Gauche

They've been a mixed bag. I do play Thryng since Honour the Gods, Just in Case and Chronicle of Grudges are great benefits too (RIP Artifact/Trait though). On one hand they're a massive deterrent, one of the best Unleash ****** in the game and putting bodies on the table really helps with one of KOs biggest weaknesses. On the other hand they absolutely require a screen at all times and if you're made to go first they do very little on top of always being slow. With Rend 2 they're basically the most efficient shooting damage option we can get and I've had a great time with my Runelord and Arcane Tome. From watching content and so on I seem to play KO very differently than most (I did not play in 2.0). I don't go all in on Turn 1, throwing everything I can into the opponent's Deployment Zone. The Irondrakes fit my playstyle a bit better because they're a turret whereas the rest of my army is mostly skirmishers, I also play Arkanauts for all my Battleline and they're a great screen for their cost. For me I think they'll end up being kind of a meta call. If the new SCE, SBGL, and other durable armies are the thing to beat then they're amazing. Without that they do lose some luster.

My reasoning for seeing Rend as valuable isn't because you need so much Rend to be able to deal with a 1+ or 0+ Save, you need to be able to punch through something else once you bait AoD. SBGL are my go to example as they're also very popular right now, almost every build from them will put at least three units on the table with a native 3+. Without Rend that's very scary since they can AoD one, put one in Cover, and maybe an Artifact/Mystic Shield on a third. With Rend and some MSU (easy for KO) you can put shots into something and try to get them to stack one of those effects, then pick on the vulnerable unit with the rest of your army. That's where our Rend 1 gets value in my games thus far. If an opponent takes fewer of those units, maybe two or even one, I find it best to just ignore them because dumping shots into a 2+ Save is a losing battle. In my lists that's why I've been taking Irondrakes + Runelord, the Rend 2 opens up some more options. I've found that the threat of a higher Rend allows me more "control" over what my opponent stacks. As long as I can pick up some targets I can screen and figure out the remaining threats, so far. I'm also playing weird KO lists compared to most people though so that might be coloring my perception.

I think KO are going to play as a Soup army moving forward.The game is moving in a heavy Rend direction and KO don't do that well, it's hard to get better than -1 in any viable numbers. I see your actual KO stuff as taking out the lighter units and skirmishing but things like Irondrakes taking on the enemy heavy hitters. This makes Barak-Thryng the most likely Skyport to see in my opinion, the old Alpha Strike lists some favored in 2.0 just don't work anymore. The one exception would be double Frigate or Frigate + Ironclad and using Fly High with the GHB Battalion for Behemoths (works RAW, no FAQ yet). Gotrek is still good, I'm also looking at the Celestant-Prime as a replacement. He doesn't hit nearly as hard but he self-delivers without fail, provides some MWs, and has few enough Wounds to pick up Cover + AoD/TFH. Irondrakes with a Runelord are another great package and we probably run it better on the table than anything but Living Cities. A Runelord with Arcane Tome is hilarious, two +2 Unbinds and a +2 Dispel plus access to Curse in an army that can actually make it work? Sold. I haven't seen much else that would fit the bill, Hearthguard don't have the Rend and are pricey while most SCE stuff is in the same boat. The good news is we still blow up chaff and I'm seeing a lot more Monsters or elite units/pieces who don't want to stand on Objectives so KO can force opponents into some hard decisions. OBR and SCE are looking very resilient to just about everything though.....

He can by spending a Triumph, if he's in the boat, using the BR: Be'lakor additions. So only once or twice a game.

