Neil Arthur Hotep

In that case, I think there is some opportunity here to give the few armies that actually use technologically advanced artillery some more character. A good half of the existing artillery in the game is kinda magical, anyway, though. It used to be that the only thing the keyword did was make it so that you can't benefit from cover, but I just checked again that actually seems to be gone from the newest core rules. So that means being a WARMACHINE now just doesn't give any benefits instead of being a downside in itself. It is now only a downside in comparison to being a MONSTER. That's my point, though, that putting most of the good ranged attacks on artillery units would make the shooting in AoS less endless over time. Shooting units that need to get within 18" or so of the opponent are always at the risk of being charged and are way more managable for melee armies. Long range shooting currently already exists in AoS, but it mostly comes without any of the downsides that being on artillery would bring. I recognize that artillery units have a tendency of being kinda boring to play against, given their role. Nobody wants the game to be dominated by units that just sit in your deployment zone and take opposing units off the board without counter play. But the question is: Since we have artillery in AoS already, should it not at least do something instead of nothing?

After recently building a bunch of Helstorm Rocket Batteries for a Cities of Sigmar artillery detachment, I have been thinking about the state of artillery in Age of Sigmar for a bit. At the moment, I think there are actually no good artillery units in AoS. At least, not any units that are good enough to see play in tournament winning lists. If I had to name the best artillery units in AoS overall, it would probably be the Mortek Crawler and the Warp Lightning Cannon. Both of these units are currently fine, but being held back by the factions they belong to. Maybe add the Beastskewer Killbow to that list. But other than those three, artillery is in a pretty sorry state. Being in the artillery battlefield role is overall detrimental to a unit. The role has, as far as I can tell, only a single upside, which is that it artillery units can go into certain core battalions. Up to three artillery pieces can go into a Grand Battery (which is bad, because it gives you access to buffs that artillery is paricularly ill-suited to take advantage of) and a single one can go into a Battle Regiment. As a trade of for that, artillery faces a bunch of difficulties. The max number of artillery that can go in a list is limited, so you can't spam them beyond a certain point. Artillery can't take up regular unit slots in battalions. And while not part of the battlefield role, almost all artillery units have to deal with additional downsides: They are usually single units that can't be reinforced, making them bad targets for command abilities and driving drops up if you take multiple. They almost exclusively have to deal with minimum range requirements. They have a high chance of being saddled with the WARMACHINE keyword, which is also all downside. They are usually very immobile and can't contribute to the objective game. They usually require a dedicated buff hero to unlock their full potential (Lord-Ordinator, Cogsmith, Warlock Engineer...). So since being in the artillery role is pretty much all downside, artillery units must have really pushed stats to make up for it, right? Actually, most of the time, the opposite is true. Cannons almost always just get a single attack at 4+/2+/-2/d6, which works out to a bit over 1 damage against a 4+ save. Catapults have similar profiles and also have to deal with minimum ranges. Ballistas seem to be the best artillery units overall, but even they don't put out spectacular numbers. And for most artillery units, you pay about 130 or so points for that damage, which even at 24"+ range is unappealing. At the same time, regular units often do long-range shooting much better than artillery does. Stormcast Longstrikes do more damage (and mortals) than their ballista, for fewer points and without the need of a hero. Lumineth Sentinels outclass the Lumineth ballista. Most shooting in Cities outclasses Cities artillery (plus they can also just bring in Longstrikes, which in turn outclass most Cities shooting). It seems like artillery is currently in the position that non-hero monsters were in during 2nd edition: Being artillery is overall worse than not being artillery, but they are costed as if it is an upside. --- So far for the state of artillery in AoS. But what should be done about it? Personally, I would like to see artillery be more viable. I think the fantasy and aesthetics of big cannons and catapults is appealing, and it would be nice if they did more work on the tabletop. But I know what some of you may be thinking right now: Everyone is already sick of long-ranged shooting dominating the game. So should we really buff artillery and bring on even more of that? In my opinion, the artillery role is the perfect place for long-range shooting to live, precisely because of all the downsides that it brings. For one, the limit to the number of artillery units a player can bring that is already in place would put a hard cap on the long-range shooting damage a list could put out if long-range shooting was mostly found on artillery. Artillery units could be balanced around the assumption that for them to put out really threatening damage numbers (the kind of delete-a-unit-per-turn damage that Longstrikes currently do), you would have to bring the max number allowed and dedicate about a third of your army to it. As mentioned above, that would come with the trade off of running a dedicated support hero and driving your drops way up. As well as having about a third of your points buried in your deployment, not contributing directly to the objective game. What do you think? Do you agree with this idea of confining long range shooting mostly to artillery units? It will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle with Longstrikes, Sentinels and Blood Stalkers, but how would you feel about all shooting with more than, let's say, 18" reach being off limits to regular troops as a rule? Would that make the game more enjoyable to you? How would you feel about buffs to artillery in general?

