swarmofseals

Absolutely correct, thanks for pointing that out! First and foremost I generally agree with you -- I'm not trying to suggest that zombies are going to be the main force of your army. Although I do wonder a bit if a true mass horde of zombies could be good. Something like 240-300 models. I don't think anyone is actually going to play that build though, so not much sense in really contemplating it seriously! I do want to contend a few of your specific arguments though. A unit of 20 zombies covers 965.5mm of linear space on the table. 10 dire wolves covers 828.6mm of linear space. Completely unbuffed, zombies have a weighted offensive efficiency (I'll explain this more thoroughly in a future post, but it's basically a measure of damage efficiency that takes into account the value of rend/mortal damage across an expected frequency of each armor value) of .072, while Dire Wolves have a weighted offensive efficiency of .039 when not charging and .069 when charging. Zombies have a weighted survivability efficiency (effective wounds per point assuming an average incoming rend of .75) of .174 without deathless minions and .209 with deathless minions. Dire Wolves clock in at .189 and .227. The other main difference is that Zombies scale a lot better with extra attacks. Dire Wolves are basically never going to get particularly good at damage efficiency, whereas Zombies with +1 attack have a very high offensive efficiency. I think that you are right that Dire Wolves are flexible and do their job quite well. Their speed is a big factor for sure. Zombies are a little bit better in terms of taking up space, however, and are definitely better on offense while being note quite as good on defense (but still pretty good). I think the trap with zombies is something you already noted: spending a bunch of points on dedicated support. You said that you need a Vampire Lord on foot and a Necromancer to make them good, and I strongly disagree with that notion. I would never suggest taking a Vampire Lord on foot just to support something like zombies. It's a big points sink and you're not getting much out of it. It's far better to sometimes let your zombies get buffed by Radukar or Mannfred without wasting any resources. Both of those buffs are auras, and Radukar's is quite large. You can also do a nice trick with Zombies that can make Mannfred work a lot better. Most "units get +1 attack if this model slays something in combat" buffs kinda suck because the enemy is going to get a chance to attack the buff target first. In this case that isn't necessarily true, as Zombies can get activated even while outside the pile-in range of most enemies. So you dive in, hit with Mannfred, the enemy is forced to activate and then you get in with your Zombies. It might be worth taking a Necromancer in some builds regardless as the Lore of Deathmages is fantastic. TL;DR - I think zombies are a little better for taking up space and camping objectives, and they have the upside of becoming an actual threat when buffed by stuff that you are already taking, but I agree that it's a mistake to spend a bunch of point on stuff that is only there to buff the zombies. I'd rather them be shooting at a Corpse Cart than Mannfred/Radukar/VLoZD! Old Alarielle only does ~1.5-2 wounds per turn at range against a CC, for what it's worth. Not sure about the new version. On average it'll take around 20 Vanari Auralan Sentinels with Power of Hysh or 30 sentinels with no Power of Hish (lofted shots) to kill a Corpse Cart. If you assume that the enemy is going to get four volleys off per unit (which is pretty generous, tbh) then your Coprse Cart is basically absorbing 70-105 points worth of fire at an 80 point cost to you. Not a bad trade.

Fair enough. I haven't actually gotten any games in with SBGL yet but I've quite a good amount of general experience with a bunch of factions against very high level players, so I'm mostly coming from a broad perspective here. I don't think zombies really need anything to do their job. I can see them in a couple of roles. They are a good for initial screening and area denial as they cover a lot of board space on the cheap. They are reasonably defensively efficient and do a good job of squatting on objectives. Their threat radius is also very reliable because they don't have to charge, and there are some nice edge cases where having the ability to attack without charging can be quite useful (avoiding triggering start of combat phase abilities or charge reactions). As you know they can also get quite reasonable on offense when buffed (and are more efficient than charging Dire Wolves even when unbuffed, for what it's worth). They don't actually need anything specifically for them -- the best buffers are Mannfred and Radukar, and both of those are potentially worth taking regardless. They aren't there to buff the zombies, but if they happen to be in position to do so then great. I generally agree with you that Blood Knights are likely our top non-hero warscroll, but I can imagine that something like 15 Blood Knights and 80 Zombies could outperform 25 Blood Knights. I could easily be wrong though. Also, I don't intend to be confrontational at all but I find it a little odd that you're claiming to have extensive play experience but are being cagey about how many games you've played with the tome. I don't mean this as an insult at all -- it's just very helpful to figure out how to weigh other people's takes.

