Neil Arthur Hotep

Recent Soulblight wings have also been closer to anatomically correct bat wings, while this one seems more like a fantasy "devil wing". I would also guess Chaos, but I am secretly hoping for better FEC Crypt Flayers.

That really stands out to me, too. I find the Underworlds card art really weak in comparison with Magic: The Gathering card art, for example. Mosty it's just depictions of the models exactly as they look in a backgroundless void. I also think the sketchy art style of AoS coupled with the insistence on depicting the models with little artistic freedom super unimpactful. It does not make me excited about the art at all, which is a shame. Because older Warhammer art definitely did manage to get me excited. There is this psychological trap that is really easy to fall into, where the rules of your faction change, a lot of the things you previously identified as exciting or strong don't quite work anymore, and you conclude that the new book must be bad because you can't yet identify the new, excting things the army can do. I fell into that trap myself with the Soulblight book, which is actually a really great book in hindsight. Much better Legions of Nagash by any measure. We have also recently seen the same happen with Stormcast, where a lot of people were sure the book had no competitive play when it was released, and look at it now. I think it's a fairly natural reaction, but we should try to resist it. At least until we have the book in our hands.

I personally really think gridless or hybrid play (mostly stick to a grid, but allow off-grid movement where necessary) enhances the game. Particularly with regard to base sizes. The average horse and rider might be a large creature, but really to look natural they should probably be occupying just two squares (or a bit more), and not 4. That kind of thing. It's definitely a lot of fun to have normal-sized minis on the table for your player characters and then slap down Nagash in front of them for the sheer difference in scale. Be aware, though: The largest AoS models are a lot bigger than even gargantuan creatures would be in DnD by default. Nagash is on a 130mm base, for example, so about 5 squares across. You can find a list of base sizes here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/tCNYGKMMqiHkNESG.pdf It's not completely up to date, but most models are on there. The good news is that AoS actually has a lot less rules you need to know compared to DnD, so if you can handle that you should be fine. The reason I say Cities of Sigmar is not super beginner friendly is mostly just because you have a really huge pool of unit choices, and it can be intimidating and exhausting to feel like you have to read and compare all the different warscrolls before you can build a list. It's not as difficult as it appears at first glance once you are familiar with the faction, but you would probably need to have someone talk you through it if it's your first army. That kind of mixed arms force is actually one of the best ways to play the faction. The starter set is sadly not so good: Grave Guard are strong and are a staple unit, but Black Knights are like the one unit to avoid in the whole faction, and the Wight Kings is not really the best hero to go for to start. If you want to get into the faction, I would recommend one of two courses of action: A slow-grow approach where you start with a box of battleline models like Skeletons or Zombies and a hero like the Vampire Lord or Necromancer. From there, add about a box of models per month, take it slow, and enjoy the painting and modelling experience. Try to pick up the Soulblight Gravelords battleforce box that was released last year for Christmas. There should still be a few around in stores. It contains a lot of models: 5 Blood Knights, 40 Zombies, 20 Skeletons and a Vengorian Lord. The discount for the bundle is pretty sizable, but the amount of models might be daunting. Yes: This is a Soulblight list that I built with the aim to let new players get started fairly easily and experiment with different subfactions before deciding what direction they want to go into.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that artillery is fine. A lot of artillery units just fundamentally lack a role. If all other long range shooting units disappeared, I am confident most artillery units would still never see play competitively and would at best be pet units in casual environments. Maybe Sentinels get replaced by the Starshard Ballista, but that's kinda it. The big problem is that artillery units have no identity besides "damage at high range", and that role works in a very binary kind of way: Either the unit is efficient enough to cross the threshold where you can just delete units at range, in which case it's good enough to use, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, spending points on the ability to sprinkle around something like two wounds on average anywhere on the board for 130 points is just not worth it. It's not a niche that advances any kind of game plan. Personally, I think that if we have units in the game without a role, they need to be buffed in some way. Because otherwise, why have them at all? The problem that needs to be solved, though, is how to make artillery units actually feel like artillery. @Kadeton mentioned that sniping heroes is a really weird role for ballistas and catapults to have, and I agree. No artillery should be primarily used to snipe heroes. It just does not align with the fantasy at all that the best way to use the four cannons you brought would be to shoot cannon balls at that lone wizard hiding in the back. But the thing is, that is what the mechanics of AoS reward in the absence of additional rules: Character models have low armour and wounds and are typically only marginally harder to hit. If artillery is only defined by the damage it can do, it will meet the threshold for hero sniping earlier than the threshold for unit killing. I'll put down a perhaps somewhat controversial take, but I think the power level of the new Stormcast Longstrikes is where I'd like to see most artillery in a maxed-out contingent. Longstrikes don't actually deal overwhelming damage, about 10 wounds against a 3+ save. That's managable, especially if there were additional mechanics that would prevent you from sniping heroes with artillery. AoS is a fast-paced game. Currently, you can expect to charge or be charged in turn 2 at the latest, often earlier for dedicated close-combat armies. I really don't think in that environment a ranged alpha strike that deletes a small unit is egregious. There is room for discussion as far as point costs and design: Maybe Longstrikes are a bit too cheap and modular, since you can basically slap them into any list without support. Maybe they shouldn't really have those mortals on hit. But I think the payoff they provide, even without their once-per-game double shot, is about right in terms of balance.