Expect that Fyreslayers book to announce going on preorder right on time for the Spring equinox so that they can be technically correct while still being as late as possible.

Yeah, I did these calculations as well to see how the Helstorm stacks up against other artillery. The thing is, as bad as it is, it's actually not even the worst artillery unit out there. Basically everything with a cannon attack profile (1 attack, 4+/2+/-2/d6) is actually worse. I was really surprised that even the Stormcast ballista is arguably worse, since it is slightly more expensive and has a more expensive buff hero. I also did the math on the Volley Gun to find out if it's worth using over the Rocket Battery. But it is even more outclassed: The Rocket Battery has a niche among Cities (non-coallition) units, which is 36" range. That's at least something, and if you invest in four of them they will take a small unit or buff hero off the board per shooting phase pretty reliably. The Volley Gun, by contrast, basically just gets ~10 shots of 3+/3+/-1/1 at 18" per model on average. You know what else gets 10 of those shots? 10 Freeguild Handgunners. And they are way easier to buff and come with a bunch of additional upside. And they don't blow themselves up 10% of the time. And they are still not really worth taking over Irondrakes! 100% agree. I think there is currently no artillery unit in the game that is actually good good. I think I will make a post about artillery on the main discussion board in a bit, might be interesting to hear what other people have to say.

I just started working on a full artillery detachment of four Helstorm Rocket Batteries and a Cogsmith, and since I did the math, I just thought I'd share it. tl;dr: They are bad. First off, why even get a bunch of Helstorms? For me, it's because they represent a fairly cheap way to de-tune a list and achieve a change of play style. Four Helstorms plus a Cogsmith are 610 points. They are self-contained and you can just slot them into a list without having to worry about further synergies. First, let's look at the positives. The Helstorm Rocket Battery has a 36" ranged attack. It gets +1 to hit on its warscroll if all its shots are aimed at the same unit (so basically always). The Cogsmith gives it reroll 1s to hit by just being next to it. So far so good. The bad part about them is just that they don't deal enough damage for their points. Here's a damage comparison between them and 6 Vanguard Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (480 points): Save Helstorm Longstrikes 2+ 4.67 9 3+ 6.22 10.67 4+ 7.78 12.33 5+ 9.33 14 6+ 9.33 14 - 9.33 14 This is without any buffs except for free ones. The Longstrikes could easily get +1 to hit from All-Out Attack on top of this. I think it's safe to say that the Helstorm is outclassed in the artillery role by what Stormcast have to offer. The Helstorm is one of those units that was never really super good, but has been disproportionatly hurt by the transition to 3rd edition. It used to be able to easily stack more bonuses to hit and there was also the option to make it shoot twice first turn in the Greywater Fastness battalion. Having lost those options, it just doesn't do the necessary damage to make it worth using in serious games. The fact that it is an artillery unit is also a big downside. It means that the Helstorm can't benefit from command abilities efficiently, bringing enough of them to be impactful means driving your drops way up and you need to deal with minimum ranges and low movement on top of that. I hope that this unit gets a complete overhaul in the next edition. If I were in charge, I would probably remove the +1 to hit from and reroll from the warscroll. Instead, I would give it the ability to ignore line of sight or cover (one of the two), since it is supposed to be firing rockets in an arc after all. After that, just adjust the damage to be appropriate. 9 shot at 5+/3+/-2/1 produces reasonable results, with the added benefit of representing that the model fires 9 inaccurate rockets pretty well. I would also give the Cogsmith the ability to issue a command to all artillery units within a certain range, so that it has a niche as a hero that can efficiently buff artillery units. He might need to be over 70 points that way, but I think it would be worthwhile to have a hero that can give +1 to hit to a bunch of Hellstorms or Unleash Hell to a bunch of Helblasters (on the condition that they also get their warscrolls rewritten to be playable, that is).

But who has Sons of Behemat as their primary army? That's the army you get after you already have another army because that way you get a different play style and only have to paint four models. Also, Legion of the First Prince is not real and can't hurt you.

