Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
Posts
421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
-
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: Vostarg
Leaders
Auric Runefather on Magmadroth (270)
- General
- Command Trait: Fiery Endurance
- Artefact: Vosaxe
- Magmadroth Trait: Coal-heart Ancient
Auric Runesmiter on Magmadroth (250)
- Forge Key
- Artefact: Ash-cloud Rune
- Magmadroth Trait: Ash-horn Ancient
- Prayer: Prayer of Ash
Auric Runesmiter (120)
- Forge Key
- Prayer: Searing Heat
Battlesmith (140)
Auric Runemaster (120)
- Prayer: Searing Heat
Battleline
20 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (400)
- Poleaxes
20 x Vulkite Berzerkers (280)
- War-Picks & Slingshields
10 x Vulkite Berzerkers (140)
- Handaxes & Slingshields
Units
5 x Auric Hearthguard (120)
Battalions
Lords of the Lodge (150)
Total: 1990 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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?
-
18 minutes ago, Enoby said:
. I know personally they've been helpful to understanding the opponent's army and helping people make lists for armies I don't collect, but I'd always buy the battletome for my own armies
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I know we've been asked not to talk about piracy, but this is a genuine question - is reading a 1d4chan's summary of the rules piracy? As in, where they give a list of artifacts or traits or battalions and say what they do? I'm no expert in copyright law so I don't know.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Enoby said:
Mostly unrelated but I'm really curious to know how the Keeper of Secrets sold compared to the rest of the release. It's a great model in its own right but the number of people running 3 or 4 of them was pretty high on the top tables.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Painting over 300clanrats can actually be pretty fun
Gotta respect somebody who just loves what there doing. If you can put 300+ models you painted on the able you’ve earned those power gamer expressions and more. It is arguably the army I am least likely to ever play (barring a major bargain on eBay because I just can’t paint at that scale...) but damn I’m happy there are players like yourself out there doing it justice!
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, Kramer said:
the big exception was the thundertusk. I love the model. But there was never any place for it
Yeah, the Huskard is the closest we’ve come to making Thudertusks work because the prayers have a role and in games with multiple objectives he can sometimes sit on one and shoot snowballs and hail. But for the points... ugh. Which is a shame because I loved Thundertusks in previous tome and have two non-Huskards now collecting dust. There’s just lose out to Frost Sabres ambushing with Icebrow as the faction that would let you use them better leans into those Thundertusks.
But it’s a good example of how more doesn’t mean better if the extra WS aren’t going to be playable. The one to that end I’m most interested in at moment is KO, which just doesn’t work on Zoom (opponent really needs to be able to measure their own screens basically every turn with Fly High...). But a faction with a limited number of WS and initial impression is most work.
-
I’m with @Nacnudllah with Flesh-Eater Courts as while it has a narrow list of WS it is the faction that I have gotten by far the smoothest variety of play styles out of. In the mood for a MONSTER mash than I roll out Gristelgore with my multiple Terrorgheists (of the mounted and solo variety). In the mood for some fast action and magic? Blisterskin with Crypt Flayers has come the closest to running a true cavalry army I’ve experienced. Heck, wanting to get my zombie apocalypse Horde thing going? Let’s go Morghaunt with the Chalice and drop some Crypt Ghoul mobs on the table as an anvil with a couple of courtiers and them maybe summon a few Crypt Horrors in behind my enemy to hammer them into it.
I’ve seen the same thing with Nurgle which another player in our group runs but truly experienced it with Tzeentch and Khorne where I have a ton more options but find it much more difficult to move away from the faction’s default play style as so many of the WS are simply variations on the same theme as opposed to offering a truly different dynamic. Fortunately I enjoy both factions but my base case is I’ll settle into a couple lists for each that give me what I want and WS that don’t make it on those will be neglected in a way none of my FEC are.
