrand) and Fleshhounds. -Sorry, the last unit of 10x Vulkites should be paired Handaxes. Didn't catch that mistake.

In our new tournament I am getting to run an experiment I have always wanted to try. Four players are submitting 2K lists to play in a double round robin tournament. In the first round robin each player will play their own list against each of their opponent's lists. In the second round robin each player will play their opponent's list against their own. To me ultimate bragging rights in AoS would come from being able to beat you with my own list and then turn around and beat you again playing your list against mine. Looking forward to this new approach to the game. But I also thought it would be an excellent way to test another theory. It is only natural that threads such as these would get very focused on the lists as they are the easiest thing to debate & discuss in such a forum. Taken to an extreme though sometimes it can almost feel like there's no reason to actually play the games. There seems to be some conviction that List A will always win against all comers across all battleplans, or List B has no hope against list C, or list D can't win Battleplan X. As I've said before in a game with as much opportunity for tactical skill as for random chance I think you always have to play the games. But I am curious if the wisdom of the crowds can suss out a winner just from the lists? In a normal tournament player skill may be too big a factor but here, with each list getting played by multiple players I think there is a little less room for that to completely throw things off. So I've put the poll above and below are the four lists that were submitted: Allegiance: Fyreslayers- Lodge: VostargLeadersAuric Runefather on Magmadroth (270)- General- Command Trait: Fiery Endurance- Artefact: Vosaxe- Magmadroth Trait: Coal-heart AncientAuric Runesmiter on Magmadroth (250)- Forge Key- Artefact: Ash-cloud Rune- Magmadroth Trait: Ash-horn Ancient- Prayer: Prayer of AshAuric Runemaster (120)- Prayer: Prayer of AshBattlesmith (140)Auric Runesmiter (120)- Runic Iron- Prayer: Searing HeatBattleline20 x Vulkite Berzerkers (280)- War-Picks & Slingshields10 x Vulkite Berzerkers (140)- Pairs of Handaxes20 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (400)- PoleaxesUnits5 x Auric Hearthguard (120)BattalionsLords of the Lodge (150)Total: 1990 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 154 -X-X-X Allegiance: Khorne- Slaughterhost: Baleful Lords (Host of Chaos)LeadersBloodthirster of Insensate Rage (270)- Artefact: A'rgath the King of BladesBloodthirster of Unfettered Fury (270)- Artefact: Black Brass CrownWrath of Khorne Bloodthirster (300)- General- Command Trait: Thirst for Carnage- Artefact: The Crimson CrownSkarbrand (380)Karanak (140)Battleline5 x Flesh Hounds (100)5 x Flesh Hounds (100)5 x Flesh Hounds (100)5 x Flesh Hounds (100)BattalionsBlood Hunt (120)Blood Legion (120)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 2Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 101 -X-X-X- Allegiance: Ogor Mawtribes- Mawtribe: BoulderheadLeadersFrostlord on Stonehorn (400)- General- Command Trait: Lord of Beasts- Artefact: Brand of the Svard- Mount Trait: Black ClatterhornHuskard on Stonehorn (320)- Blood Vulture- Artefact: Alvagr Rune-tokens- Mount Trait: Frosthoof BullButcher (140)- Cleaver- Lore of Gutmagic: RibcrackerIcebrow Hunter (120)Battleline2 x Mournfang Pack (140)- Gargant Hackers2 x Mournfang Pack (140)- Culling Clubs or Prey Hackers with Iron FistsStonehorn Beastriders (300)Units4 x Ironguts (220)2 x Frost Sabres (40)BattalionsEurlbad (140)Endless Spells / Terrain / CPsBalewind Vortex (40)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 95 -X-X-X- Allegiance: Bonesplitterz- Warclan: BonesplitterzLeadersManiak Weirdnob (140)- Artefact: Glowin' Tattooz- Lore of the Savage Beast: Gorkamorka's War CrySavage Big Boss (90)Savage Big Boss (90)Wardokk (80)- Artefact: Big Wurrgog Mask- Lore of the Savage Beast: Breath of GorkamorkaWurrgog Prophet (160)- General- Command Trait: Voice of Da Gods- Artefact: Dokk Juice- Lore of the Savage Beast: Brutal Beast SpiritsBattleline20 x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (240)10 x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (120)10 x Savage Orruks (120)- ChompasUnits2 x Savage Big Stabbas (100)2 x Savage Big Stabbas (100)BehemothsRogue Idol (420)BattalionsKunnin' Rukk (140)Teef Rukk (140)Endless Spells / Terrain / CPsExtra Command Point (50)Total: 1990 / 2000Extra Command Points: 3Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 142 -X-X-X- To give you as much info as possible to help you make your decision the tournament matches are as follows: 1st Round = Shifting Objective (GH2020) - Bonesplitterz vs. Mawtribes - Fyreslayers vs. Khorne 2nd Round = Scorched Earth - Bonesplitterz vs. Fyreslayers - Mawtribes vs. Khorne Round 3 = Focal Points - Bonesplitterz vs. Khorne - Fyreslayers vs. Mawtribes and again, once we've completed the first round robin we will play through the same matches with the players switching lists. What else? All players have now played in multiple Zoom tournaments and thus have adapted as well as possible to the conditions. Oh yeah, due to set up we are playing on a 48"x58" map. We do our best to scale appropriately (e.g. in Shifting Objectives the side objectives are 9.5" from the edge as opposed to the usual 12"). We do have a decent amount of terrain on table but don't go all out giving each terrain piece a characteristic because this just proved too difficult for the people zooming in to keep track of. I think that is it. I'll try to answer any questions below. And please let me know why you made your choice. I am very curious to learn what other players think.

