Ganigumo

The new sylvaneth models are cool, although I found the flying archers to be a bit boring? Like I get that it makes sense, and flying archers are objectively a useful thing in-narrative (in rules I suspect they'll either be chaff or competing directly with kurnoth hunters), but I tend to prefer when they get a bit weirder like with the bug cavalry. I'm a bit disappointed that sylvaneth are getting the update though, Skaven are in desperate need of a refresh (among other armies).

The warscrolls are still available for free in the official aos app, but the army rules require the code. Also the boltboy "banner" model is the unit captain based on the instructions in the kit, but its not part of his equipment or anything, it just makes him stand out.

Wizards cast spells, priests chant prayers, hero-monsters do damage, and the rest just get to exist I guess? This is the problem, those non-monster non-wizard/priest heroes don't have a unique thing without command abilities. Sure you can remedy the problem in a mechanical power level sense, by having them hand out free buffs or have an aura and pointing them appropriately, but that doesn't fix the narrative problem it creates where all the hero is doing is existing. Heroes should be active and do things, otherwise why are they heroes? In many cases the characters that hand out free buffs ARE wizards/priests because it makes more narrative sense for that to be the case. Kruleboyz are probably the perfect example. From an internal mechanical balance standpoint the killaboss should probably have one of the poison buffing abilities, since it would balance his utility with the sludgeraker and shaman, but that makes no sense from a narrative perspective. A good command ability could've completely changed the meta of the army too, and make it feel better narratively, even if it was just a warscroll command on the killaboss. Since release I've felt the army was almost designed to have retreat and charge as an option somewhere, as not only does it feel "kunnin" when you use it right, but provides a way around a lot of the limitations in the rules like the gutrippa shields and shaman's poisons in a really clever way.

Agreed, its cases like this where it feels like just axing warscroll command abilities across the board was a bad design direction.

I think killabosses would be more popular if gutrippaz were cheaper/better. Hobgrots are just chaff, seems a waste unless you're running big units for some reason. Boltboyz evaporate if anything touches them, and generally you'll use the CP for inspiring presence since even losing 1 is a big deal. Its useful on big units of gutrippaz, where they'll take a bunch of wounds in the combat phase and losing 1 isn't a big deal. So they're probably worth it in gutrippa heavy builds, which probably won't be popular until they're like ~160 points. I think the vulture variant has some play regardless though, its pretty cheap for its weight class I think. If you're playing a gutrippa heavy build anyways Its probably worth it to bring one.

Yeah I guess it could fit in the list I posted. I couldn't find the actual lists so I was trying to recreate them from memory.

Many competitive lists try to fit into battle regiment, and most of the few kruleboyz lists that were doing well were doing that. There isn't that much you'd be spending your ally points on either, all you really get from Gitz is chaff, or maybe a fungoid to farm a few CP. IIRC the competitive lists that were doing well were something like: Allegiance: Kruleboyz- Warclan: Big Yellers- Grand Strategy:- Triumphs:Snatchaboss on Sludgeraker Beast (315)*Swampcalla Shaman with Pot-grot (105)*20 x Gutrippaz (360)*- Reinforced x 19 x Man-skewer Boltboyz (360)*- Reinforced x 26 x Man-skewer Boltboyz (240)*- Reinforced x 120 x Stabbas (150)*- Pokin Spears & Moon Shields Rogue Idol (430)**Battle RegimentTotal: 1960 / 2000Reinforced Units: 4 / 4Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 110Drops: 1 Or some variation of that (I couldn't find a direct reference to the lists). The list minimizes drops and takes some melee punch in the rogue idol and gutrippaz so you can have one strong combat phase for your kruleboyz waaagh! The reason stabbas were used was because there were points for them, and 20x hobgrots take up a reinforcement point, which the list couldn't spare, and 2x10 hobgrots didn't fit into battle regiment. There's value in your throwaway screen having 20 wounds too, since your opponent will often have to actually commit something substantial to clear it. So its not that grots are a must-take or strong unit, they just fit a very specific niche when you're trying to fit a list into battle regiment and you bump into the reinforcement point limit. The only alternative would be 10x gutrippaz or something which cover less space for screening are less bodies on objectives and are arguably less durable for more points.

