Neil Arthur Hotep

I'd love that, but I expect they will put out another wave of Freeguild designs first. Because realistically, there is probably a stockpile of new designs that are already done but just didn't make the cut for this wave of models. I hope they figure out a good way to deal with elves and dwarves. They need to get a re-imagining in the same vein as the Freeguild if they are to stay part of the book long-term. But how would that even work from a release perspective without giving Cities three battletomes next edition? I don't think we can realistically wait around another 6 years until they finally update Dispossessed. I don't really know what will happen. Maybe we will actually see new Grungni and Malerion factions in the near future. That could at least be an excuse to replace the old WHFB models with a smaller contingent of dedicated Cities elves and dwarves (maybe more integrated into the Freeguild?).

Absolutely agreed and I have been tooting the same horn in this thread multiple times. I am working under the assumption that this is a mistake and will be errata'd. Otherwise, you are right, this is a significant downside.

I like a unit of Ironbreakers with a supporting hero. 3+, 4+ save is a proper anvil. Hammerers are good, too, especially since the Warden King can pull them out of strikes last from shield wall into regular combat by activation chaining.

I personally think that Irondrakes have other problems than their damage output. With their current shooting stats and access to the Shieldwall order, I think they can in theory play a role in Cities. However, they have a certain developer-intended downside that the rules writers were very sure to really enforce this time around: They are supposed to have to move into position and stay still before they get access to their full damage output. Their short 15" range and new inability to get 2 attacks after set up clearly express this, in my mind. They also lost all their previous synergies (extra rend, +1 to wound from Longbeards). It seems to me that the ceiling for Irondrake is pretty clear: You get that pretty solid 2 attacks, 3+/3+ shooting profile with maybe a +1 to hit from the Runelord. That's not bad. They Unleash Hell a lot better than fusiliers and their access to the Shieldwall order makes them receive a charge better, as well. This unit could, in theory, be worth using, even with the downside that you can only expect them to do their full shooting damage from turn 2 onward. But the unit/power pair is not worth using at 160 points for 10 Irondrakes and 100 points for the Runelord. They will have to go down significantly to be worth considering. Not to 100 points or whatever (they are not Darkshards), but they definitely need to be cheaper than Fusiliers to be worth considering. And even then, I think with their movement restriction they won't be used in tournament lists.

My order says it will probably be delivered on Monday. Sad, because I will coincidentally be in the UK that day on a business trip. There is some sort of irony in me not getting my box because I am in the homeland of warhammer at the time, but I suspect it's the Alanis Morisette version of irony.

I don't know how much of this is still regarded to be rumour, but I thought the working theory was that all the 1st edition armies like KO, FEC, Idoneth, Fyreslayers and Ironjawz were released at a time when the GW strategy was still to have a bunch of tiny micro-factions. And then that strategy changed with 2nd edition. But since GW's design process takes 2-3 years from concept to finished product, we are only now seeing these factions actually get expanded. I would say the evidence that this is happening is pretty good: Ironjawz and FEC seem to be getting pretty substantial amounts of models now, and I would suspect that the other micro-factions won't be too far behind.

Interesting. I guess that means we can proxy old Pistoliers as Cavaliers, as well. They have the same base size.

I was recently looking at Irondrakes again as a second shooting unit (because I think the second Fusilier unit is a lot worse than the first), but it seems to me that Irondrakes just are not cutting currently. Their short range and the non-movement requirement kind of make them too hard to use for their points/their damage. If they get a bit cheaper, though, I think I might do 20 of those dudes and a Runelord for the to-hit buff. What I like about them is that they are completely self-contained pair that does not need any command abilities or a specific city choice to do its job. Right now, though, it is insanity that 20 Irondrakes and a Runelord is 30 points more expensive than 20 Fusiliers and an Alchemite.

You're not wrong. But I was just calculating units I remembered at the moment/am reasonably familiar with how they work. I make no claims of completeness Thunderers are the prime shooting unit in KO, right? I have honestly never looked at the KO book in enough depths to know what their synergies are, though.

Same here. I was worried there was a problem with my order, because I had to update my shipping adress through GW customer support. Seems shipping to continental europe is just still pretty slow. I remember it taking about a week when I ordered before (Cursed City). I'm sadly too busy with work to get games in right now, but I am trying to organize a 1000-1250 or so point game with a list consisting of mainly Steam Tanks. Probably of limited interest to most players, but I am excited to put the new Steam Tank warscroll through its paces. I guess you could run the Ven Densts in 1000 point games for those double ordies. I think orders will probably frequently be fairly predictable/flowchart, actually. Turn 1, mostly Advance until everything is in position. Does the opponent have shooting? Then potentially Counter-Fire. If not, mostly suppressive fire on your ranged units. Counter charge on fast/flying stuff, except for that big first charge. For elf and dwarf units, it also seems fairly clear what type of unit gets what order most of the time.

As a compromise, give him a round base only but reimagine him as a Primaris Lieutenant. That way, everyone is equally unhappy!

Real talk, though: I think the 40th anniversary would be a great time for a new White Dwarf model, especially since the return of Grombrindal has been set up in Broken Realms and (so far) not been paid off.