GW does post all the AoS points for free in their FAQs as you note. It is the last page of the errata for each faction so I guess I’m not terribly sure why those are more difficult than PDFs as a free reference? Is it that each faction is separate?

Yeah, while slightly less expensive than a new car 😉I like to read reviews about what a faction is and what it can do before committing. Without fair use doctrine these wonderful threads on this website couldn’t exist given the details discussed within each faction’s thread. While they aren’t organized an ambitious enough player could probably pick everything up if they were willing to read through all the posts (taking notes)... But once I commit I buy the battle tome. I think the rewriting is as key as the critique ultimately because, in the end you can’t “officially” settle a rules dispute by referencing these commentaries but rather have to directly reference the actual wording in the tome, the FAQ, etc. all things GW retains strong control of.

I am not a copyright lawyer by any means but fair use doctrine allows “transformative” use. While as many other have noted what constitutes “transformative” is debatable the two most common standards are 1) commentary and critique, and 2) parody. Most of what we are talking about here would fall under the former. So, without GW’s permission a website couldn’t simply reprint the pages of a battle tome. But the sites in question mainly seem to rewrite AND comment critique on say, the artefacts or the allegiance abilities. Again, can’t defend them myself in a court of law but “reasonableness” seems to suggest that I can’t comment on or critique the value of a battalion without informing the reader of what the battalion requires and what it does. The biggest question I see is in the volume (I.e. the referenced websites don’t just publish on one or two parts of the tome but basically the entire rules sections) as that can be a factor too. But the reality is I think GW is relatively fine with these websites because they lower the barrier to entry, which helps them sell more models, and act as effective gateways to people who will eventually upgrade to buying tomes.