I have been putting a few games up so I thought doing a thread would be better than flooding with posts. Hopefully that's alright. :] Top most posts are the most recent. Kharadron Overlords vs. Ossiarch Bonereapers | 2000 Points | Power Struggle Kharadron Overlords vs. Ogor Mawtribes | 2000 Points | The Veins of Ghur Kharadron Overlords vs. Soulblight Gravelords (Again) | 2000 Points | Tectonic Interference Kharadron Overlords vs. Stormcast Eternals | 2000 Points | The Vice Tides of Destruction Battle Report: KO vs. SBGL 2000 Points

I was doing 10 but I'm starting to be on the fence more about them. They're just so expensive and need a lot of support. It's over 350 for them and an Aether-Khemist and then they really want All-out Attack too. I'm not giving up on them or anything, they just cost a lot and have some awkward profiles at times. I probably need to get better at knowing when they need to spend a Triumph vs. the Ironclad needing to, +d3 Aethergold has been money so far.

Yeah I put three units in my list and found them to be the unsung heroes of the game. KO are going to rely so hard on screens this Edition because there are so many things that can Charge Turn 1 and wreck your game plan. However a unit or two of Arkanauts blocking for an Ironclad, to use an example, is a nightmare to fight. Charge in and pick up my 100pt unit while I shoot you in your Turn? Win.

Got a full game in over the weekend against SBGL, not a super competitive build but pretty strong anti-Shooting. VLoZD with a 2+, Vengorian Lord, Coven, Grave Guard with Shields, etc. Managed to win by a point but walked away with a lot of strong impressions. My Arkanaut Company were actually very strong as a screen, there was a clutch Redeploy that kept the VLoZD out of melee so I could finish it off the next round. I also just found having bodies is so necessary as otherwise you have to almost entirely shoot the opponent off an Objective and that's not always possible. Really disappointed in the Gunhauler, I only took one and even with that the cost increase feels horrible. They just don't do the damage/utility for that price in my eyes. The 6++ for the Ironclad never felt necessary with the other options I had to keep it safe/heal it. Endrinriggers still felt necessary, I missed their support fire. They went up a lot but I think it was a fair increase, they're a very strong unit and not having a Triumph hurts them less now that they're mediocre. Main Combo of Admiral + Ironclad and Thunderers + Aether-Khemist was very strong. I took a custom Skyport and rolled extra Aethergold which let me get two full Turns of the Ironclad re-rolling 1's to Hit and +1 to Wound whereas the Thunderers were +1 to Hit and re-roll 1's to Wound. Felt like a 40K army with all that dice fixing! Unleash Hell and Redeploy are godly for KO. I think people will start taking small, fast units if they can get them on the cheap to get around Unleash Hell. My opponent had none but it's a change he'd make to his list. It was particularly nasty with The Last Word since if I used a Triumph for Inspired I got it on all the shots. Not having access to Monsters is going to be more of a hindrance than I initially anticipated. The extra scoring from Battle Tactics is a really big deal, if one player has some Monsters and the other doesn't they can just win off that all else being even. KO has an easier time with this than some armies might just because we can force a commitment or we'll out-shoot them. Both my opponent and I walked away very impressed with 3.0. We obviously don't know what's strong/weak beyond informed opinions yet but both of us felt in the game until the end of Round 4 and Command Abilities made it feel like we had a lot more options. Losing your General is also just a massive swing, I was able to kill his on Turn 2 and denying that extra Command Point every Round really added up more than I thought it would on paper.

Isn't is known that you can take StD under the Coalition Rules? Or are they still not Battleline? My army doesn't care about those so I haven't reviewed them in depth.