AoS because round bases look cooler.

I missed the Blissbard Seeker/Blissbarb Archer interaction. I have not really been following tournaments super closely for a year or so. Here are the numbers for 20 Archers and 5 Seekers vs. 30 Fusiliers and an Alchemite: Save Blissbarb Archers plus Seekers (530 pts) Fusiliers plus Alchemite (540 pts) 2+ 13.17 19.52 3+ 17.85 24.11 4+ 22.54 28.7 5+ 27.22 33.3 6+ 28.11 37.89 - 28.11 37.89 Details: I'll also explain my decision not to normalize these numbers to damage per 100 points or points per 1 damage, and did not include numbers for unbuffed units of 10 or theoretical maximum buffs (although I already explained the reasoning a few times in this thread). Basically, with these numbers, I wanted to compare a few different shooting units in ways that they are actually used. In the original post, I used a once reinforced unit with all the buffs they would typically get if they are actually run in a list. I do this because it is immediately meaningful information: If you run this unit and add reasonable buffs like a support hero, a command and/or a spell, how do they compare to other units that are, in fact, being used successfully in tournaments. I don't normalize for 100 points because usually running 100 points of models is just not actual option. As an example, Nagash casts 8 spells at +3 for 900 points. That's 1 spell per 112,5 points. But you can't actually run 1/8 of Nagash, so this info is less immediately useful than the original data of 8 casts for 900. Similarly, I don't find the damage numbers of 10 unbuffed Fusiliers very useful. This is not how the unit would actually be used in lists. Cities is a synergy army and most units are bad if you look at their warscrolls only, but get significantly uplifted by orders, commands and hero abilities. The fact that they do 5 points of rend -1 damage base-line only tells you that they are not worth including at min size and unbuffed. They don't have a role if you run them that way. But they do have a role if you invest into their buffs. And at that point, it really does not matter how bad the base-line is. @Thugmullet made that point in his post, as well. For Fusiliers, 20 or 30 of them with an Alchemite really seems like the minimum needed to make them go. I would say, in most lists, Master of Ballistics is also a reasonable investment. People are over-valuing command traits in general, imo, because you only get one. Just spend it on making your big ranged threat do 30% more damage, seems fine to me. Of course, you can just decide that running Fusiliers locks in your list too much. @Myrdin talks about this pretty reasonably, in my opinion. 30 Fusiliers probably do lock you into running a Master of Ballistics Alchemite in a cast bonus city. If you want to run a Misthavn cavalry rush instead, Fusiliers could be a non-starter for you because hard-casting the Alchemite spell is just not consistent enough. Or maybe you want the Alchemite mortals on a different unit, because he can buff anything human, after all. Of course, the decision gets even more complicated if you factor in core battalions and battle tactics. So it's not like the damage numbers alone determine what you should be running.

I get the desire, and you can always try, of course. But personally, I think you lose more meaningful information than you gain by doing this. I find "This combo costs 390 points and requires a command point and your command trait" more informative than "this combo costs 590 points". Because you can't actually exchange list building points for extra comand points or command traits and you also don't actually spend 590 points from your 590 point budget on the combo.

You could definitely be right, full shooting castles have been successful in the past. For example, for Lumineth, for a while 40-60 Sentinels with Teclis was one of the best lists. However, AoS is still a game about going out and doing stuff. Having a large amount of your points stuck in/near your deployment zone for the majority of the game goes against what the basic rules/battle plans want you to do. Running 60 Fusiliers is just barely possible. You can fit them into the Alchemite's bubble for his spell. But beyond that, two units of 30 become much less efficient than one unit of 30. One of the blocks will definitely miss out on +1 to wound, because that is tied to your general issuing the command. One of them will likely miss out on All-Out Attack completely, because getting uses of the command would mean running Greywater, but that competes against running a city with a casting bonus. You would also need to run 2x10 Steelhelms to make the units battleline in order to reinforce them. At that point, you are 1190 points down and have not even started to include units that can play the objective game. Or other really valuable stuff like the Command Corps or Zenestra. In my opinion, Cities has better options than to try to double down on shooting. You can have a good, powerful shooting unit and still play in other phases, which is generally preferable if you are going for consistent tournament results. You can split shots. One unit can shoot at as many targets as it can see/has in range. However, Blackpowder Bombardment becomes a lot easier to do if you run other units with incidental shooting attacks alongside your Fusiliers. Steam Tanks can definitely shoot a screen off the table on their own, for example.

