Gailon

What seems weird about a potential Sylvaneth release is that the models all seem pretty great. They are really pretty and seem far from out of date. Compare that to other factions like Skaven or Seraphon (one of the most popular factions) which have ancient sculpts that look dated. It seems like an odd faction to get any updated models.

I have lamented the neglect of Saurus, but we all just kind of ignore that Koatl’s Claw (Saurus subfaction) has a solid win percentage in competitive play. But I don’t know that the neglect of Saurus warriors makes it a terrible book. You can look at a list and tell what the faction is and the different factions play very different in style and tactical options/choice.

This is partly why I think Seraphon is one of the best books they’ve done. A Large range of models and virtually all of them have been viable. The subfactions change the look and play style of the army. Some things have been a bit OP for sure (but based on win % I think it has often been exaggerated). But a lot of that has been tempered by points. A Seraphon player has had the capacity to make their collection relevant, whatever they owned. Id say SCE feels opposite to this. The subfactions are barely relevant, and mostly then just to change what is battleline. And

People keep saying this but am I missing something that makes the battle box warscrolls official? I didn’t see them added to the app or any faq. So FS should be t he same as they have been. Not good, not bad, matchup dependent.

The simple answer I guess would be armies that already rely in powerful reinforced battleline. Fulminators for Stormcast jump to mind. It would certainly be an interesting incentive for conditional battleline. I feel like sbgl might really like it? But that’s because a friend runs a zombie list. What about pinks? That sounds gross.

On the one hand it’s a rule in the base game and published and then seem rightfully reluctant to change a rule like that. on the other hand they just changed unleash hell and amulet of destiny. but they could fix some of this by changing weapon ranges. Even if it isn’t the best solution.

Cloud coherency seems way better. But yes, this was meant to address some problems. Mainly units spread out in preposterous ways that made them not really look like it play like a single unit. when a unit is octopus armed all over it really doesn’t make sense that it needs to be a single unit at all. I think they were also partially addressing super hard hitting hammers. Where the games became charge and delete. Rather than charge as fight. they seemed to specifically aim for more MSU with reinforcements limited. unfortunately they didn’t really solve any of these problems. They just moved them around. My 10 skinks is a smaller screen, and my friends Hearthguard are no longer snaked all over the entire board. But in my last game my friends 60 zombies had a ridiculous tail of single file models way out to barely touch an objective. A bunch of 5 model Calvary units are moving around sideways as screens and hammers still exist, just only with 2” range or 25mm bases. they seem to want you running those kurnoths in two units of 3. But my 6 scythe hunters still delete almost anything they hit. So, no solutions. but there was some intent there, yeah. They just seemed in denial about how big 25 mm is.

I think that’s definitely fair, but there are just levels to that variance. I think of a game I played Seraphon against Nighthaunt that I lost to a 2-3 double turn AND several 10+ inch wave of terror charges. Thing is, he can almost never win that matchup without the double turn. The then roll is more variance and you don’t have to like more variance. But it does serve to filter out certain types of gamers. Just like any rule. I think there are a ton of analogies. When playing competitive Mario Kart with friends in college who all competed a lot we played without items. Less variance. I think the more competitive AoS players who want more balance and needs and tighter rules have to some acknowledgment that they are intruding on casual turf. If I take my janky nonsense deck to Friday night magic at my local shop then I will lose badly. But I can take my janky off meta list to play AoS and I fit in. It’s the person who brings the six Vanguard raptors who stands out. I think there are a lot of reasons for this dynamic. And concede it doesn’t exist everywhere. But I do feel like the double turn is a big flashing neon sign in the middle of the rules that says this isn’t to be taken too seriously.