I definitely love the AdMach wings for Ironweld stuff in Cities. I made this guy a while ago, maybe it will give you some inspiration for what to do with yours:

That's what I mean when I say that the more favourable reading is more consistent. Otherwise, skeletons exist in the worst of all worlds, where both battleshock and resurrection use the reading that is worse for the skeleton player. I also agree that AoS is in a strange place as far as battleshock is concerned. Both Nighthaunt and Gravelords suffer pretty badly from it, despite their high bravery. Not that I have anything in principle against skeletons crumbling after a successful enemy attack, but it kinda feels like the Necromancer should be giving them battleshock immunity or something.

Personally, I prefer playing skeleton resurrection like battleshock because I think it's the more overall consistent design. I am also not convinced that the wording "that model" in the rule was put there with any amount of deliberation and getting to the other version of the rule requires a real close reading that hinges on this tiny turn of phrase. However, if I was a TO, I would still have to rule it the other way, since it has the better claim of being RAW.

There has not been an FAQ entry on this as far as I know. There are arguments for both of the possibilities you already mentioned. The case for rolling as many dice as you had casualties, twice: This is how battleshock works. If a skeleton dies, is resurrected and dies again, that's still two dead for the purpose of battleshock. Why should resurrection work differently? The case against: The wording of the rule specifies that if a skeleton died, you roll a die to return that skeleton. You can't return it if it has already been resurrected. it's up to you which you find more persuasive. It won't break the game either way.

I have not used Spoor Trackers myself, but in the combo build that uses it to get a turn 1 charge with 30 Direwolves, it goes on a Vampire Lord. I think the Vampire Lord might also be a good general purpose hero for it, since he can be fast with Amethystine Pinions and you generally want him to stick around a unit of Zombies or Wolves anyway.

As much as I would like smaller games to be better supported, the way AoS is designed right now is definitely with 2000 points in mind. 2000 points being the expected point value influences everything including relative distances, battle plan mechanics and the fundamental damage math. The further you move away from 2000 points the more the game breaks down. I also find that it's hard to implement any blanket restrictions that would make lower point levels play better. It seems to me that the proposed extra rules (restricting reinforcements, repeat warscrolls, certain battlefield roles...) neither affect all problem units nor only problem units. I think it's basically always just trading one kind of jank for another: No repeat warscrolls? Why is bringing two Steam Tanks banned when one each of Fulminators, Concussors, Desolators and Tempestors is fine? No reinforcements? Why do we need to restrict skeletons into uselessness when Annihilators are allowed to run around at basically full power? Only one behemoth? One Morathi does a lot more work than four Cygors. Personally, I like playing at sub 2000 point levels. But that is because I am comfortable with the jank, not because I think it's better for competitive games.

I really like this list. Definitely makes the most out of the Phoenicium battle traits. I think a Gyrocopter or two might make a fun addition to it. They are fast, cheap, flying units with an anti-horde gun and once-per-game mortal wound bomb. Could be useful as independent operators to contest out of the way objectives or as sacrifices to trigger that +1/+1 ability.

What gives you that idea? I understood it more as GW not making the commitment anymore to keep those rotation models in production at all times. So I would assume they will do something like a production run of only some of those models every month/few months and just keep them as a web store exclusive until they sell out. I don't see a reason to assume they would actively destroy models.I Isn't this how things work in 30k and LotR, anyway?

I don't know, the Magic the Gathering people manage to thoroughly play test their stuff without huge leaks all over the place. I'm sure it could be done if GW was willing to invest enough money into it (that is, actually pay tournament players to play test).

In my opinion, even if you are mainly interested competitive play, looking at the raw numbers should only be the first step. When analyzing how good a unit really is in a competitve context, it's much more important to look at how it matches up to common meta threats and whether it can play a role that other units in your army can't play. If a unit has good match ups or a valuable niche, then it can definitely worth taking even if it is inefficient by the numbers. And that's not even getting into more casual play where janky units that do interesting things definitely have a place. There, the question is not necessarily just "Is this optimal?" but " How strongly am I handicapping myself by doing this?". In my opinion, 255 points for a unit of 30 skeletons which may or may not tarpit something for the whole game is definitely a casually viable gamble.

Here are a few guys I have kitbashed for use in DnD: I made these guys out of spare Dreadblade Harrow, Black Knight and Mortis Engine parts. Black knights are a nice source of skeleton bits because they are dual assembly. If you build Hexwraiths from them, you get a bunch of nice extra skeleton upper bodies. Everything except legs, basically. The Mortis Engine kit comes with three banshees, three vampire ladies and a necromancer. You will also have a spare shrine or basin depending on how you build it, and probably some other deathy decorations. EDIT: Forgot to say: While base size can be a bit of an inconvenience for DnD, there is always the option to play gridless and just measure distances like you would in Warhammer. That even has some advantages, such as making movement at weird angles easier.