As regards @Kramer comment regarding combining the Ogors in Mawtribes, or for that matter Orruk in Warclans, after a lot of play I’ve actually come round to seeing the books as a fully functional ally system, in contrast to how the GA stuff ended up working or the 1 in 4 max 400 pts of 2K actually plays on the table. As a result almost all the WS (sorry Gorgers...) have made it on to our table. Dozens of games with each on the table in our little Zoom League and I really don’t feel like either BCR or Gutbusters have lost their distinctness as lists tend to be biased one way or another with a unit or two of the other side coming in to fulfill a specific role (e.g. a Frostlord Hammer for the Gutbuster Ironguts Anvil or a Butcher to buff the BCR Stonehorns and trigger the Mawpot when needed while providing a dispel here or there). So I’ve gone from mild disappointment at Mawtribes time to a much greater appreciation.
In contrast my recent dip into Stormcast Eternals highlighted that more war scrolls doesn’t make for a better experience.
-
3
-
-
Model selection is ridiculously hard given the difficulty of knowing what they have and what they need without a specific list.
My simple suggestion for both easier to learn AND as reasonably budgeted as the hobby gets - Thematic Dice. If you can learn even one or two armies they like there’s a good chance you can find some themed dice for them and I’ve found it is a rare thing to have too many dice. Know I’ve loved the Ogor Mawtribes dice I was given as a gift for my Birthday and I’ve had good luck as the gifter as well.
There are also a lot of really cool themed or stylized wound counters out there if dice aren’t your thing or you’re looking for a little extra.
Finally, as cheesy as it sounds I’m absolutely loving my official Chaos themed Holiday Sweater. Way better quality than I expected.
-
6 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:
But AoS has rules that strongly disfavor diversity, on top of it, via keywording and battalion specificity; or you disagree on this specific point? That is the point of my thread.
Coming from historical wargaming I guess I truly struggle to see AoS as anti-diversity. In historical wargaming your options can be incredibly limited from the simplistic recreation of a battle where only the units that were in the actual battle are allowed to major restrictions on what type of weapons are allowed given year the battle is being fought to which armies can fight each other. In sharp contrast AoS currently has 24 armies I believe ranging from dwarves & goblins to giants & greater deamons (with more trademark able names of course) or from bare chested club wielding barbarians to steampunk powered riflemen.
While there are rules that apply once I have chosen a given army on what else I can put into that list for matched play again, vs historical wargaming it is incredibly flexible. When the player in our group felt that his Legion of Azgorh Execution Herd needed something a little different the was able to throw in Skarbrand or Mazarall the Butcher as backup. If you want to combine your old school elves with your tree people and Stormcast you’ve got Living City. Combine Ironjawz & Bonesplitterz? Big Waaagh!!! (Cities of Sigmar is the type of flexibility in diversity you’d never see in Historical Wargames...)
Again, you can’t do everything but you can do so much. You can, in fact, build an army list that combines Trogs and Grots. Now if your point is simply that not all combinations are equally competitive... Sure, I guess. But as @RuneBrush notes that may just be a more balance discussion in different clothing. I doubt AoS will ever be balanced but at least, with the steady release of new tomes and new rule sets it is also never stagnant. If your army or favorite flavor is out of fashion wait and in the next cycle it could be on top.
I hate to use a tautology but when it comes to tournaments the top tier of competitors are going to build competitive lists and at any given time the scope of those competitive lists will be determined by the balance between point costs and current rules/WS/battletomes. Fortunately at any tournament of scale there are likely to be participants who aren’t there just to go 5-0 who increase the diversity of the lists you’ll see. Even more fortunate, though I do understand some people are more restricted to tournament play, there is incredible list diversity being played across AoS tables every day in less competitive settings.
But to build on @Kramer’s point, as frustrating as KEYWORDS can be (I’ve been playing Stormcast lately and it is frustrating that all the named Hero buffs are restricted to Hammers of Sigmar, limiting my ability to play other sub-factions if I use them) I do think some of the use of KEYWORDS is truly for the good in creating a more immersive game. Sure it is possible to reduce the buffs given on WS to there simple effects but that little bit of text explaining why that buff is given absolutely can add to the experience AND improve the internal logic of a game.
To look at a simple example using the Gloomspite Gitz I believe you’ve referenced let’s check out the Loonboss options.