@Jaxler I'm not too surprised with your analysis (although I think that Zombies are potentially good). Still curious how many games you have played so far.

@Jaxler can you give us an idea of the sample size of games and what opponents you played against?

Grave Guard are by far the most offensively efficient unit in the book, and they are a top tier offensive efficiency unit in the game. Assuming rend 1 damage 2 is correct, their weighted offensive efficiency is .161, which is really excellent and as others have said they are also very buffable. They are a lot like buffed Ardboys or Brutes in that they will probably obliterate anything they touch. Are they broken? I definitely don't think so. The problem is that they are slow and defensively very inefficient. They are way less defensively efficient than Ardboys or Brutes, and they don't have access to the movement shenanigans that really help. On the other side of the coin, being able to bring units back and restore losses is nice. I've played quite a bit of OWC and the problem isn't with killing things, and although GG are arguably even better than Ironjawz at killing things I don't think it actually matters. When you get your Brutes or Ardboys stuck in, the enemy is gonna eat it. Grave Guard might deal even more damage, but dead is dead. The problem is getting shot to pieces, kited, or screened out, and I think Grave Guard are at a disadvantage there. I think there is a solid chance Grave Guard will see some competitive play, but I think they are a long way from needing nerfs. (Sidenote: I actually love this battletome and think there are a ton of good options. If I have some extra time I'll try to write something more substantial)

This is one reason why I think Belladamma Volga is going to be very popular in competitive lists, especially when combined with spellportal. Spells that turn enemy models into summoned friendlies are extremely good against shooting. I've been on the receiving end of Kairos's spell that summons a spawn if it kills one of your models enough times to know how annoying it is. Set up your Dire Wolves at like 2.9" and ensure that they can only minimally pile into you. If you can drop them on the other side of a wall or something then it's even better as you not only lock them in combat but block their line of sight. Best case scenario you prevent their unit from shooting you for a turn, and worst case scenario you force them to use a different unit's ranged attacks to free up the unit that you've tied down. Other than that just having a lot of stuff that you can get into your opponent's face quickly is a good way of dealing with shooting. If anything I think the new tome is more resilient against shooting than LoN was given that the new rules aren't nearly as reliant on the general.

@DJMoose@Lightbox The weighted offensive efficiency of the Terrorgheist in melee is .0456 vs. .0407 for the Zombie Dragon. That said, the Terrorgheist benefits more from extra attacks while the Zombie Dragon benefits more from bonuses to hit and wound. With +1 hit and wound the Zombie Dragon melee efficiency jumps to .0659 while the Terrorgheist only goes up to .0644. With +1 attack the Zombie Dragon goes up to .0503 while the Terrorghiest reaches .0598. With both buffs the Zombie Dragon ends up at .0838 and the Terrorghiest at .0843. The Zombie Dragon is of course a little more efficient on defense while the Terrorgheist deals extra damage when it dies. Comparing the ranged attacks is a little harder. Against 1-3 models targets, the Terrorgheist is better against any target with bravery 7 or less, although the two are very close against bravery 8 if the target has a 2+ save. Against a 4+ model target the Terrorgheist is better against bravery 6 or less and a 4+ save. Against a 3+ or better save the Terrorgheist is better against bravery 7 or less. The Zombie Dragon is also a little bit more efficient on defense. Overall, I think that in a vacuum the Terrorgheist is probably better although it's damage is less consistent. It's going to be more "feast or famine" than the Zombie Dragon. If you are bringing Radukar, then Terrorgheists win pretty clearly. Similarly, if you are bringing a Coven Throne or Mannfred then the Zombie Dragon is likely better.

Wholly within 12 of a hero or gravesite. The gravesites make this a pretty big difference vs. NH.

Might be worth noting that for those of you who are Abhorash/Blood Dragon fans, Radukar the Beast seems like our first legitimately good candidate to be replaced by an Abhorash/Blood Dragon Lord counts-as. Stick your Abhorash/Blood Dragon Lord counts as and two Blood Dragon retainers on foot on a nice scenic base and you've got something that visually matches Radukar. I'll almost certainly be doing this, as although I like the new sculpt it doesn't fit that well with my army.