Double turn adds variance to the game. While at the end of many games I can often point to huge rolls (a key charge, spell etc), the turn roll is often huge. As many people have pointed out, variance is the point. but I think it also serves another roll. This sounds more insulting than it is, but the turn roll is a personality filter. If you are so attached to winning your game of AoS that you cannot stand to relinquish so much power to a single roll, then maybe AoS isn’t for you. and I do not mean that in the ‘can’t handle a dumb rule? Then go home!’ way I know it sounds. I genuinely mean that different types enjoy different games in different ways. the rules of chess filter me out from playing chess. They have no variance outside player control. It makes for an intensity that means I will never play chess in more than the most casual way. that’s ok. The rules of chess aren’t ‘wrong’ because of it, and I’m not a worse person. I just like more variance in my game. on the other side of the spectrum I haven’t played a game of ‘war’ since I was a child. It is 100% variance with no player choice. The number one asset that AoS has is the community and player base. And I am amazed at how much of this player base has a ‘I just want to roll some dice with some mates’ attitude about the game. A casual enjoyment to it. more than rules or models, GW relies on this community to help make the game fun. I think the double turn helps force a casual attitude to the game. You can’t be too emotionally attached to a hyper competitive strategy because a super impactful moment may swing in a single roll. If that makes you so mad that you don’t want to play, then maybe don’t? there is nothing I can do to make my Saurus warriors win a tournament. I’m still painting up my 25 Saurus knights list. Because I enjoy playing it. And I will have no problem finding people to play me with equally janky lists. Because of the community of AoS. it is possible that the double turn just occasionally reminds people we’re here to have a laugh at the whims of fate over some cool models. I think I could give lots of examples of various experiences that speak to this point. I like the comparisons to mtg standard/modern vs mtg commander. One is competitive and relies on the game designers to carefully craft a competitive meta. The other is a casual format that relies on the community to police itself. Commander quickly became an insanely popular format for a reason. The double turn is high variance. Just like a bad draw on the river in poker it’s something that the best players more often than not overcome, but can be part of something that gives the underdog a puncher’s chance. We have all had disappointing turn rolls. And felt that moment of ‘if I’d got that turn then I’d have won.’ But I’d that ruins the whole experience for you…. and I know I’m ignoring the situation where a double turn leads to a blood bath but that may be a matchup and power level imbalance that is beyond just the double turn

Silent People. list over. (I know it’s not going to happen, but as long as we’re making wishes)

This is really well said. And also clarifies how the Seraphon Boom is much better than the Stormcast book, although the army also has a lot of warscrolls. I can build a list that logically uses Saurus warriors and knights. They aren’t as good, but in Koatl’s Claw they have a lot of synergistic buffs (even more in 2.0). The Stormcast book struggles to do anything like this. It’s all built around conditional battleline. I can’t do anything to make Vanguard Hunters better. I can make them battleline, but that doesn’t make them better. Again, I think the thing about Stormdrake is that it was on purpose. They wanted people to be able run armies of all dragons and have those armies at least be viable. As opposed to a just for flavor list like Troggs. I don’t know what kind of rebalancing they can do in that context. it will just be a new SOB. If someone is trying to compete at a tournament they will have to have an answer for whether they can deal with dragons.

Even if it was just against shooting attacks it would be great for the game.

I’d be on board with this as long as these rules are also released with the box in the faq or similar document. And maybe they do that. I agree these are official rules, but I suspect they are meant to go with the battletome. Considering the timeline of how these are written. If the Tome is delayed then I would absolutely be in agreement with GW not pushing these warscrolls in the FAQ right away. my point is just that if they don’t do that then in order to play these rules we’d be playing them off internet leaks (unless we bought the box). That seems bonkers to me. Why would official rules for models people currently own only be found from YouTube screenshots? I guess this all changes pretty quickly if GW just replaces the warscrolls in the app as soon as the box releases.

Have a FS player in an ongoing PtG game and will definitely use old rules. im not even convinced these count as ‘new rules.’ They are warscroll cards that come in a battle box right? Not an faq not an errata. Are they officially released by GW anywhere other than in this one box? Since when are we reliant on leaks online for ‘official’ rules. Maybe I’m missing something. But the cards in the box seem like rules for the box. Until these scrolls and points are out in the faq/errata documents.