I'll go on to give some actual recommendations in a second, but before I do that let me just mention the possibility of gridless DnD. It basically works like regular, but you measure all the distances from the base edge instead of counting squares. It makes accomodating various base sizes much easier. Plus, you can actually move in diagonals no problem, which is always nice. Now, for your actual question: I have been getting a lot of use out of my Soulblight Gravelords and Cities of Sigmar armies for DnD. Gravelords have all the undead staples you might want, between zombies, skeletons and vampires. Zombies, Skeletons and Grave Guard are on 25mm bases. Vampires are generally character models, so 32mm and above. There are also a lot of nice centerpieces in the army for boss battles. They are also a very solid beginner faction in AoS because nearly all their units are viable. Cities of Sigmar is the most generic "good guys" army in AoS, with a lot of unit variety. You can find dwarves, wood elves, dark elves, high elves and humans in this army and mixing them in your army is actually quite good, too. You don't have to focus on one race. The downsides are that the models are mostly pretty old (especially the humans) and that the army is not super beginner friendly. Overall, I find that my model collection influences my planned DnD adventures at least as much as the other way around. Once you have a Steam Tank in your possession, it just makes you think "How can I use this as a cool set piece in DnD?", and base size really becomes a secondary concern. So personally I would not give it too much weight. This stuff is easy to homebrew.