Grot stabbas were (and are) showing up in comp lists instead of hobgrots because they fit into battle regiment better. They serve the same purpose, screen or stick them on an objective somewhere. Being 20 strong base also means you don't need to spend a reinforcement point on making them durable enough to ensure they get to screen, as many armies have ways of clearing a small 10 wound screen before combat/charging. Its got very little to do with the actual warscroll, although the bonus netters are nice.

fanatics are nearly pointless outside of a grot army. The sporesplat ones do block LoS, but are fragile and expensive for that utility, and there isn't much in the army that they'd want to or be able to protect. The loonsmasha fanatics are only hideable in grots and snufflers units, and hit hard but their damage is really spikey and they are wrecked by overwatch. You could definitely cheese by hiding them in a snufflers unit, but if you don't have any grot units in the army its really obvious. They're fantastic models though.

Underdog armies could work as a concept, but you've got to give them the tools they need to win by their own terms. I know GW has been shying away from giving armies too many unique tools (i.e the battalion change, and the usually weak/limited allegiance based battle tactics) but it could be a fun idea. A few hypothetical examples Bonesplitterz getting more and "easier" to achieve battle tactics that score more, for doing narrative stuff like taking down monsters, Monster adjacent things (BT: Klose enuff, pick a non-monster unit with 10 or more wounds and you score it if it's destroyed, that unit gains the monster keyword until the end of the turn). Gitz getting some wild BTs for strange options like having one of their units destroyed while under the moon, or overfeeding a unit with snuffler mushrooms The basic idea would be to let these armies win, despite getting clobbered in terms of actual points left on the table, by giving them ways to score BT/VP in ways that are perpendicular to normal "competitive" play, and maybe even incentivize it a bit by having them be worth more VP than standard battle tactics. You could also introduce extra ways for these underdogs to generate VP, like bonesplitterz doubling the bonus VP from slaying a monster, or having gitz score an extra VP if the unit that achieved the BT was wholly under the moon when it happened. Its a design that runs against the normal idea of how to play competitively, but could be fun to play around with.

Opening up a glass cannon gunline is a different playstyle for kruleboyz, it may not be a "fun" one, but it is a different playstyle. Whats even worse about big yellers though is that by opening up boltboy battleline it opens up listbuilding in a huge way. Stuff like kruleboyz monster mash is much easier to build with cheaper battleline, and even the list I like, which runs 40 gutrippaz, still needs to be big yellers to fit into 2k points without major sacrifices. Meanwhile, Grinnin blades and skulbugz open up LITERALLY 0 new playstyle options. This isn't an opinion, grinnin blades gives you some anti-shooting utility (this doesn't change how you play, it changes how your opponent interacts with you for a turn) and skulbugz is both unreliable, and unimpactful, meanwhile big yellers offers a new battleline option.

That's heavily dependent on how well the book was written. Something like Tzeentch has some really interesting subfactions that aren't the competitive options, like guild of summoners and pyrofane cult, along with the real stinker of cult of the transient form. Meanwhile something like kruleboyz gives almost no incentive to ever play anything but big yellers, because its the only subfaction that gets extra options. You can play any kruleboyz list as big yellers, but the same isn't true of the other subfactions. Plus the benefits are pretty sketchy, grinnin blades are very situational and skulbugz is just bad. If the subfaction doesn't offer a unique playstyle there really isn't any enjoyment in trying to optimize it. We've also got the problem that we literally have armies so weak they'd struggle to even beat casual lists of mid tier armies, let alone trying to do the same thing with those armies. (I've got like 3k points of spiderfang, it's rough...)

I think the issue is the disparity, Stuff like Sylvaneth (on the low end) and Tzeentch (on the high end) can have some pretty fair matchups between them if you aim for a more casual list on the tzeentch side, but stuff like Gitz and bonesplitterz are an uphill battle unless your opponent makes an intentionally bad army.

There's actually a very easy way to have both, and GW basically had it with aos2. You make the core rules very simple, and put the complexity in the army books. You don't make every army complex of course, but that's what's great about that design, the players have control over how complex they want their game to be. So the player who wants a complex game can play Tzeentch/lumineth/skaven and the player who wants an easy game can play ogors/gargants. Agreed, its especially egregious with how poorly some armies perform year after year, to the point of them being hard to even take to casual friendly games, yet they seem to also dodge any significant buffs.