The weird thing about SDG is that they aren’t the ‘usual’ spam list. usually some unit has a ton of utility and is undercoated and players can just spam it and be successful. Eel spam is a good example, or salamanders. But SDG were designed and advertised to be spammed. From the moment they were first announced it was ‘you can have an army of just dragons!’ That’s just poor design right out of the gate. It’s hard to imagine something that will have interesting and dynamic play with a single model. SOB has also failed in this regard. my biggest disappointment is that this all makes them over costed to run just one unit of two as fun support. a single unit has relatively low damage and low wounds for the point cost. Most armies will have some mortal wounds or wound sink to deal with it. The ability to move across the board on turn one is far less impactful and probably just get them dead. When it’s one unit. but 11 of them is obviously oppressive and unfun. The entire army is across the board and a couple support heroes are killed. I feel like it’s a reverse dps check. Dragons won’t be able to do enough damage to deal with SOB or Nurgle or pinks (I suspect). sometimes GW does things that make me wonder if they even play the game. I play mostly narrative oriented games under matches play rules and think that’s the best version of AOS (as others have discussed on this thread), but it is immediately obvious that dragon breath is a horrendous design. Who thinks that’s a good ability? I am forced to believe that GW likes every foot hero to be dead by turn two. They keep designing new ways for it to happen. Dragon breath is just a high variance hero murderer. It’s like when they changed alarielle’s spear to basically be a sniper rifle for hero murder. what changes I would like to see (but won’t): 1. hero phase move can only be done by one dragon unit per battle. Incentivize taking one and diminishes power of spam. 2. dragon breath be changed to something like the Magmadroth breath. Have to roll equal to or less than the number of models in the target unit to do d3 mortals or d6 mortals depending on range. It’s so much more thematic and appropriate for dragon breath. That, or like the stegadon flame throwers. Roll a dice for every model in range and do a mortal on a 5+. I do suspect they played some games with a single unit of dragons and thought they were fine. Then they saw community reaction, saw what a full table of them can do and had to jack their points up 60 points. But that won’t fix the feel bad experience.

In an attempt to advocate for the changes (or really try to figure out a way they could make sense) I see a couple possibilities. the most optimistic is that these are balanced with faction abilities. Seraphon is a good example of weak warscrolls bolstered by very good faction abilities and stacking buffs. Give Vulkites a ‘ferocious warriors’ faction ability that gives them +2 move out of combat and +1 attack in combat and they look a lot better. the other possibility is that Fyreslayers are suffering from being balanced within casual games. By their nature they have always been a matchup dependent army. They can be incredibly good against certain melee based lists that also aren’t competitive in the meta. unfortunately this also fits with some beginner or casual armies and definitely with beginner play style. A brand new player is far more likely to line their army up on the front line, move forward and charge. Fyreslayers will smack the heck out of a lot of games when it’s newbie casual vs newbie casual. I know that I have a heck of a time against them if I play a Saurus list or Stormcast paladins. I can’t charge Hearthguard because they just fight first and kill me. of course competitive tournament lists have shooting and/or magic and have very little problem killing Fyreslayers. personal let I think (hope) it’s a bit of both. I expect good faction abilities to match the dwarves. But also them to lose fight first. But I think Fyreslayers may suffer by being thematically the best in Melee. It will make them the best against new players and the worst against tournament lists. I do think people are overstating the coherency rules impact. 10 32mm unit with 1” range will virtually always get more than 5 into combat.

I think people are sleeping on how good charging in the enemy combat phase could be for fyreslayers. Picking how to fight them is pretty critical. If an enemy charges a hero or more vulnerable spot this ability lets the fyreslayers charge that nearby block of Hearthguard into the fight and fight first with them. Seems like it would make it very hard to charge a block of dwarves with this guy. of course it’s just one more hero to shoot or kill with magic from range.

I heard one YouTuber (cinderfall gaming?) saying that Silent People would be death worshippers who live under Beast Grave. I could definitely see having a death faction that wasn’t undead, but consisted of worshippers of death. Makes some sense for a big race that probably consumes the dead to worship death.

I think some of the Stormcast "saltiness" is a reflection of poor internal balance, a huge list of units, and an army that has been around a long time so people have their favorite toys. SCE is going to be competitive with longstrike raptors and dragons. But both of those are a LOT of points, and really center a list around them (as do grandhammers). So players who enjoy different lists or different style are a bit frustrated. In particular the foot paladins were shafted. Move after translocation gave us a glimpse of what it might be like to be able to run Retributors that can get into combat. But that was way overpowered when applied to Fulminators. So people are just looking at a giant roster of significantly underpowered units, but any complaints are met with "just take raptors and fulminators, omg, so OP." I think that's kind of true for all the competitive armies right now, besides maybe SBGL and Seraphon a bit. I don't like vanguard raptors because I think it's a feel bad play experience for me to shoot off the key pieces of my opponent's army from 35" away on turn one and two. Fulminators are heavily dependent on big charges and should be relatively easy to screen (compared to other scary hammers in the game like stonehorns or maw krushas). Even this FAQ nerfed the Armor artifact for rerolling saves. That isn't impacting a competitive meta, but just kind of sucks because that's one of the best ways to try to keep a Stardrake alive, a unit that also is not part of the competitive meta. Just saying I think the salty SCE players and the respondents are kind of talking past each other. There will be a couple very competitive ways to play SCE, and a ton of units people love that are left very far behind. But that's just how the game always seems to work.

