pnkdth

"Armed with ensorcelled blades and clad in ancient relic armour, the Grave Guard are the elite infantry of tomb and barrow, skeletal champions who march and slay in perfect formation. Each killing strike from their cursed swords severs the chord between soul and flesh, dropping the lifeless bodies of their victims to the floor." So yes!

Yeah, I would agree that there is a certain lack of synergy in that X adds to Y. However, the way modifiers, abilities + spells (Glutos, Shardspeaker, Syll'esske, etc), and CAs (Syll'esske, Keeper, LoPain, etc) all serve in making our units more effective/survive longer to generate more DPs. That's our "synergy" and how the army is put together. I'm not particularly overjoyed over the reliance on DPs and summoning but it is a powerful tool.

And here I'm sitting thinking they got a similar reaction and have quite a lot of squishy characters in the same range our Lord of Pain. Grave Guard, for instance, is very similar to Painbringers but has a worse save (unless you got shields), no re-rolls to save and is slow. Both HoS and SBGL have gotten the same treatment with their magic + have buff pieces like Glutos. I also think there's a good asymmetrical balance between Blood Knights and Slickblades. The former has more armour whereas the latter has more wounds and speed (reliable charge). They have more interesting characters though and it remains how useful they'll be (since there were little in the way more making them more durable). Like someone posted in the SBGL thread, "if you want all the cool things and combos I guess you're playing 5k games as standard?" Quite a few echo sentiments similar the HoS thread, i.e. it feeling like it is lacking something. Much like HoS, it seems to land a solid mid tier army with some teeth for competitive play. Since both armies are supposedly been created with 3rd in mind I think we can expect certain things to work well with it. My first thought is that the more squish characters will be easier to hide and protect while magic and shooting takes a hit. Yeah, I like them. They have a very solution-oriented mindset and don't fall into doomscrolling and negativity. I don't even think our book is bad, just a bit over-costed in places. Maybe I'm simply too optimistic? I'm also relieved my favourite armies aren't S-tier monsters. Good for me, good for the game, because this game REALLY doesn't need another battletome like Seraphon.

Wasn't there a play-tester (was it facehammer or THW?) who said he couldn't reveal anything other than the twins have some great rules?

All I want is that lovely time window of excitement and salt. Some see opportunity while other decry the end of the world. Then, in a few months the 2nd edition will be a distant memory. I imagine we'll be squabbling over the next big thing in the meta or whatever else. Much of what I want in 3rd has already been addressed, e.g. a more interesting priority roll-off or mechanic. Charge reactions + more CPs + a possible way to manipulate objects. Sounds good. Yup, I actually like the priority rules cause it stops the game from being mechanical and forces you to play with uncertainty. Battalions changed to pave way for more units and sub-factions seeing play. Bye-bye, no-brainer battalions. I don't know if you read my post too quickly but if you cannot shoot/charge after retreating (as is true with how retreating normally works) you cannot just fall back and shoot. If it also ends up working like in the past and you get caught means getting the whole unit wiped then falling back is a last resort, not a get out jail free card. But we'll see soon enough!

Unless it follows the rules that we have for retreating, e.g. you cannot shoot or charge after retreating. Assuming the leaks are correct a single D6 is very swingy and if it functions like in the past if the unit is caught it is wiped out. Suddenly that retreat move is both very risky and limits them in the following turn. This is without taking into consideration other eventual limitations on shooting.

Could it be a novel about the newborn due the lack of a mention on Monday? Heard it mentioned there might be some model reveals for characters represented in different books and stories. Wouldn't really be a reveal as such, but it seems they're mixing known and unknowns in these reveals this week. Here's to hopes, hype, and disappointment!

The thing which is working against us is the army is functional. It could be better, yes, but we're still fairly comfy as a strong mid tier army. As a result of that, we're probably not a priority since GW rarely act swiftly unless the army in question is breaking the game in a very obvious way. It so good that they're getting the results though since constructive feedback helps in the long run. I'm also curious about what kind of rules comes with BR:Kragnos and the twins. In particular, what happens with the WotE sub-factions if there are updated versions (like how they updated Belakor's legion). Then there's the 3rd edition which might just turn the entire meta upside down.

It is fairly straightforwards, you look at your local meta and design an army which goes against what those armies are used to dealing with. It does require a certain degree of list tailoring but since it won't be against a specific army or specific battle you're not becoming 'that guy.' You're adapting the meta rather than trying to make one particular player's experience worse. The difficult part of this is that some army lists are so incredibly oppressive (shooty/magic meta) all you really can do is move up and hope you win priority. However, an anti-meta list would approach this with "how do I make the decisions of what to shoot more difficult?" Is it possible for you to create a list where everything is a bad choice since no matter what gets shot up you still have something to answer with/trade with? It doesn't have to be MSU but you might want to design a list around redundancy. Best way to do it would be start brainstorming with the rest of the players of your group + experienced players online who use your faction. You guys know the local meta best, after all. It is always good to remember that the Seraphon player also have put a lot of time/money into their army. Both of which are good reasons for why that player gets defensive about the list he's using. Getting called out is not fun either... Which is what makes situations like this so delicate.