Given that Whitefang's teaser implied Skaven heavily and Sylvaneth weakly, if this is independent confirmation of Sylvaneth, I think we can treat Skaven as basically confirmed, as well.

I agree with this. I'd like to add, though, that I think skeletons have exactly two ways in which they can go in a list. You can take them as a few units of 10 to satisfy battleline as cheaply as possible (in which case, I think 20 zombies are better if you can afford them), or you can take them in a block of 30 with some support to make them perform. You probably don't want more than one block of 30 either: Having one unit that is slow and does no damage but can hold an objective well is good, but having a lot of them probably won't work. It helps that the Necromancer and Corpse Cart are only minimal taxes. They are both cheap enough and have uses outside supporting the skeleton block. So if things go bad and you lose all your skeletons early, they are not useless. They can still go support all your other units, especially SUMMONABLE units, quite effectively.

I think it's fair to say that skeletons are not super good right now. Zombies are probably generally better. The question is whether skeletons have a role play at all. Even recognizing that they are not a super strong unit, I think they are the closest thing in the Soulblight battletome to an anvil that is also good at capturing. So if you want a unit that can stand on a point and hold it even after taking a hit, skeletons are probably the only game in town. The question is whether you feel like filling that niche with a kinda janky unit is worth it, or whether it would be better to play around in a different way. When thinking about units, I like to think about them in terms of both their strength (very strong, strong, OK, weak) and how likely it is that they will get to apply that strength (generally useful or situationally useful). A unit of zombies is probably generally strong. There are a lot of ways to use them and in any given game you will probably find a way to bring their strengths to bear. Skeletons are more like a situationally strong choice. If your opponent has no good way to fight them, they can be a menace. But setting up that situation is not super easy and not 100% under your control.

I'd definitely hope that GW is foreward looking enough not to release a tome celestial and then a battletome for the same army just a few months later. But the recent DoK battletome announcement does not exactly inspire hope that they'd be above stunts like that. In any case, here's the current state of battletomes in one picture: Everything is in order of battletome age, except the armies with tome celestials, who are in order of that instead. Not really sure what conclusions to draw here, but right now Gitz, FEC and Khorne look like pretty strong candidates for new books in autumn.

I think we are now at a point where we need to consider how long of a gap there is likely to be between a White Dwarf Tome Celestial and a battletome update. Personally, I think a new tome a year or so after a WD update does not seem out of the question. An Ossiarch update next winter would not necessarily surprise me, although with their WD update and the amount of rumour engines that could possibly be FEC, they seem like a stronger candidate to me.

The Handgunners are really the gift that keeps on giving in terms of rules discussion. For what it's worth, I don't think them having the ability to Unleash Hell out of phase with their special rule would be game breaking. It would probably not even be enough to make you take them over Crossbowmen. In general I don't think the reasoning that they should get to Unleash Hell on any charge, regardless of phase, is bad. But then again, I also thought they Handgunners should be able to Unleash Hell multiple times per phase, and GW eventually shut that down. It's hard to determine intent in this case, and the rules as written are ambiguous. I would not have a problem allowing the more powerful version of the rule for friendly games, myself. But you probably should not assume that it's uncontroversial.

There have been two to three big model waves per year for AoS alone since the start of second edition fairly consistently. If Skaven come out in summer and there is no big AoS release until then, it's totally possible that the Skaven release could be pretty sizable. Even if it's not, I think there is a chance of at least new Eshin models or something like that.

Oh, that's a bit unexpected. But nice! I would like to live in a world where we get small FAQ updates in a timely manner without having to wait until there is enough for a big drop. With Nighthaunt for example, they could totally have done nothing until the next battletome comes out, so I appreciate the quick bug fixes. In this case, it seems like it's mostly clarification of how Nagash works in Nighthaunt. It has been clarified that he does not benefit from the ability of Hexwraiths to bodyguard your general in Emerald Host, which is what most people expected to happen. He still acts as a nexus for other Nighthaunt allegiance abilities, though (broadcasts that 6+ ward bubble), even though he does not benefit from them. Other than that, the only thing that happend is that the Nurgle portion of Wrath of the Everchosen has been invalidated. That stuff has been integrated into the newest Battletome, so that makes sense.