To me a 2+ save and mortal wounds in melee is less scary than a 2+ save and "normal damage" in melee, especially for infantry. I know that mortal wounds are scarier than normal damage in a vacuum, but they also "cost" more per damage dealt than low rend. I'm just making up numbers here, but a unit that puts out 10 mortal wounds could easily cost the same as a unit that puts out 20 rend 1. So mortal wounds are great against heavily armored elites but not nearly as efficient against chaff. Meanwhile rend - or rend 1 is great against chaff. So when I see a 2+ save and moral wound based damage, I think "OK, this is a great thing to tarpit." They could be super vulnerable to fast chaff. If it were a 2+ save and all rend 1 damage, then suddenly it's much more likely to be able to cut through your tarpit quickly while still being dangerous against the glass cannon units that could actually maybe kill them. I don't know about you, but I find it super satisfying to tie up my opponent's 300 point unit with garbage.

Vindictor doesn't do it for me, but I think slapping a bretonnian helm or an unhelmeted head would help a lot. I think I'm really just put off by the SCE helmets. Not a huge fan of the shield either but I can live with that!

I hate the SCE aesthetic overall, but if the new SCE stuff looks like this I could be converted. Yndastra is stunning.

These are just fantastic.

Let's investigate the first statement a bit. As you mentioned there are tons of very competitive centerpiece named characters. Here's a list of all of the non-specialist game (so no WHQ or Underworlds) non-centerpiece characters named characters that have been released since the start of AOS: The Changeling Sigvald Syll'Esske The Masque Volturnos Brokk Grungsson Eltharion Ellania and Ellathor Sevireth Gavriel Sureheart Astreia Solbright Neave Blacktalon Gardus Drycha Skragrott Lady Olynder Reikenor Kurdoss Valentian Zandtos Vokmortian Vandus Hammerhand Khorgos Khul The new Lumineth heroes and Gardus are too early to really make a judgment about, so I'm going to disregard them. Syll'Esske, Volturnos, Gavriel Sureheart, Drycha, the Changeling and Zandtos have all seen pretty major competitive play. Skragrott, Lady Olynder, and Reikenor have all been very competitive choices in their faction, but haven't seen as much competitive play because they belong to relatively uncompetitive factions. Eltharion is a very solid warscroll that is overshadowed by other stuff in the same faction. I'd argue that Sigvald is semi competitive at the very least. That leaves The Masque, Brokk Grunggsson, Astreia Solbright, Neave Blacktalon, Kurdoss Valentian, Vokmortian, Vandus Hammerhand and Khorgos Khul. Out of 19 I'd say that only 8 are non-competitive, and even among those I think Vandus Hammerhand and The Masque aren't all that bad. 2 are semi-competitive, and 9 are either competitive or would be if their factions were better. So overall I'd say it's basically a coinflip as to whether a named character is competitive or not -- certainly not "nearly across the board not competitively viable" unless you set an extremely high bar for competitively viable, in which case the same could be true for basically all warscrolls. Personally I don't really care if a character is named or not. If I like the model and like the rules I'll be happy running it. So you can at least count me as someone who (potentially) likes running multiple named characters in my lists. I'll respond to the other bit below with @Clan's Cynic's comment @Aren73 and @Clan's Cynic -- I think both of you have a valid point. There has to be room for criticism, and not everybody is going to be happy. I can only speak for myself, but what makes me want to argue with people posting negative reactions isn't the reaction itself or the "honest and genuine critique" but rather the tendency of people to frame their personal, subjective opinions either as objective facts or as opinions that are widely or universally held rather than individual. So comments like "Bit pissed that we didn't get ...." by @CDM or "Oh well...they missed my taste by a mile and a half. I will probably pass on this one for now." by @DocKeule don't bother me at all even though they are negative. They embrace their subjectivity and assert the opinion as their own. Meanwhile comments like "lets call a spade a spade" attempts to assert an opinion as an objective fact. "Does anyone here actually like XYZ?" could be an honest question, but it's framed in a very leading way that rhetorically makes it much more of a suggestion that nobody likes playing with multiple named characters. I know it may seem pedantic, but for me there is a big difference between "this release sucks" and "I think this release sucks."

You mean Tengger Cavalry, right? 👹

As much as I prefer the Old World setting to the current one, I 100% agree with this. Please give me Destruction Wood Elves, Order Vampires or Not-Tomb-Kings, etc.