- Regular Loonboss has “I’m da Boss, Now Stab ‘EM Good”. Sure we can reduce this to a buff that grants 1 MW on unmodified 6s and say hey, that should be universal to Gloomspite instead of limited to the KEYWORD MOONCLAN but the text says this is about a Loonboss’s ability to get their minions to fight for them. Hard to picture those Grots up on an Arachnarok Spider as seeing that little guy on foot as their boss, but at least if they did you could argue that they at least have stabbing weapons. It is not only harder to picture this little guy bossing around a Troggoth but they’re also bashing weapons, not stabbing. Semantics? Sure, but this game is about Semantics otherwise why bother naming the weapons and other attacks? Sure we can reduce WS to melee weapons option #1 and melee weapon option #2 but are we really better off for it?
- The Loonboss on Giant Cave Squig has Let’s Get Bouncing! Which adds 3” to the move characteristic of KEYWORD SQUIG units. Hey, I’m with you that I’d love an extra 3” for my slow moving Shootas and Stabbas. But what is the basis for this 60% increase in their movement? They don’t have anything to bounce on so to speak so where is it coming from? On the other hand the logic of a bunch of Boingrot Bounderz following their similarly Squig saddled leader into battle is there. Similarly I just don’t see Troggoths as that bouncy or being inspired to follow a small green git on a red mushroom with a mouth into a wild charge.
- similarly the Loonboss on Mangler Squig’s CA is Bite Da Moon! requires the keyword SQUIG. I get that this one isn’t worded to only grant the +1 to Wound to the biting related attacks but again there is a logic to giving it to unit that do have one versus all units.
Sure, any of these buffs would be great if more widely applicable but doing so would make the units more generic. The same logic applies to battalions in that they are supposed to represent something and the requirements and buffs should reflect that. Spider Rider Skitterswarm Battalion is meant to reflect the fast riding forward units of the Spiderfang so it makes sense they’d have 2” extra movement. What is the logic to grant this buff to other units? Maybe you could make it a more generic battalion by allowing any mounted unit and I’d be okay with that. But expanding it to include Shootas and Stabbas - that I just wouldn’t understand. (And yes I realize there isn’t a full internal logic to AoS - why can units that only move 4” charge up to 12”? - but there is clearly meant to be some logic to the WS and battalion buffs.)
To quote my old economics professor there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. In other words there always will be trade-offs when building a list and those trade-offs will bias competitive list building in certain directions at certain time and thus at the tournament top there may be some lack of diversity (though I still see plenty of different armies wracking up tournament wins when they are being played). But the basic rules of AoS allow for plenty of diversity even if not all of it will be all that competitive. And even if you removed every KEYWORD players would still be optimizing for what remains, constraining diversity at the highest levels. But if you did you’d be losing a whole lot of the game’s immersive flavor.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Ggom said:
What if battalions required more units and incentivised this with buffs? There's a line to be walked here between being too restrictive (eg. Must take exactly 2 units of X) and too open ended (eg. Must take up to 5 units of X, Y or Z.)
The most open ended battalions that I have real experience playing against/with is Beasts of Chaos. Yet to @Kramer’s point even with flexibility you’re still going to see the most efficient units picked within the battalion choices, particularly as relates to the sub-faction/great fray chosen.
As @Dreddships noted narrative games offer an alternative and local gaming groups can of course set up their own conditions to increase the variety of units on the table. My Zoom League essentially requires lists to take a MONSTER or two. In a side escalation league against a Nurgle player who loves his PBKs I want to trial some Rockgut Trolls in my Mawtribes list as allies.
I get the frustration with KEYWORDS though. At the same time though “universal” faction or alliance buffing could lead to some crazy combos that would only unbalance the game further. My first tournament army list was Braggoth’s Hammer from the 1.0 Beastclaw Raider Tome. That tome was incredibly flawed but I loved a battalion that allowed me to add diverse units like Gore Gruntas to my BCR list in a way that made sense In 2.0 I really feel a lot of that style has been lost and there are too many times where there aren’t battalions or buffs for units and thus they will almost lose out. This seems fixable as, to a certain extent, has been tried in White Dwarf with the Gitz.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
worth noting that Crypt Flayers do not have the MONSTER keyboard so no specific bonus for Protectors (as if that would have a big impact anyway
)
Yeah, that was why he’d sent them in instead of drawing off a Royal Terrorgheist.