I'd echo to the people that are having negative reactions, without trying to invalidate that, to play some games. The Point Changes do have a lot of head scratchers and honestly I wish GW waited a bit before dumping this all out at once. There's so much new stuff that just looking at one thing doesn't tell the whole story. There are new Missions with big changes, the board size is consistently underappreciated as a change (I come from 40K), obviously a lot more counter-play with CAs, etc. etc. Have the reaction you want to have but temper it with table time when you can. Things might turn out better, or worse, or as you expected. As a KO Player who is coming back for 3.0 I think we got off pretty freely and will almost certainly be a top army competitively. None of our tools were hurt, being extreme mobility and guns, while picking up a lot of new options. Triumphs are the main thing that hurts but you can still make strong use of +1 to Wound. We're also surprisingly great at Battle Tactics and Grand Strategies which are as important as Objectives now, possibly more so. The other armies I'm familiar with are LRL and Nurgle. LRL got quite a kicking from almost every angle. Did Sentinels only go up a bit? Yes but the army doesn't just win with Sentinels. Wardens got a hammer dropped on them and did all the fast shooting options (which completely invalidates the list based around them, thankfully) got hit hard too. LRL is also a Faction with tax and when everything goes up tax hurts more. Unleash Hell is not as strong as people think it is, if you go up against a 30 block of Sentinels and can put a chaff unit into them they're pretty ruined. Miscasts hurt them terribly, I think Teclis is border-line too expensive to even take now and remains very Alpha Strike-able. Double Aetherquartz for Saves is nerfed, the list just goes on and on. I expect them to strong just because of how many tools the Faction has but I'd be hard pressed to put them top tier off the bat. Nurgle on the other hand looks like a big sleeper. Blightkings went up a lot but their Support went down or up VERY little so it's kind of a wash. They did lose Battalions which hurts but you can turn that into basically ignoring the cost hikes so, win? The smaller table is great for them because they're slow and more CP is a huge benefit since they're so Command Ability reliant. Demons definitely took some knocks but Nurglings still do their thing, the rest I want to see how FAQs shake out.

Been tinkering with some builds since the leak. It feels like you're almost expected to play with an Ironclad now, they barely went up in comparison to most things. Since the Edition also made them even better, not a bad place to be in. Gunhaulers are the thing that got the biggest hammer, people are down on that but if you could spam 8-9 in a 3.0 army it could have gotten out of hand. Still, lots of weird things that I want to test: Heroes Admiral Aetheric Navigator Aetherkhemist [General - Collector] [Arcane Tome] Aetherkhemist [Spell in a Bottle - Wildfire Taurus] Endrinmaster Endrinmaster Battleline 10x Arkanauts w/ Volley Pistol, Volley Gun, Light Skyhook, Skypike 10x Arkanauts w/ Volley Pistol, Volley Gun, Light Skyhook, Skypike 10x Arkanauts w/ Volley Pistol, Volley Gun, Light Skyhook, Skypike Behemoth Ironclad (undecided between Great Sky Cannon/Volley Cannon - To Be Tested) [The Last Word] Other Gunhauler w/ Sky Cannon 10x Thunderers w/ 2x Aethercannon, Mortar, Decksweeper Endless Spells Soulsnare Shackles Wildfire Taurus 1990/2000 Points | Battle Regiment x2 (All units go in one or the other overall) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lots of weirdness here but I think everything is legal (hard to work with leaks instead of actual books). The idea is all the Heroes and the Thunderers go in the Ironclad while the Gunhauler provides support for it and the Arkanauts plus Navigator hold the backline/Objectives. The list is all in on the Ironclad, which is workable. With Unleash Hell and The Last Word charging the thing is a nightmare, since it's fast getting a chaff Charge to avoid Unleash Hell is harder than normal. Admiral gives it re-roll Hits or can make the Heroes very strong fighters via Repel Boarders! Endrinmasters bring the healing and Aetherkhemists can buff the Thunderers via their newer Triumph. Very all in but it's a lot of damage, I have a lot of healing, and a few ways to get the Ironclad on a 2+ Save. The spice is from the Arcane Tome and Spell in a Bottle. Arcane Tome gives my Mystic Shield access, to save CP, or to drop the Soulsnare Shackles. These are unfortunately going to be very swingy, if an opponent doesn't dispel them they can't really interact with the list. I wanted an actual Wizard to have that so I can Dispel and Resummon if needed. The Taurus was my solution to charging in with the Ironclad, it's a lot of individual Heroes to choose to Fight with and that's not very strong. Taurus gives me Fight Last when I need it which I think is worth the cost when you really need it. Since Triumphs were nerfed I rate them much lower. On the Arakanauts I'm interested in ignoring Battleshock so they stick around. For most everyone else it's +1 to Wound, another reason I went with some fighty stuff as a lot of the Hero guns are on 2's anyways. Triumphs are still good on Skyvessels thankfully. Being two drops should get Turn order in most games which I think is more important to KO than any other Battalion benefits. The only thing I'm undecided on is to play custom Skyport (Re-roll against FLY or one particular unit, d3 more Aethergold for the Ironclad and others, d3 Heal for emergency Ironclad survival) or the old standby of Barak-Zilfin. The latter would cost me an Artefact so I'm favoring custom until the FAQs. Main drawbacks would be Missions, I have very few bodies overall, but I think there's enough offense to get people off Objectives and claim them for my end of turn. KO are actually very good at Battle Tactics as well which helps a bit. I also have no Monsters for the Season but that's just a reality of the Faction unless you Ally in. I'd rather focus on killing them for the extra VP per Round. Hoping this is a fun list to put on the table when I get the chance, barring me missing any illegalities. ><