Okay, I had no (orange hued) skin (with gold tattoos) in this game but have to admit some of the negativity I’ve been reading in this thread and others lately re:Fyreslayers got my contrarian instincts up because from the outside looking in I just didn’t get it. While I get that they all have the Mohawks and similar dwarfish builds I’ve never had any real trouble telling the units apart. Below is my simple mental guide for the distinguishing the non-Heroe foot units which has never taken me more than a glance and a few seconds to run through: 1) Are they short naked guys with Mohawks on 32mm bases? No: then they aren’t Fyreslayers so why are you using this guide? Yes: congratulations, you are looking at a Fyreslayer so please continue to next question. 2) Are they carrying single-handed weapons or double-handed weapons? Single: Congratulations, you have identified a Vulkite Berzerker. If you would like more information please continue with question 3V). Double: Congratulations, you have identified Hearthguard. If you would like more information please continue with question 3H) -X-X-X- 3V) Are they carrying a weapon in both hands or do they have a shield in one of them? Both Hands: Congratulations, you have identified a Vulkite Berzerker w/Paired Fyresteel Handaxes. They’ll be rerolling Hit Rolls against you. Good luck! Shield: This unit will be throwing those shields at you when they charge (sounds silly but hey, these are naked dwarves were talking about so...) and getting a Save bonus when they don’t. If you would like more information please proceed to question 4V) 4V) Is the weapon they are carrying “choppy” or “pointy”? Choppy: this is an Axe. It has a better chance of wounding but no Rend units base profile. Pointy: this is a War-pick, which probably means it is angrier than a normal mining pick, or at least has fewer headaches because it isn’t being slammed into a rock wall all day. But I digress. It has a slightly worse chance of wounding you but has Rend if it does. -X-X-X- 3H) Does the weapon have a big Dragon Head on it? Yes: Congratulations, you have spotted the increasingly rare on the table Auric Hearthguard! They will be shooting at you and a bullet sponge for those all important Fyreslayers Heroes. No: Condolences, you have identified the all too common Hearthguard Berzerker. They are probably in a bunch of 20x and there’s probably two sets of them on the table and good luck getting them off the table if they are fully buffed. The best idea having identified them is probably to identify a way to avoid them... If you can’t avoid them and thus need to determine which type you are facing please continue to question 4H) Not Sure: my good friend, if you can’t identify a dragon head maybe fantasy wargaming isn’t for you? 4H) we are so glad you are interested in agriculture and are looking to raise farm animals to compete at your local fair... wait, not that Four H? Ahh, back to Hearthguard Berzerkers. Is there a very large chain, longer than the model is tall winding around the model? Yes: That is the Flamestryke Poleaxe. Better hope your opponent isn’t rolling 6s because they’ll be dealing out 2 MWs to ya. It’s normal attacks though don’t have Rend... No: That is Broadaxe. You don’t have to worry about MWs on 6s but you do have to worry about Rend. And because there are not any other non-Hero units (sorry Chosen Axes, you really aren’t played enough to count... but if any readers are confused they’re the ones running in too small a unit size.) that’s really all it takes. All of which is a long way of saying that there is more to each of these models the the Mohawks. The design of the weapons is very distinctive, in my opinion, making them not just easy to differentiate on the table but providing a pretty cool aesthetic. The Magmapike may be a top five non-Hero weapon aesthetic for me (making me wish they had a better place on the table, but that’s a different thread). And, as others have noted, this is all before you use paint schemes to further differentiate them. My contrarian instincts were so catalyze by the naysayers here that I’ve actually gone out and bought a Fyreslayers army where I am giving a different back story to each unit as the basis for a unique color scheme. Will switch to the Fyreslayers thread though for that.

It is a small sample size admittedly but I was at a tournament that allowed the WD battalion during the peak of multiple keepers and there were at least 5 or 6 Slaanesh players running that list and regularly throwing 4+ on the table. (In my head-to-head I believe my opponent got 5 on table...). But for the most part what you saw was one or two GW KoS and then tons of proxies. Since that experience haven’t been convinced by the thesis that GW fully benefits when they create an OP situation like that as at those prices the incentives to look elsewhere get high. The exception that I’ve seen is BCR where the SC kit is such a bargain that the all Stonehorns all the time lists do seem to be fully GW.