Also, I’d really hoped Featherfoe Torc, forcing rerolling of 6s on his flying units (basically everything but the Archregent), would help my general more but the reality is with our low Wounds for Heroes really only takes one or two going through and they evaporate.
-
16 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
so... the monster killing paladins got wiped by monsters :(? if they hadn't piled in twice, how do you think the fight would have ended up?
Going back a few weeks now (play one game a week in the league) but my memory is that if they had held out one more turn it would’ve forced my opponent to attack my Stood Fast Garrison to try and take the objective in my territory. With all the buffs I could put into that and what my opponent had left to throw at it I had decent chance of holding out for the W. Stormkeep seems at its best when you can force your opponent to come at you and hit the units you want it to.
-
1
-
-
In a small, friendly Escalation League tried double Stormkeep Battalion lists at 1.5k, 1.75k and 2k using Wardens of the Stormkeep. And Stormtower Garrison. Went 1-2 with the only win coming at 1.75k when all my movement shenanigans paid off against Boulderhead in Total Commitment. There I was able to use a Lord-Arcanum on Gryph-Charger’s Ride the Winds Aetheric to steal the NE objective after my opponent had pushed forward most of their force into my Standing Fast Garrison. Neave rode in the wake and was able to stay on NE objective while the LA rode the winds again to the SW objective, taking it away from my opponent who had moved their models off it the prior turn, scoring me again some nice bonuses. I used the Knight-Vexillor’s teleport to reposition my defensively buffed Lord-Celestant on Dracoth (Drakescale Armor + Drake Kin + Hammers Command Trait) for a charge to finish off the FLoSH. When my Celestant-Prime came down in Round 3 and took back my objective from the remnants of my opponents first surge i was able to put the game away.
Unsurprisingly other than that game the major issue was mobility. At 1.5K I did steal my Gristelgore opponent’s objective in Battle for the Pass by teleporting my Protectors onto with the KV but they couldn’t hold it against Crypt Flayers piling in twice. And once my opponent killed the Lord-Aquilor and Lord-Arcanum on Gryph-Charger I just didn’t have the mobility to contest objectives outside of my territory in the later rounds.
Stand Fast, especially when in cover on terrain and/or further buffed by We Cannot Fail truly can make even an MSU of Liberators reasonably resilient. In the 1.25k game where I ran Stormkeep but not their battalions I had a unit hold out on terrain against an offensively buffed Mawcrusha for a full turn. The trade-off of course, above and beyond the lack of mobility, is that I felt obligated to go first every game to get the buff going. In the final 2K game this proved very costly as it allowed my opponent to snag a bunch of VP on their first turn while I remained turtled up, as well as allowing them to pick their targets.
As I noted in my first post, playing an army largely “built” by my kids ideas on cool (i.e. I started out with a Stardrake, a Taurulon and Prime to choose from but zero battleline options...) I wasn’t exactly expecting to dominate so after filling in the pieces I figured why not the new hotness (hot mess?). Given the list building limitations and the MONSTER meta I play in not sure how much there is to take away broadly but given the discussion of the lost mobility from dropping Scions vs the Liberator buff gained thought I’d provide my general thoughts on the experience.
-
5
-
-
In reading this thread realized how deep I’d actually gotten into FW. It started with a Chaos Dwarfs project I did for a friend which was a nightmare to get the two handed weapons aligned and reminded me how much I struggle painting at that small of a scale. My most recent is a Mournghul kitbashed into a Varghulf Courtier. In between I ran an Execution Herd (fully painted originals luckily acquired at a discount) w/Artillery and have managed to pick up some other pieces here & there.
My basic issue with the rules vs models gets right to the heart of the disconnect I see between FW and GW and it can be seen in with Sons of Behemat and the Bonegrinder even though they actually pretty quickly got a new WS out for it. Given that WS’s limitations in interacting with rest of tome though I would most likely want to run it as an alternate Gatebreaker a majority of the time. The problem is that the Bonegrinder is on a 120mm base vs rest of the Megan’s on 130mm. Okay, so not too big a kitbash issue there but while Nurgle’s Exalted uses the same base size as its closest proxy in a GUO the Tzeentch is on a larger base than a regular LoC, the Slaanesh Exalted isn’t even on the same shape base and simply put the Khorne Bloodthirster on FW will never be a potential proxy for the rest.