@JackStreicher In regards to your original post, you seem to be dancing around the idea of modular design. all 3 of the first books of the edition used modular design, as opposed to linear design. (I've been a bit clocked out lately and haven't taken much of a look at fyreslayers/idk, but fyreslayers seem modular, no clue about deepkin) Linear design is where the incentives follow a linear path (or multiple linear paths), with the buffs and synergies compounding as you continue down that path. (i.e this subfaction buffs <x> unit, this general unlocks that unit as battleline, this other unit buffs <x> unit, etc...) The build paths and synergies are very clear and easy to build. Often a unit in a linear book starts mediocre but can get buffed to be very powerful (i.e grots, skinks, etc) Modular design is where you design each piece to be largely independent (or maybe a pair of pieces, like a unit + a hero), They don't have access to any unique buffs. Both kinds of pieces can exist in the same book. most aos3 books are modular, but the best example is probably gargants. Pros of linear design Controlled build paths Easier to build roles for every unit since there's less competition, two units can be very similar but if their synergies are locked behind different linear paths they'll have a unique niche Linear build paths mean even books with tons of units can make use of all of them in different paths Internal balance is between the linear paths instead of the individual units, made even easier if the playstyles are different Easy to build lists for, as the book will naturally guide you down one of the linear paths Cons Compounding buffs can be tough to balance difficult to nerf because you essentially need to nerf an entire build path, and overnerfing can break the army entirely rigid listbuilding layered rules can make warscrolls deceiving and seemingly weak units incredibly powerful Pros of Modular design More flexibility in listbuilding Easier external balance because you can appropriately buff and nerf the problem units directly Unit strength is easier to gauge in a vacuum, since buffs are limited Cons of Modular design There's a limit to how many useful unique roles exist, which means there's a maximum number of warscrolls until redundancy occurs Internal balance is tough without making similar units seem "samey" esoteric and tough listbuilding, due to a lack of structure It can be tough to make modular units compete with linear ones, since they don't have that kind of buffing power. So they need to either pay a premium or risk being overpowered Lack of synergies can make units feel boring, the warscroll is all you get Both types of design can coexist, although it can be tough to manage at times, and they both have their place. I think you might be finding the new books boring because of the modular design of them not lending itself to any kind of cool combos. You get the extra flexibility in listbuilding but it comes at the cost of the cool thematic synergies. In my opinion the stormcast book being modular was a massive mistake. Not only because it had too many warscrolls to pull off the design, but also because its the "starter army", and linear armies are easier to listbuild with. unrelated to the direct topic but they've also been making some really questionable design decisions in general with AOS3. Stuff like "single rule warscrolls" is good and all if they're well written, but moving a rule from a warscroll to the allegiance abilities (like Venom Encrusted Weapons) isn't a design improvement. There's also a lot of shallow complexity being added to the game, which are things that effect the game and you need to think about, reference, and remember, but don't add any depth to the game, like grand strategies and the new battlescroll. In general I think the aos2 rules were better as a whole. Battle tactics are the one thing that really changed the game up, in a meaningful way, but I'm still not sure if I like them.

ah yeah, I just noticed you can mix and match weapon options in the unit, although it can still be tough to strike with them in a 6 man anyways. they're on 90 x 52, you can attack through the 52mm side but it makes the frontage of the unit quite big to have them sideways. I guess you could do one sideways in the middle, with the two glaives behind him, and two on the ends of the sideways ones with paired/crushers. You lose out on the claw attacks but that would work, and you can just pick the glaive ones off first since you drop down to 5 models as soon as one dies.

MTG has been seemingly leaning into power creep recently as a way to sell more cards, I'm not super tuned in but from what I have heard the increase in power is intentional in an attempt to sell more standard cards to eternal format players, but obviously with an increased power level and a rotating format comes a more volatile meta. Something they've suffered from though is focusing too much on tournament players in terms of playtesting. Tournament players are a great group to give you an idea of if the format will be balanced (in some sense) but are generally less invested in how the game actually plays, which is what's generally most important to casual players.

They weren't removed from 40k though, which is why I said we aren't getting that. They're going into a rotation, which means they will come back periodically. There's no reason for aos to get that at the moment, since all the stuff that would've been good candidates for a rotation like that was squatted. We could get more stuff removed as tomes come out (although I think we're past that at this point) but thats a different thing.