Kharadron Overlords Mostly big buffs or side-grades. The only nerf that was taken is the change to Triumphs, which is a big deal but it's easily survivable. Monsters - Faction has none but is good at killing them and doesn't bring a Faction Terrain piece. More Monsters just helps matchups. Heroes - Very hard to remove KO Heroes now that they can heal if needed (at times), +W works on Guns and Melee, and you can grab an additional Dispel when needed. Command Abilities - Most of the KO ones are pretty weak so the new baseline ones are great and make up for some of the loss of Triumphs. Redeploy is the strongest just across the board and KO use it very well with so much access to FLY. Obviously Unleash Hell can be very strong as well with Thunderers. Enhancements - Very nice, some of the basic ones are great. Particularly being able to make a model a Wizard opens up Mystic Shield on Thunderers/Ironclad and again helps with the loss of Triumphs. Ghost-Mist is also extremely underrated as a toolbox spell for the army. Terrain - No big changes to LoS and so on (besides Wyldwoods which was already known) so a win there. More Terrain makes FLY better so that would be a win. Warscroll/Core Battalions - Losing these is a huge buff to KO because they lose nothing while some other armies lose a lot. Core Battalions are great since you can either load up on our good Artefacts or go hard on a few drops and take priority. The other Cores aren't very useful just in general and KO are not the exception to that. Unit Coherency/Pile In - No real changes here as KO doesn't run big units generally. Arkonauts lose some luster as a screen but we'll see how GHB '21 shakes out in that regard. Miscast/Endless Spells - Miscasts are a big win since we don't generally do Magic and enemies taking MWs makes them easier to snipe out. Endless Spells being lessened might weaken Spell in a Bottle but that wouldn't be a huge loss since there are other strong Artefacts. Less MWs from Spells is more of a help to survivability than a nerf to offense. Smaller Table - While seen as bad for Shooting Armies KO is extremely fast/re-deployable. You have to play Objectives anyways so there really isn't a huge change except that Missions seem to be starting players closer together. That has pluses and minuses since KO has a lot of medium ranged guns and can easily screen but will likely have more problems getting to a soft flank. Objectives - Models with over 5 Wounds counting as two models is a buff, especially for Gunhaulers. ------------------------------------------------------ Overall I don't feel like KO really lost anything. You can dump Thunderers into an Ironclad as many already did and while the Triumph loss hurts there are other things gained. Screening with ~2 Gunahulers, one getting All-Out Defense and the other getting Mystic Shield will be very annoying especially because you can just cycle them and heal them. While Command Traits are hard-capped Artefacts are wide open and the army has a lot of good ones. It feels like our Magic defense went up and Shooting is the same but different since Aethergold isn't that important. And being so fast with some of the Mission wrinkles we've seen such as the disappearing Objective is consistently strong. Looking good for KO barring big point changes beyond what others get or very strange Missions.