I’m actually mostly fine with the latter Khorne example as it is FW trying to truly do something different but to be so close but no cigar so often is just frustrating given the rules gap. With Guild of Summoners it would be nice to be able to easily distinguish between your extra LoCs be proxying in an Exalted. Assume the same is true for the multiple Keepers option for Slaanesh. Making this a simpler option I would think would go along way to creating some goodwill to offset other FW frustrations. When there is a rules “gap” let me still put this awesome model on the table.
And I’ve intentionally focused here mainly on Chaos Daemons models that play in both AoS and 40k because honestly I think that’s the most likely way we are to see new AoS FW models (though as another poster mentioned I’m still waiting for a WS for those awesome HH Khorne Daemons...)
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:
However, if one is talking about the older definition of what a miniatures skirmish game is: a game where models are individually based and do not have to maintain a set cohesive formation. Then AoS is still very much that and unlikely to move away from that.
Even with the inclusion of rules such as the LRL which offer bonuses for forming in particular formations or players making use of movement trays usually setup to place their units more in line formation doesn't change that AoS is still a skirmish game under the older definition. As a commentary, I like it that way much more. Rank and file games often like to pretend that soldiers didn't form uneven formations and were very good at keeping a very uniform shape. Many rank and file games like to turn combat into a sort of geometry and ray (the mathematical definition of ray) puzzle where even if a single man crosses so terrain hazard the entire formation has to suffer.
YES!!!
I came to AoS as salvation from complete burnout from the illogical puzzle dynamic of historical war gaming. My breaking point wasn’t the geometry per se but an incident where I spent three hours out of a five hour Gettysburg game getting my cannons in position and properly getting then limbered from the horses only to be told that (despite this replicating their positioning in the actual battle perfectly) that my cannons couldn’t shoot at their target because a small corner (talking a few CM) of a cornfield “obstructed” their vision and there was nothing I could do about this so the opposing soldiers could march right up without ever taking any grape shot...
I’d accepted plenty of “silly” geometry rules up till that point “in the name of historical accuracy” as the guy who ran the games always insisted but after that I was done. Haven’t played a rank & file historical war game since.
It took a big adjustment to go from that to AoS. The idea, for example that if one model is in range the entire unit was in range made me cringe the first half dozen times I played. Or that all a failed charge meant was that you stood still, not got stuck out in no man’s land as happened in some of the historical games I’d played.
But one aspect I liked from the very beginning was the more “natural/realistic” movement. Units could flow with the terrain. Once battle was engaged battle lines stretch and deform. I LOVED this aspect.
To the extent that it leads to gamey moves I think that has less to do with “Skirmish” rules than being an objectives based game as until we switched from narrative games to match play games in prep for a fun local tournament simply put we never really saw any obvious “weirdness” in the way armies moved, charged, or piled in. Similarly as soon as we go back to narrative games they disappear again. And while I’m not a big fan of solving mechanics issues with more mechanics issues the increase in “pick a model” and things like he Allopexes no pile in I think do just enough to discourage overly aggressive “gaminess”.
So are AoS rules perfect? No. And in the Zoom-based meta I’m currently playing in we really work to avoid big blobs for other reasons. But I think a virtue of the AoS rules is that they are flexible to accommodate both big blobs and more elite builds in what, from my perspective over last ~18 months, is a very rapidly evolving grand meta.
-
5
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, schwabbele said:
Sorry had to fix that for you:
I think a lot of the “panic” the battalion is generating is simply due to people being afraid of SCE maybe having something stronger/viable .
/s
Fair enough.
That said, while I’m new to SCE I’ve been following a lot of other factions threads here for a while and there does seem to be a broader new tome derangement syndrome to AoS where there’s almost always something new that everyone thinks will break the game each time a new tome is released. Fair enough some of these do rise to the level of needing a FAQ nerf but all too often once the games are actually played, turns out to be not so game breaking.