Scaling based on GW's past performance I feel like this gets an A just for actually being released in December, and with over a week to spare!

I was disappointed at first, but I think most of that is just that expectations for this balance update got out of hand. Wish lists were dreaming up massive warscroll changes, new allegiance abilities, sweeping point changes etc. People are acting like the meta of AoS is out of control and really exaggerating the haves and have nots. The competitive scene appears to be fairly diverse. Lots of different armies are competing for top spots, no army has some winrate in the stratosphere, most top armies seem to have counter armies in the meta. From a competitive angle this balance should be considered within the context of a very healthy meta. In that way this was more of a precision strike. The Amulet of Destiny is a nerf to Gargants and the Maw Krusha. I think it makes sense to wait and see how that plays out before doing more to those. Unleash Hell is a critical nerf to all shooting. Again, we can wait and see how that plays out. It also provides some interesting counter play around positioning and charges. A boost to units with longer range and 6" pile in. Ultimately it's still GodHammer right now though. The big disappointment I am left with is the failure to address some internal balance in ways that would increase a lot of players' fun and enjoyment without impacting the meta. Dropping the points on things like spider riders, saurus, vanguard hunters, etc. isn't going to change the meta, but would boost up some internal balance and inject some life into more casual list making and games. Like several people have said, these changes seem good, just wish there were more,

This was particularly inexplicable to me. The entire Path to Glory section was a major disappointment honestly. It would have been fine, except they seemed to really lean heavy into PtG with this new edition, and talked up how great it was and how they really expanded it. But they haven't really made anything interesting here. Nothing special. Instead of making anything special, they made these super overpowered Stormhosts for no reason? Why do I suddenly get two abilities that are each stronger than a regular Stormhost ability? And I get to choose the ones I want? My current guess is that they drafted up these tables to choose abilities as an initial draft for how Stormhosts could work, but realized they were overpowered and impossible to balance so they scrapped them from the main rules, but rather than tossing them entirely, they thought they were fun and just said 'throw them in PtG.' Personally, we are about to start a PtG campaign with my group and I am going to play with a regular Stormhost.

Thanks for this completely awesome review. I thought '4.5 hours? that is way too long,' and then I watched the entire thing, really well done. You've certainly given a lot to think about there and I'm now excited to see some of your thoughts on lists. I'm glad to see that I wasn't wrong when I read the book and was thinking "wait, are Protectors amazing? They seem amazing . . ." I do think there is a 99% chance that they change translocation with the FAQ. That will really hurt the non Annihilator paladins, and I wonder if you Vexillor is a bit more viable in that world as the rerollable charges might be more important.

It really seems like the 'save stacking problem' is actually a 'God monster heroes problem.' Whenever I go back and forth about why I really love the save staking mechanic, the bad play experiences used as counter points have some giant super monster at the center of the example. If a rule is a problem when applied to half a dozen models then I really feel like the issue is those models and not the rule. A unit of troops can go from a 4+ save to a 3+ ignoring 2 rend. That's a great use of applied resources when that unit is one of several. Like, if a player has 4 units of 5 knights, or 3 different units of 10 troops. The problem seems to be when that level of buffs is placed on 500-800 points of hero monster, rather than to 200-400 points of troops. But man, I do not miss everything dying to a stiff breeze, being completely unable to do anything to protect a unit of knights in combat.

This is exactly my play group's experience. We were all in for the rules and the game and awesome models. Then you have a battletome next to your bed or by your couch and pick it up and flip through it and read a story here or there and then talk about it with your friends and tell them it's awesome. Then you fit some light narrative setting into one of your games and the other player decides to also check out the lore that's in the battletome they already have for the rules and warscrolls. We are all more and more into the lore and now starting an elaborate Path to Glory campaign as a group, but there is no way any of that happens if the lore was completely separate, none of us would have bought any of it.