I agree, it shouldn't be the go-to excuse and people should be made aware that every list from X army won't be as competitive or optimised as those winning tournaments. Worse still if it spreads to the tabletops, cause that's going to create a horrible gaming environment. Similarly, we should be careful when dropping the 'git gud' bomb on new players. Some armies definitely require a lot more focus and game knowledge than others, even against fairly middle of the road tier armies. Acting as if everything is fine can be just as toxic to the game as always blaming X or Y army for a loss. Expectations is, IMO, the key bit that's missing. If you end up in a meta-chasing group of players then there are armies which will struggle. If that player is told you can do well with any army and just 'git gud' that player could end up feeling like it is pointless. If that player is told that "yeah, that's a pretty advanced army, you should expect to lose a lot before you get the hang of it", the player will enter games with more realistic expectations. Stuff like this is inevitable, i.e. that some armies will be more or less straightforward than others. Perfect balance would be so very boring since the game would either be incredibly rigid in what you can bring or symmetrical in balance like chess. Neither sounds appealing to me. In other words, gittin' gud is a part of it is also true that some armies can stack their army list with incredibly point efficient units giving them an advantage of their opponent. At the other end, some armies have a very small selection of good choices much of their battletome is a trap (the back of forth on BoK in this thread is a good example of that). Indeed, some of the factions rely on creating synergies through souping/allying in units to make their army work properly. Then there's the side of me who enjoy playing the underdogs and anti-meta lists... Plus, there's always going to be one or two armies which the players manage to break. Too many moving parts really and that is kind of the charm. If we communicate that aspect, that the meta comes and goes, instead of being defensive about it I think people would be more accepting and willing to 'git gud.'

Yeah, the way he talked about bloodlines was "she is the main boss of one of the bloodlines..." immediately caught my attention. Chaos got stuff like hosts, sub-hosts, so who know what it could mean for Soulblight.

Theory: Beasts of Chaos doesn't really fit with S2D or chaos in terms of allegiance anymore. They are not truly dedicated to a single god. The true children of chaos are above all that, the natural state of the world is pure undivided chaos. As Kragnos breaks free, so does BoC, and we'll see a new narrative between BoC (or Beast of Destruction) versus the new beefed up Alarielle and her Sylvaneth (as a new combined Sylvanth/Kurnoth tome). I know, I'm probably teetering on delusional optimism here but just a thought.

Looking at some old (ancient) WDs and rulebooks there are quite a few scenarios which has the two players use differently sized armies, loads of variants of deployment, objectives and win states. I like this format since they based it on a historical battle and tells you who fought but you're not restricted to using those armies and could easily use the rules for your own story or pick-up battle. One battleplan had the attacker going it to kill as much as possible as soon as possible (the earlier turns you got kill points the more they earned you) while the defender protected a communications beacon to hold out as long as possible. The attacker also had double the force and the outcome was always going to lead to the defender being wiped out. In a way, I think 40k with its pri/sec objectives can achieve this or at least be a start for more variations in how we approach battles. If they are done well, feels fair, I think they'll be welcomed by most players.

@Carnith If you haven't already seen this there's a list specifically focusing on Nobles of Excess and Twinsouls/painbringers. He raises some interesting points on blissbarb archers and uses them in both of the lists they're analysing.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. If the shardspeaker and LoP were a bit cheaper it wouldn't hurt so much that they're expendable. Though fragile support characters seem to be an issue with the meta at large. I'm both hoping and expecting 3rd edition to add more protection for fragile and non-monster characters. Then as we have a few more units we'll able to bring in more reinforcements with DPs.