That would put it around $200 -- while expensive it seems reasonable to me for so much content. It's crazy that something like CC and a mega are the same price (says more about the pricing on the mega, imo).

Any reports on MSRP for Cursed City?

an updated take on my MSU shooting list -- 3 bloodwrack shrine 1 haq queen on cauldron 8x5 stalkers 9 shadowstalkers 10 freeguild guard Alternately can try going down to 7x5 stalkers and 3x9 shadowstalkers as I believe someone else suggested. Some kind of screening is really necessary.

Not a big fan. They just don't do enough damage to be a main battle unit. They can generate a lot of depravity, but I think one unit is probably good enough for that. I suppose I could see a case for 80 raiders and 30 Bestigors over 40 raiders and 60 Bestigors but I suspect the latter will be better most of the time.

Lurid Haze has mandatory CT and artefact choices, but if you choose not to go Lurid Haze then you can certainly pick your own. Probably mostly summoning Daemonettes, I'd guess.

Thanks! I'm super excited to try it. Hopefully will be able to find some opponents on TTS this week. All in all after messing around with this tome for a bit now I can see both sides of the coin. I think this is one of the coolest and most unique playstyles in all of AOS, which makes me love it. That said, I get how people are upset that the amazing (looking) new units are taking a back seat to Slaves to Darkness and Beasts of Chaos. I still think that people are being too harsh on some of the new units, and I think dropping the price on Blissbarb Archers, both types of new seekers, and Glutos would be a mistake. The twinsouls, Sigvald, and shardspeaker could all come down a little, the painbringers could come down a decent amount, and slaangors need a big decrease. I just hope that people who like the tome don't turn a blind eye to the problems, and that people who are upset about the new units not taking center stage don't turn a blind eye to the things that the book does well.

I like the Diaz Daemonettes and seekers, but mostly for their dynamism. I tend to agree that they are too heavily weighted toward the lust end of the spectrum. If I do end up working on a Slaanesh project with actual models I'm looking forward to converting up my own Daemonettes.

@Overread they are much larger -- like gore-grunta size

Played a game against Lumineth last night against a very new player, so not many learning points. Slickblades continued to show value though. Their speed allows you to really take advantage of any positioning mistakes your opponent makes. In this game my opponent was flanking with two units of dawnriders that had to snake out a bit to fit between terrain features, and I was able to intercept them with one unit of 5 slickblades and wipe out both units of dawnriders in two rounds of combat, losing one model to actual damage and a second model when I rolled a 6 for battleshock. Taking a Plague Priest or a unit of 5 Plague Censer Bearers continues to seem incredibly powerful. In every game they generate a ton of DP for me, and they truly shine when your opponent takes the first turn. This list may be kinda dumb, but I also think it might have some play to it for those of you that still like Beasts of Chaos: Invaders - Lurid Haze Doombull (general, mandatory artefact and command trait) Doombull (general) Doombull (general) Great Bray Shaman (rod of misrule) Plague Priest 3x10 Ungors 40 Ungor Raiders 2x1 Tuskgor Chariots 2x30 Bestigors Cygor There are a couple of things that I really like about this list. First and foremost it's 2 drops and thus will get the turn choice most of the time. That's super powerful with Slaanesh, as you can often give your opponent the turn, generate DP and then start summoning right away. The list is also very beefy (especially for a Slaanesh list) at 188 wounds. When your gameplan is to just keep flooding the board, starting with that much will make it even harder for your opponent to stabilize. You also don't have any real key units that your opponent can kill to cripple you. Nothing really takes huge advantage of Lurid Haze, but being able to bring the Raiders or a Doombull or two in from the edge will at least stress your opponent, and it makes getting a general in enemy territory very easy. You've got a lot of screens and trash units to act as speed bumps, and you've got some legitimate hammer units that can also take a hit. You should have plenty of CP to take advantage of the +1 save CA, making those 30 Bestigor blocks a lot tougher. The Bestigors also have an impressive threat range with run and charge. The Ungor Raiders and Cygor also have very long threat ranges, which should allow you to sprinkle most of your opponent's army and generate a good amount of DP even if you are being conservative with your melee troops. I could also imagine a version dropping a bunch of things for Glutos and cogs or a Contorted Epitome and cogs.