@Salyx Did the math on the Dragon Ogors. Glaives are the worst option, period, they match the paired and 2HW vs a 2+ save. The paired weapons and great weapons are the exact same, although the paired weapons are probably better because they're less swingy (6 damage 1 vs 3 damage 2) and they aren't hurt by damage reduction effects. This math is for 3 of them.

IIRC MTG playtesters/developers/designers can't compete in events but I could be wrong, not that it matters since winning big MTG events comes down almost exclusively to luck and/or cheating.(spoilering my explanation since its off topic). The real benefit MTG designers/playtesters get is insider knowledge of what cards and strategies will be good so they can invest in the secondary market. They also tend to be underpaid so this is essentially their "bonus" as they have no contractual obligation not to invest in it, and WOTC can't acknowledge the secondary market officially, because it makes boosters far too similar to actual gambling (not that it isn't already...) The real benefit of playtesting warhammer is in the painting meta, after a book drops it often takes a while for armies to hit the table because of the time it takes to paint, but with the insider knowledge you can get that army on the table nearly as soon as the book drops.

GW using unpaid community members, where some?/many? of whom are content creators who get "paid" in things like early access to product, for playtesting is a toxic dynamic ripe for nepotism, even if none if it is actually happening. They should just hire, as in give them an employment contract and salary, a dedicated playtesting group. I think the biggest problem with the current playtest cycle is that it only has about 1 iteration. They write the rules, throw it to the playtesters, adjust for feedback, and release the book. Ideally playtesters should be involved earlier, and there should be multiple iterations of the playtesting cycle.

I doubt this comes to aos, everything that would've gone on that list was squatted over the past 6 years.

I left out Dragon ogors intentionally because I figured their damage was still low enough to not matter. Not that they're bad or didn't get better, but they're really more of an anvil. I might run the math later though.

Some Warherd/Brayherd/Chimaera math. Ghorgon and Chimaera are using their own monstrous rampages. Damage is for 3 bullgor with no support. I accounted for 7 bestigor fighting in a unit of 10. Math for Tzaangor units, I factored in a nearby shaman, but no command abilities applied. Didn't bother to do math for tzaangor units of 10 because of how unreliable they are once they lose their +1 attack. Now for strategy talk, who do we think are the big winners and losers here? Tzaangor enlightened are looking very strong for both variants now, as their rend 1 was holding them back I think, enlightened on foot are only 95 points for 3 too, so reinforcing a couple units isn't a huge points sink. Bullgor are good, but I wonder if this doesn't push them over the edge into "overkill" tier in terms of rend, rend 3 is good but rend 4 is probably too much even in a save stacking meta. Ghorgon seems pretty comparable to 3 bullgor, so it might have play, even if its just to score some extra VP on battle tactics?

The best rule they can and should give BoC is: "Increase the range of melee weapons for reinforced beasts of chaos units by 1" (to a maximum of 3")" Does it make them top tier? no, but it might push them into mid tier and solves one of the biggest issues with the army (even in aos2) in reach/output. Stuff like bestigor will still struggle a bit in 10s due to the new coherency rules but that seems like its pretty standard across the game for 32mm infantry. Narrativewise it can be because big hordes of BoC will literally push their front line closer to the enemy to be able to fight themselves. It instantly makes bullgor, Tzaangor (all variants), and bestigor able to actually get the attacks in to put out damage. Dragon ogors don't get much benefit, but at their current points they're more of an anvil so that's fine. Also what I would love to see is a few new subfactions, I know they haven't been putting them in tome celestials but I'd like to see a few that bring in support for god dedicated armies. Maybe a minor benefit, gain the keyword, and 1-in-4 coalition for the associated god book. It could open up some interesting play options. Chances of a Boc Book this year are very low. Whitefang hinted at a skaven release and we're getting a tome celestial pretty late into the edition. On an actual positive note though, the BoC book has been weak pretty much since release AND is one of the earliest tomes of 2e, which should make it a priority to get an update. That means the book was probably pushed back for some reason, the most likely one being BoC are getting a line refresh during aos3 and didn't fit into the early part of the edition. Obviously its just me speculating but I think it makes sense, but we probably won't see the update until the back half of aos3.