Glutos + Shardspeaker + Lord of Pain with Twinsouls (or any combat mortal unit). Lots of useful auras, command abilities, and spells. Syll'esske command ability works wonders to negate any issues with battleshock for our elite mortal units. Nobles of Excess (re-rolling to wounds on charge) is interesting for Godseekers (+1 to charge) or Lurid Haze (for an alpha strike). Seeker Cavalcade is an obvious mention. I'm quite skeptical of the 3rd edition rumours (gets a bit too close to what someone's wish list might look like) so I'm including battalions. We have the option (for now) to double-dip with using double-hosts for some really useful stuff. I wouldn't be taken aback if we see an updated version in the upcoming BR, just how we saw with Belakor's legion. If we don't, FAQ still says we can keep using them. Lurid Haze command ability is just tasty. + all the other stuff which works for mortal/daemon alike. I can understand that people say the army is over-costed in places but there are plenty synergies in the book. Could you explain what you mean with non-synergetic? The issue I see is just the cost of the units makes them harder to utilise, if we see some drops next points adjustment or if 3rd/upcoming BR puts them into perspective we'll be in a good place. Then there's the utility of DPs and summoning to play around with. It be cool if we could lean more heavily into the mortal side of things but then HoS would dip their toes into Slaves to Darkness territory too much, I think. TL;DR: I think there are synergies aplenty and all that's really needed is some point adjustments to allow us to play around with them more. Hope I'm not coming off as jumping at your throat, I just think the doom and gloom surrounding the book is a bit exaggerated.

In the old WHFB army books you could turns your vampire into a monstrous abomination or even ethereal. In the general description they also say the vampire doesn't really have a defined formed at all. Described as when under stress or in the thick of combat they might drop their mask completely, i.e. it takes a conscious effort for the vampire to remain looking human. Same is true when having consumed a great deal or warpstone or exposed themselves to massive amounts of death magic. Layla, the silver princess, is an example of a vampire who required constant scented roses and such to hide her reeking smell and always wore a mask (a silver mask). With this in mind I see them going all in on the "one-winged" vampire model to give us a true monster, the true face of the vampire laid bare. As for hordes, bonuses and such might just be linked with the vampires themselves or any number of other reasons. As for units, I doubt they'll take away and not add anything. Seems out of character with the recent books (even though the HoS was kind of barebones it still had more units than before).

'ello there! I'd like some feedback on a list I've been cooking up. Slaves to Darkness Daemon Prince - General, Axe, Mark of Khorne - Command Trait: Ruinous Aura, Artefact: Armour of the Pact The Masque The Blue Scribes (fold reality) 20 x Daemonettes 10 x Plaguebearers 10 x Plaguebearers 3 x Beasts of Nurgle 6 x Fiends 6 x Flamers of Tzeentch 1 x Exalted Flamers of Tzeentch The general idea is a refused flank deployment (alternatively a spearhead). Using the Daemon Prince to lends to aura of 5+ shrug to the fiends + CP ability to really let the faster elements of the list have an even stronger board control. Baby heroes stay out of sight for as much as they can (summoners for board control) and Blue Scribe will cast throw mystic shield and try to bring back flamers if possible with fold reality. Daemonettes zoom up the board and the PBs serve as either screens or chilling at the back. The only caveat is I'm not very fond of huge models. Otherwise this army is going to be an outlet for the pure chaos that's in my mind and I will happily accept any feedback and suggestions. It is likely to shift and change over time so more is more. Cheers!

1. There seem to be one thing everyone agrees on and that is improve/adjust the outliers at the top/bottom. 2. Most of us is aware of this, I certainly do not expect this game to perfectly balanced. The major upset comes from when there are three different battletomes released after each other and even between them it looks like whoever made them had a internal disagreement on both design philosophy and direction. 3. Ultimately GW will do what they will. However, when see actual data that 1) the VAST majority of players are not super skilled tournament players 2) the performance of each player is dependent of a set of lists 3) only the absolute best of the best players can play with little regard to which army they play. Furthermore, with this data we can also see which of the lists which are having an impact on the game + most friendly games won't be between super skilled players so the army WILL matter. True, we do not have all the data, and even when we get more of it there will always be people asking for more. What I don't get is when people act as if the tournament data we have is unclear or impenetrable when we can discern very clear trends. Will acting on the data we have make perfect decisions? Nope, but we can strive to make the experience for all players better. As with your 2nd point, it isn't about perfection but striving to revise the armies so people don't feel left out. Telling them to "just git gud" for example won't work since that seem to be unrealistic for all but the best players in the whole of AoS. But yeah, I do not think it is worth the time to create a perfectly balanced AoS. We'd probably get bored and walk away before it would be finished. However, user data and player's experiences are useful for game designers, however flawed they may be. Where it gets difficult is the direction of the game and for the most part I'd just like to see priority and objectives be more engaging for both players + more attention to "forgotten" armies. You're free to your opinion. You'll probably find that the reason some might give you "hate" is because you call them delusional for enjoying what they enjoy. I'd call this game more than just serviceable though I agree power creep has picked up and some armies are clearly in a bad spot. 3rd edition is not far off either so we'll see what's what.