I know in my own little Zoom League meta one player was absolutely convinced that the “counts as” for objective rule for Mawtribes meant that they were unbeatable, especially given the Stonehorn’s resilience. Except of course there were plenty of Battleplans where even with three FLoSH the opponent couldn’t contest enough objectives early, and if they were separated and allowed for concentrated fire a FLoSH will go down like anything else on the table.
As to SCE specifically, as a newbie think the whole Gav sub-thread highlights part of the issue for outsiders when they look at SCE. Know I showed a bit of arrogance when I agreed to play SCE in Zoom League without checking the models I had against the tome in any serious way. SCE definitely has some interesting pieces but getting them to work together requires way more list management and trade offs than I think those who haven’t spent the time realize. So yeah, if SCE could truly stack all the potential buffs and manage to get everyone piled in without going out of the bubbles, etc. etc. they’d be potentially OP. But of course they can’t.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mattrulesok said:
The more I think about the use of this battalion the more I think it's bad because IMO it's not going to be able to compete in a competitive setting, having so many points invested in a couple of units that can so easily be taken off the board in 1-2 rounds of combat by most good competitive lists doesn't compensate for the 1 round of board dominance you get. However in a casual setting I can't see this being anything but oppressive, like how aggrivated would you be if you turned up with a fun list just to have 30 liberators jammed in your first before the game starts completely ruining your chance to actually play out your armies rules and play out a normal game?
Again, I’m new to SCE but I’d agree that my first impression of this battalion (given the cost to maximize points wise as others have pointed out) is that a list built around it is closer to 2-3/3-2 than 5-0. Not that a good player with a bit of luck and a lot of skill couldn’t pilot it to a tournament win occasionally, just that more often than not after the first wave of build crests, the tide will turn against it. Additionally, I would not be surprised to see those losses coming against factions in the lower win rate tiers. That said I could easily see one of those wins coming against a list expected to go 5-0. And to me... that’s a good thing. I like a “Rock, Paper, Scissors” meta over there being a few dominant builds out there at any given time.
So unless the definition of OP/Broken/Dirty is the ability to disrupt an OP/Broken/Dirty list’s playing style, while regularly failing against less optimized lists, I think a lot of the “panic” the battalion is generating is simply due to lack of games being played.
-
1 hour ago, Marcvs said:
The inclusion of the castellant might help
Have ordered one, as yeah, that seems like a pretty solid support piece. Strangely enough my kids didn’t find a guy holding a lantern (at least without wings...) to be cool. Same goes for totems. So while I had a lot of the big toys such as Stardrake, Taurulon and Prime was pretty deficient in the more general support units.
-
3 hours ago, Marcvs said:
Ok so, just a few comments for some minor changes you can include. Of course the list, as you say, remains not very optimised (the ordinator for just one ballista is a huge point sink, and the castigators really don't do much). Anyway:
-I don't think it's worth it going for the stormkeep with just 10 liberators, losing the mobility of deepstriking is too much of a price for what you gain
-I would keep the dragon on the table (especially if there's not too much shooting around), cause otherwise you are betting on a 9" charge (50/50 even with the CP reroll). In fact, if the tournament is a littlbe bit lenient with WYSIWYG, I would play the dragon as a Lord Celestant on Stardrake, which is tankier than the templar
-Hammers of Sigmar is not doing much for you, I would go no Stormhost to get Staunch defender and pick an artefact. Then I would make the dragon your general, to put Staunch on a more survivable unit (and have a bigger base to extend the aura)
-For filling your 1.5k pts I would then consider a lord castellant. It could provide a nice combo with the dragon, to bring it to 1+ save rr1 healing on 5+
-Another piece you can add is the Everblaze Comet, since you have a wizard and a dragon to give him/her +1 to cast. You could also pick the Staff of Focus thanks to the battalion to add another +1 for the t1 comet.
Thanks for the Feedback.