Just to preface my thoughts I'll say where I'm coming from since everyone in this hobby has their own background that heavily informs their opinions. I play competitively, only, and have been into wargames for 17 years. My main game was 40K but I'm likely switching to AoS because I just think it's better. I did not play 2.0 but I've binged tons of Battle Reports and other content to get a tenuous grasp on how things were. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So far I've found myself liking almost every change from 2.0 to 3.0. So far the only thing I don't like, which I haven't been able to confirm if it's true or false, is that in Matched Play the person with Turn 1 Priority MUST Take Turn 1. I've seen some reviews say that's present, others made no mention. Everything else looks better. I like the options for Heroes and Monsters. Monsters should get some extra "oomph" and a chart of options is more fun than Impact Hits or Stomps. Heroes are all over the place in AoS so the chart for them also fills in gaps. Getting harassed by ranged? Try and heal up. Beatstick? Be more of one. No Wizards? You can Dispel anyways. Heroes feel very tool-boxy without seeming overpowered or gamey. I like all the Magic changes. Miscasts are needed to prevent HEAVY Magic armies like LRL and DoT from just going off with impunity. I would have preferred it to do damage on a 2 or 12 but it's a start. The changes to Bolt and Shield are good, Bolt is way more interesting to use and Shield is more versatile because you don't have to already have a unit with good Saves to get mileage out of it. The other Core Spells are interesting, making Terrain into LoS Blocking is strong and FLY can help some armies get around screens when they ordinarily struggle to. The changes to Endless Spells, although we haven't seen Warscrolls yet, are pretty simple and they're both easier to use and easier to dispel. Prayers are very interesting now with Miscasts of their own and some pretty powerful effects. The 6+ Ward has my eye on tarpits, I know everyone is in love with Curse but they balanced it well with a very short range. The new Artifacts, Traits, etc. etc. all have a place and will likely see some use, which is good. Warscroll Battalions going away way a personal hope of mine and the Core Battalions are interesting without being too game altering. My fear is that the single drop one will still run the show, at least competitively, but there are other options and they'll be very attractive to more casual players as well. I've seen a lot of people say 2.0 was their favorite rule set ever and I have no problem with personal preference. I just think 3.0 is fixing all the big issues from 2.0. No more conga-lining, no more holding multiple Objectives with one massive unit. Priority is way more of a choice now when you'd previously either take the double or just leave the status quo because you were winning and didn't want to risk giving up a double. Missions are more interesting, not only focusing on the Objectives but also Tactics and Strategies you tailor for that game. And no more Deathstars, units are more aggressively capped and you can't load them up with Command Abilities. Will there be new problems that come up in 3.0? Of course! But that doesn't mean you don't fix the problems you know about and GW did a good job there. I only hope they don't drop the ball with the Army Books like 40K has with Codexes. Time will tell.

Which I didn't get because almost every time they FAQ something it goes the intent way and not the RAW way. But I guess intent is way more nebulous so they hedge their bets by saying that.

As modern GW they've never put out an Edition that didn't require numerous FAQs. Things won't be settled until probably 3-6 months after the first wave of FAQs drop. Just how it always ends up. Operating under intent vs. RAW has almost always been the safe bet though. :]

Glad to stop arguing about that. I think it was wishful thinking on a lot of people's parts. When something gets leaked from that many sources it has always panned out.