I agree, win % can be very misleading. However, when we factor in tournaments placings and popularity we can make educated guesses and find trends. For example, it is unlikely that all great players suddenly decide to pick Seraphon or that so many of Seraphon player just got good overnight. I think most people are aware that there are certain lists and sub-factions which drive the meta and that's why it gets simplified into talking about each faction (see point in reply to Mutton). I think it is a bit of a fallacy to say that we don't have any meaningful data. Even if we don't have everything down to a tee we can make very educated guesses since normal rules of probability are not suspended. We can make assumptions with the knowledge they're not perfect but the overall trends are there. For example, if we see Y army win way more than other and the majority of the wins are made using X sub-faction we can deduce a high probability the high number of top placings are with Y army using X sub-faction. I am also dead certain playtesters and TO are acutely aware of the goings on in their tournaments. What I'm hoping/wish for is simply that they do their point adjustments more often (even twice a year would be good enough) so even if all armies can win it makes the experience more enjoyable for the players whose armies haven't seen a new update of BT in awhile. The community has never been closer, more informed, had access to as much data as it has now. Going from 40k to AoS was incredibly easy and I had a wealth of knowledge on both tournament and casual lists. Tons of videos online, talks with tournament winners, army list reviews, battle reports, forums, and discord chats gave me a solid idea how to craft a tournament list and what to look out for. Point is, word spreads fast and inevitably bleeds down into even local clubs. Local meta is still a thing but I think you're underestimating the average player. Most of the groups I've been playing in have been very competitive even if the majority of us doesn't really care about tournaments. Friendly/casual doesn't mean you don't care about winning or can't have fun competing. That said, I'm sure there some who likes to ride the drama llama. Yeah, and when it comes down to it you're always playing a player and I'd never start groaning or being a poor sport face to face. If I play you, I'm going to make sure we both are having fun regardless of how the game goes.

Exploring different kinds of aurora borealis-effects for banners/icons/fane and bigger stuff like Glutos chariot. Could serve a contrast point and unify the army visually in subtle ways (like in detail work, ornaments, or jewellery/gems). For your daemonic units, represented in their eyes or perhaps claws. Doesn't have to be aggressively bright either, subtle glow effects are really effective too.

@Golub87 @Battlefury @Marcvs Interesting to see everyone's takes. I'm probably more on the side of keeping things more complex, and sometimes unbalance things, since I believe the lore and world-building is important to the game (as in representing on the tabletop not just as a general army but options within). So I really want to keep sub-factions/allegiances since they also serve to give longevity to an army and options if the meta shifts. On a personal note, the ability to represent lore on the tabletop is very important to me. It is the why I come back and care about my armies. The rumour of 3rd edition is that battalions are going away to be replaced by general battalions. A change like this would further give armies more flexibility and help aiding them when facing more armies. Ensuring one army won't get left in the dust just because of an obsolete tome. My primary concern is bringing up the stragglers in almost any ways possible. Going forward, I think campaigns like BR could serve as a double duty as a narrative campaign and as more substantial army updates for bottom tier armies. They did it for DoK and LRL (and possibly will for HoS), so it shouldn't be too hard to refine that process for updates. Then with data update though either GHB or just having stuff online. TL;DR: More frequent updates and adjustments to bottom tier and S armies (which usually means adjusting a certain battalion or sub-faction rather than the whole army).

I'd like to stick up for GW a bit here. 25 armies + extra armies (Chorfs, LoCA, etc) + expansions. Now add in sub-factions, battalions, allies, relics and traits, and you got the perfect conditions for the player to tinker and find the broken combos. Even the smallest of changes will cause ripples. In a perfect world they'll be able to update and test everything extensively. Though I would not say the game is in shambles either, I really really like it, but it is worth giving constructive criticism so... All of this takes time, time costs money. My question is, what are we prepared to give up to, subjectively speaking, have better rules? Should they get rid of the unpopular armies? Merge certain tomes and tighten up the schedule (KO + Fyreslayers, SCE + CoS, a single chaos tome, etc)? Perhaps simplify the rules for and update them in a fashion similar to Chorfs? Or is it simply enough to have an updated PDF with new points twice a year/each quarter between BT releases?

More tactical in the sense that it will be a back and forth between the players, active and reactive choices, as opposed to the more strategic option CPs are now. I don't really see one system as superior to the other but in conjunction with being able to burn objectives if you get double turned, charge reactions, I see a system which isn't purely "I go, you go" and let's the opposing player react. This + keeping the double is going to keep us on our toes throughout the game. - I fully expect a complete points update as well when the 3rd ed hits.

The ability of foresight does not always mean you see what you need to see. Despite his wisdom he isn't infallible. I think that's the appeal of all this for me. The pantheon on AoS more akin to the gods of ancient Greece or the Aesir gods. They squabble and keep trying to earn their godhood and power. Belakor is one heck of a sneaky boi too. Looking forwards to Kragnos too and where it'll take us!