For the above, I assumed a unit of 20 Fusiliers (300 points). Without a hero, you can put them at +1 to hit by self-buffing. With a hero, you can potentially get them to +1/+1 with the Master of Ballistics command trait for a command point. That hero can be an Alchemite (90 points), who can cast his mortal wound spell about 70% of the time. About 80% in Settler's Gain. About 95% in Hallowheart. The Alchemite can also give them an order, of which three are applicable: Advance, Counter-Fire and Suppressive Fire. The unit can potentially help you get two battle tactics. If you want to double-reinforce instead, you will need at least one unit of Steelhelms (100 points) to make them battleline. I don't think it's possible to reduce stuff like hero slots, reinforcement points, command traits and subfaction choices to a point number. Even the days where you could buy an extra command point for 50 points are long past by now. You just kinda need to weigh the trade offs. A unit of Fusiliers does lock you in to a certain extent during list building. Depending on what else you want to do in your list, the reasons for or against them change. However, a unit of 30 Fusiliers with full support is probably part of the best human-centered lists, and I think those lists are better than elf or dwarf centered ones, from a purely competitive point of view. EDIT: I also don't 100% believe that damage per point is the best metric. What matters is whether or not you can reliably take on common threats. It might well be worth over-paying on a point-by-point basis for that.

Feels all rumour engines recently have been called FEC, but it really seems like an FEC thing. But of course, a skeleton on a spike could go in a lot of faction. In 40k, too.

For units with buff pieces the normalized values also get better if you run them double reinforced. Which in a competitive context is probably the right play in the case of Fusiliers. Dedicating 540 points to a shooting unit is about right for competitive AoS. 640 if you include the points for the unit of Steelhelms that is required to make Fusiliers battleline (although that cost is debateable because having a few cheap screens is independently valuable). Still leaves you with under a third of your points invested into pure shooting, which I think has historically been the sweet spot.

Yeah, I added in +1 to wound from the command trait. As I said above, I think it's a fair investment to use a command trait and earmark one command point for them. You can also use a different command trait and just give them +1 to hit from All-Out Attack. The damage is still reasonable for their points if you do. Not running any Fusiliers is also defensible, though, if you really want to free up your command ability and Alchemite spell. Literally any other human unit can also make good use of it, after all. Still, the ability to just put ~30 wounds at 24" range from 30 fusiliers with the spell likely just beats out all other options in a competitive environment. Personally, I find that at least among the human command traits, nothing obviously competes with master of ballistics. Like I said above, Grizzled Veteran is good if you want to make a Griffon beatstick and reroll charges is always good, but the use case in which it is better than just using the command ability is fairly specific (several separate units around the general units that all want to charge). Of the elf and dwarf traits, only Unparalleled Duelist for a Dreadlord and Secretive Warlock for a Sorceress jump out to me. And the value of the latter is kind of dubious, since you can get a sorceress to +3 to cast even without it pretty easily.

I will go with 20 to start as well. Partially because I don't want to make things awful for my opponents, partially because I am not excited about batch painting 30 guys, but mainly because I don't trust the combo to stay intact in its current form through the next FAQ.

They are high because they currently do mortals in addition, while most other shooting units do mortals "and the attack sequence ends". It may not seem like much, but at 3+/3+, the damage is significant. It accounts for about half the damage at a 2+ save. Save Fusiliers Fusiliers +1/+1 Fusiliers with mortals Fusiliers with everything 2+ 3.5 6.22 9.33 13.22 3+ 5.25 9.33 10.5 16.33 4+ 7 12.44 11.67 19.44 5+ 8.75 15.56 12.83 22.56 6+ 10.5 18.67 14 25.67 - 10.5 18.67 14 25.67 Of course, there is more nuance to the whole thing. I would not want to claim that Fusiliers are clearly the best shooing unit in the game. As I said before, others have their own strengths. A unit I forgot in my last post were the Daughters of Khaine bow snakes. They basically do Longstrike damage. They also get to double shoot, but need a 700 point Morathi to issue them a command to do it.

Damage calculations of Fusiliers vs. various boogeyman shooting units I could remember off the top of my head: Save Fusiliers with Alchemite (390 pts) Blissbarb Archers (320 pts) Lumineth Sentinels (320 pts) Vanguard Raptors with Longstrike (460 pts) Man-skewer Boltboyz with Swampcalla (340 pts) 2+ 13.22 7.59 8.44 10.67 6.26 3+ 16.33 11.39 9.5 12.89 7.22 4+ 19.44 15.19 10.56 15.11 8.19 5+ 22.56 18.98 11.61 17.33 9.15 6+ 25.67 22.78 12.67 17.33 10.11 - 25.67 22.78 12.67 17.33 10.11 Details: Fusiliers are absolutely in the top tier of shooting units. Other units have advantages over them in some categories: For example, Blissbarbs are more mobile and are more spammable and Vanguard Raptors get to shoot twice once per game. But Fusiliers are still excellent. Their Fortified Position is actually a real upside, too: Combined with the counter-fire order, it means they can't easily be shot off the table by other shooting units, which is generally the easiest way to combat shooting. EDIT: I think the opportunity cost for the Master of Ballistics command trait is fairly low. The other human command traits only really shine in pretty specific builds. Grizzled Veteran can go on a Marshall on Griffon and very little else. Reroll charges is good, but you can just use command points for it. Becoming a priest and getting a +1 to wound prayer does not seem as good as Master of Ballistics in most situations. The most important buff for Fusiliers is the Alchemite spell. If you have that, you can forego Master of Ballistics and still do very good damage. You don't have to give up your command trait to get good Fusilier shooting if you don't want to.