I find myself disagreeing so I'll probably give up the fight here but my last $0.02. The new complexity...isn't complex. Coherency will take you one game to adjust to, I promise. It's not a new concept in the genre or from GW and it's been tested thoroughly. New Command Abilities you can write on a notecard, they're very simple as well. What new Special Abilities, the Monster/Hero stuff? Again, fits on a notecard and is pretty easy to grasp, I hope. Unleash Hell looks strong at first glance but we don't have the whole picture. What if Terrain starts playing a bigger part? Now shooting isn't as good (I'm hoping for this personally). What about tagging them in Combat to get around it? As far as I know that still exists. That's the problem with making negative judgements without 100% of the picture. There are no weak or strong armies from the past, this is a new game. New Points, new Missions, rules changes, and of course new Army Books will come. No one has any idea what the weak and strong will end up being and it's way too early to even guess based on what we know. Even if an army has taken NOTHING but nerfs from the rules that have been shown there's plenty more to see. Ultimately to fix balance the community needs to stop buying rulebooks and force GW to move to digital rules that get updated once a quarter, like some games do. But that will take a very long time since GW is great at churning customers and people get very defensive about piracy because it's a "bad word". Otherwise nothing will ever change, there's no financial incentive for it to. Anything else is treating the symptoms, not the disease. I do hope you like 3.0 and find some enjoyment from it. Never fun to see someone fall out of love with a game for any reason.

For what it's worth I think they will separate Matched from Competitive a bit with the GHB. Those Missions will be more competitively tuned and may have additional rules if 40K is anything to go by and it has been thus far. I disagree that all they're doing is removing a lever. They are removing one but they're re-assigning the weights as well. Command Abilities are way more important now, Monsters/Heroes may be big. If you like Battalions I have nothing to say about that, your preference is yours. But I think it opens things up more, it divests a ton of army power from that one thing (as a poster above correctly pointed out), it's less rules to remember at the table, etc. One of the things I like the most about AoS is the simplicity compared to other games and removing Battalions adds to that, for me. Of course no change will ever be universally loved or hated.

And they should get rid of them, their balance was awful. They still exist for non-Matched Play, and that's where I think they belong. The problem is the community is stuck on Matched Play being the ONLY way to play, it isn't. It's for competitive minded folk like myself. The other methods are fine too, for example Crusade is MEGA popular with 40K Players now and the new PtG system for AoS is based on it. The reason I approve removing them is that the less rules there are the less chance GW has to ****** up. AoS is way easier to balance because Toughness and Strength don't exist and Invulnerable Saves don't exist. That's not changing. Will there be broken Warscrolls, Allegiances, etc.? Yup. But it's just one less thing for competitive players to worry about and that's my biased point of view.

I agree AoS has the best ruleset GW has made in some time but that's not to say the game doesn't have a ton of issues. Removing Battalions is a change I celebrate, without it I have zero interest in the game. Changing how First Turn works is another huge problem and the game needs way more Terrain interaction. So far nothing I've seen hurts the good parts of the game, it makes it better. 8th to 9th 40K was the same way, the Codexes is where GW is dropping the ball there. They've been doing excellent on their Core Rules for games, they still need a lot of work on army balance.

In my experience there will be an extreme minority that prefers the old ruleset and keeps it, everyone else will move on. Happened with every game I've ever played. Even mostly happened when Fantasy turned into AoS and that was huge.

The 40K Equivalent has the Missions, some special Rules that apply to those Missions only, and some Terrain recommendations.

If there's a no leak rule please delete my post. :]

Yup also good advice. I started one army I want to play no matter what for the end of 2.0 but I'm waiting on everything for 3.0 to drop before picking a second army.

Interesting seeing the doom and gloom people with the leaked changes and WHC shown changes. I think people who only play AoS are in a unique position since they've never really gone through a modern GW Edition change. It's kind of a waste to apply any of these changes to the game you currently know and play, it will be an entirely new game soon. No existing army lists are likely to survive for a whole host of reasons. The tricks you know will change or won't work anymore. The meta will completely change, etc. etc. Try not to think of the changes in terms of games you've played or armies you've fielded but instead just look at how they change individual units. Build from there as more is leaked. It's the best way to keep yourself from going crazy. Source: Gone through almost every 40K Edition change and several other big system changes. Now if a change legitimately makes you frown I can't say anything against that. I'd just advise taking a "Wait and see" approach. Many small changes look stupid but make sense when you get the whole picture. That's part of the reason I wish GW didn't drip feed changes but what can you do?