We named the new escalation tournament Holiday Havoc because we knew the Holidays would wreck Havoc with our scheduling and sure enough the first round match ups already in question. That said the list was originally built to go up against Gristelgore and FEC’s Bravery based shooting. So one aspect of Hammers that I appreciated was the +1 to Bravery further reduced my vulnerability to their Shooting. Not sure that’s enough to justify taking Hammers but, and this is circular if the Castigators are simply a waste anyway, another aspect was my understanding that to be able to use Astreia’s CA on them I needed to take Hammers.
As far as WYSIWYG we are pretty lax both because in general we are a pretty chill gaming group but also because the very nature of our Zoom League means we are playing based on what I have on hand and/or can proxy, with the other players viewing the table via Zoom. Players can and have dropped off armies but, for example, we aren’t sweating the Ironjawz player on whether the Gore Gruntas are built with Hackas or Choppas when they build their list. So besides the points constraint at 1.25K no reason at higher levels I couldn’t upgrade to the Lord Celestant on Stardrake.
Regarding Staunch Defender a clear lesson from prior league games is that when playing either Mawtribes or Warclans you typically want your biggest Hammer to be be doing the charging instead of being charged given the Damage dealt on the charge by these units and the buffs they get from charging. I was hesitant than that I would be losing the Staunch Defender buff when I needed it most?
-
There is a Cellestar Ballista kit with a female engineer.
-
Despite playing for almost two years and SCE being the poster boys my experience with them is limited to one head-to-head at a tournament a year ago. That said, during the first year I was playing when it looked like my kids might get into the game they were collecting SCE models based on the aesthetic. My daughter completely lost interest despite having two friends who want to play (seriously they’ve asked if they can play against me since she’s not interested anymore ...) and my son decided that he was more interested in the Tau and their big robots so we’ve switched to playing Apocalypse and Kill Team with him.
As such I’ve had 3K+ worth of models collecting dust on the shelves so when it came time to pick armies for the third tournament in the Zoom League I run, and which is very much centered around elite lists and MONSTERS, I said I’d run SCE without checking to see whether I actually had the makings of an army list. Little did I know how much SCE is really divided into different complimentary unit sets (e.g. Vanguard) and how a pure “Rule of Cool” from a 12 & 8 year olds’ perspectives would NOT line up with any of that. For example, the only battle line I had were the Liberators we’ve collected at our local GW when getting painting lessons... Picked up a box to build today so I can at least meet the basic list building requirement.
For the first match (Knife to the Heart - to be determined whether against Gristelgore or Mawtribes) at 1.25K points (2 battle line req) I’ve cobbled together.
Hammers of Sigmar
Hailstorm Battery Battalion
Lord Ordinator (General)
- God-forged Blade
- We Cannot Fail
Drakesworn Templar
- Drakescale Armor
- Keen Clawed
- Stormlance
Astreia Solbright
- Chain Lightening
- Bounding Leap
5x Liberators
5x Liberators
3x Castigators
Celestar Ballista
Recognize this far from an optimized list but seemed relatively straight forward to play. My original thought had been to leave the Drakesworn Templar in the sky and hope the rest could withstand the initial surge from my opponent to hold my objective, particularly as they’d have to hold something back to protect theirs. Then I’d drop down the Drakesworn Templar to try and steal their objective while hopefully also managing to get Astreia into the thick of things.
Then the Morathi rules dropped and it seems to make some sense to lose the ability to keep units in the sky to be able to bolster those Liberator units to hopefully again survive the first charge. If I’m going up against Gristelgore the extra Bravery also helps against their shooting. Does it make sense to drop the extra mobility from the old AA to take advantage of these?
For the next match at 1.5K looking to fill in a lot of gaps to get to a more reasonable list but would appreciate any thoughts.
-
4 hours ago, Gdead909 said:
Blisterkin is more competitive
Sincerely hoping so. About to start an Escalation League vs Orruk Warclans and Ogor Mawtribes with a Blisterkin based FEC list. (I’ve already run Gristelgore and really hoping to expand my FEC opportunity set. Think challenge will be not reverting to a “Blistergore” style list (i.e. going heavy on the RTs or RZDs). We’re starting at 1K and growing by 250 pts each round. Guessing from get go will be facing a Mawkrusha or a Frostlord on Stonehorn so any thoughts or advice greatly appreciated.
)
AoSifying Wargames
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
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.