I took a look at all the different artillery and long-range shooting units out there to see if I could identify any common themes and patterns. I took a look at all units with a 24" shooting attack. First off, the catapults: In these calculations I am assuming the units are generally getting bonuses that are on their warscrolls, to the catapults are assumed to be shooting at 10+ model units. I am also assuming what I consider to be a realistic use case of the unit, but given the premise that the list in question is artilley-heavy (so, max numbers most of the time). For the Ossiarch Crawler, that faction is generally so point starved that you never see more than two crawlers in a list, so that's the number I went with. The catapult units are all reasonably efficient, but you still rarely see them on the table. I think this has a lot to do with the factions they belong to and the general meta at the moment. All the catapults really work best against 10+ model units with 4+ or worse saves, which really are not all that hot at the moment. Still, the damage these units put out if they get to shoot at a good target is pretty OK, especially compared to cannons: Cannons generally have pretty bad attack profiles, to the point where you could literally double their damage output at high range and they would still be worse than other long ranged units. The Ironblaster can actually get the ability to fire two shots at long range from the Underguts subfaction, and it still is not used. It's easy to see why. 10 wounds on average against 4+ saves is not worth the effort and investment. Next up, ballistas: I have included the Helstorm in this, because it's the closest fit. Celestar Ballista and Helstorm Rocket Battery are both pretty bad. They both have the distinction of having a role in the game, though, since at 4 models they can relatively reliably remove 6 wound support heroes from the table at long range. Even though their damage is lower than that of the catapults on average, there might be a stronger case for including them in a list because of this. It is worth noting that the Helstorm used to be a lot better before buff stacking and battalions were removed. It used to get easy access to several +1 to hit buffs as well as a the ability to shoot twice. As always, the Lumineth units are straight up better than the rest The Starshard ballista is actually super solid. It gets a 6+ ward, easy access to +1 to hit on its warscroll, and the ability to give out -1 to hit on attack once per game, per model. The fact that you still never see them used really drives home how good Sentinels are. Next up, let's compare these models with high-range (24"+) shooting units that are not artillery. Disclaimer: I tried to calculate these taking into account the buffs they commonly get, but I might well have missed the odd +1 to hit from a subfaction or something like that. We can see that in terms of raw damage, the best artillery units can actually compete with other long range shooting units. EDIT: I had a 4+ mortal wound ward on in my calculations by accident. The numbers are fixed now. Artillery actually can't even compete against normal shooting at all. Every artillery unit is behind in damage against the best shooting unit of the faction it belongs to. It's worth noting that no artillery was even affected, since none of them deal mortals. However, this is without taking into account all the drawbacks that being artillery has (high drops, doesn't fit battalions, slow, hard to buff, can't capture...). And even then, the best non-artillery long range units come with significant upside: Blood Stalkers get to shoot in the hero phase, Longstrikes and Judicators get to shoot twice once per game, Sentinels get to ignore line of sight. All these units plus Bolt Boys and Jezzails deal mortal wounds on hit, as well, which removes the protection from Look Out, Sir! and cover. Freeguild Crossbows are a bit of an odd one out among these units, but they make up for their crappy attacks by being dirt cheap and super easy to buff (one Freeguild General can give up to three units +1 to hit/wound). Finally, there are the long-range shooting behemoths and single units: I have not calculated the damage for the Frigate and Ironclad, because I think they are less efficient than Gunhauler spam point for point (although they have other abilities that make them worth using). The Steam Tank looks especially bad here, basically as bad as the Ironblaster. But this is not taking into account that the Steam Tank is actually more of a hybrid unit than a long range shooter. It really wants to get in close and not just hang back and shoot. The Gunhauler is actually better for long range shooting, but it also wants to play a different game, really. Still better than the Ironblaster, though. The Bastiladon is the one unit here that can claim to actually primarily play the role of long-range shooting, and it does so quite well. There are even a lot of extra buffs it can take advantage of not included in this calculation, like mortals on wound from the Starpriest and an extra shot for one model from Thunderlizards. There are a few units I did not look at even though they can shoot at long range. The Warp Lightning Cannon and Beastskewer Killbow, to be specific. Both of these units are good, in my opinion, but they serve a different function in so far as you don't really want to spam them. They do very well as one-of units, though, and are quite viable as inclusions in a low-drop army as a result.

I have progressed far enough with my Helstorm project to post a first attempt at the composition I am going for: The plan is to build a big scene of the for rocket batteries in various states of the firing process. I hope to have the third one from the left actually be firing off rockets in the end. Does anybody know a good source of smoke or flame bits?

One idea that I had when thinking about the role of the Rocket Battery was that being bombarded by it would make it harder for the enemy unit to move, simulating being pinned by covering fire. There are a few ways this could look: The unit gets negative modifiers to move or charge in the next phase. The unit can't charge without rolling below their bravery on 2d6. The unit takes a few mortal wounds if it moves next turn (because it abandons cover). That would definitely align with how artillery was used in reality. EDIT: That effect should probably be once per turn in your shooting phase, though. Pinning four enemy units would not be very fun for the opponent.

I think Warplock Jezzails already work like this. Makes sense for Longstrikes as well.

I think the Kruleboyz Beastskewer Killbow is actually a good example of a well-done artillery unit in that way, with its damage scaling up the more wounds the target has. It is actually one of the few artillery units where you feel good about just taking one in a list, and even though it deals good damage against its intended targets, it doesn't have the foot hero sniping potential everyone dislikes so much. In general it could be an option to put most of an artillery units damage potential behind special rules, such as with the Killbow where it only really deals good damage against monsters. The Skaven Plagueclaw Catapult has a rule where it gets double damage and +1 to hit against units with more than 10 models as another good example. I think making one of the ballistas or the Helblaster an anti-flying unit could be another potential niche for a future update.

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?