Xasz

GW consistency at its best...

@ledha nvm, I forgot that Reapers of Vengeance and Locus of Fury are a thing. Khorne might actually be the best host army for Archaon at the moment (haven't looked into the Slaanesh changes)

He's decent at best, don't forget his price tag and that is command ability (a big part of his appeal) is pretty much useless due to a shift in how/when those abilities are activated.

Building Archaon was surprisingly easy. My only gripe, model-wise, is how he is fixed to the base. The whole model rests on a small area on Dorghar's tail and a single hook from the same (which is glued to the "wall"). That the balance works out in the end was pretty surprising for me and balls to whoever designed the kit/assembly. Rule-wise, Archaon is sadly not really compatible with the new stuff and I really hope we'll see him reworked with an actual army at his back, either this year or 2020.

🙄

They'll never hit back and even if they do the damage output is not that threatening. Big units of Reavers might seem nice on paper, especially with all the other hordes running around, but they lack the fundamentals of an effective blob unit (recursiveness or reasonable saves, reach, battleshock resistance...). Personally, I deem them somewhat of a noob-trap (all the fluff about hordes of Reavers rushing across the battlefield is not helping...), if you expect anything more of them than being chaff (at which they excel at), you'll be sorely disappointed.

He has an account on tga afaik. @scrollbuilderdude

There are updated cards in the download section of this forum. Just go to the header of this board -> browse -> downloads -> view all, you should be able to find them.

Not sure, it's hard to free up the points to pump both units. Even with just one you would lose the Wrathmongers + something else or other choices. Maybe it's a good point to talk about list building or at least how I approach it, would fit nicely with the Blood Warrior and "screen" discussion that popped up recently. There are some metrics thrown around which form the basics for every meaningful evaluation like ppm (points per model) or effective health. They have value but they have to be translated to some degree. In Magic the Gathering there is the concept of hidden or alternative card text, like a creature that does 2 damage when entering the battlefield and has 2/1 stats for 2 mana would often translate into deal 4 damage to your opponent, deal 2 and remove a card from your opponents hand or deal 2 and kill a creature. For tabletops there is something similar and at the same time completely different, the question about how likely it is that a unit does use everything you paid for. Which cannot be math-hammered in any meaningful way (at least not in a way that is always true). Example, when I bring a unit of Blood Warriors, I pay for their offensive abilities, their defensive abilities and stuff that falls in neither of those categories. If such a unit is neither being hit or actually attacks I wasted points for stuff that was not used. If this happens a lot of times this unit can be described as "fat" of the list. That's pretty much why we use the cheapest units with the biggest footprint possible for screens, because we don't want to waste points (there are some other things that are important here, like you often actually want your screen to be wiped out to make room for your counterattack and so on, this is why Blood Warriors are godawful screens, a more fitting term for Chaos Warriors and the like would be "holders" as they tend to stand on key places and try to just survive). The same principle applies to unit sizes and the question how many of those models will actually be active. For a unit of 30 Blood Warriors, with a reasonable amount of scenery on the table, this number will be rather low and one has to ask himself if this is really a good idea. Same applies to models with 40mm bases, which are especially unwieldy. I highly doubt that a 10 man unit of Skullreapers will actually have a high activity among models. You could argue that the additional models makes the unit more resilient and you are surely in the right with that one but if at the end of the battle there are always 5+ models alive, you probably paid good points for low gain -> fat (More of X doesn't always translate into better for purpose Y). In my games up till now, 5 felt like a good number as about 2 Skullreaper models per unit (or none) survived the battles with no units to fight in close proximity. That being said, 10 might still be better in some cases. So why even bother with big blobs when most of the models have a low activity rating? Because blobs are usually about surviving stuff and defensive capabilities (low ppm with high wound/effective wounds count). Some of them are capable of damage but that might not be their selling point (e.g. Nurgle Marauders or Chainrasps) or the unit has low effective wounds but also low ppm. In this case you add models too keep the potential count of active models high enough that it actually matters when close combat happens (Bloodletter come to mind). Problem with all of this, that there is no clear line or ultimate truth (parking 30 Blood Warriors on a objective might be really good) but questioning unit choices and purpose of things you bring to the table can make a list significant better. Just adding units with good stats or comparing unit A with unit B without considering context or purpose is usually not enough. The concept of "razor's edge" from sports is oddly fitting for list building and revisions. You want to cut as much fat as possible but you don't want (but might) cut things that are actually important for the system to work properly (e.g. a runner cutting so much body fat that they actually collapse instead of having a peak performance). I feel like I'm writing without actually getting to the point and taking a nose dive into rambling but maybe the gist of it comes across. TLDR: don't pay points for things that are not used (defensive capabilities, offensive capabilities) consider the logistics of the table/battlefield remind yourself that models that tend to be not active are wasted points (considering units meant for fighting) exception to the previous point: units with low wound count or defensive capabilities that need additional models to reach combat in a meaningful size any unit needs to have a purpose and do "something" otherwise it's obsolete reevaluate units and try to identify "fat" in your list nothing is really set in stone but evaluation is always useful (with metrics and consideration of context)

Why wouldn't I use the altar? Not sure how you got that impression. That one game was just incredible bad luck, sometimes you do not roll 5s for the axe. The axes vs gore fists debate pops up about every 10-30 pages and down the line they are about even but do different things (the debate always ends inconclusive but fills a couple pages nonetheless). Personally, I prefer Gore Fists as they provide mortal wounds and look cooler imo. I'm just testing one unit of axes for my slingshot Blood Warriors as I might want the extra punch but the difference between both units is not really noticeable.

20+ feels too unwieldy for my tastes (I tried 30 at some point). I played with units of 15 before which felt rather tanky and still flexible. So if you have some points left, why not. Up till now I did not have the feeling that the Blood Warriors should be bigger or smaller. It's not like you want to charge a unit into your opponent every game or turn. I think of it more as a tool than the one and only gimmick of mortals, which refreshingly do not need a lot of CP to function. ... and as another poster said, it distributes the power more evenly through the list, although the difference between 200 and 300 is negligible.

One word regarding the Bloodmad Warband that has taken up in popularity the last couple pages. It's a nice effect but heavily redundant with the rest of what Khorne does. The actual benefit after you buffed a unit already with +1A or +2A is negligible (considering low to medium model count units). Furthermore, it has a rather hard condition and solves none of Khorne's problems.

Played another game with Mortal Khorne yesterday. Same list as a couple pages ago. Basic idea behind the list is having one big "formation" with two units of Blood Warriors in front, Aspiring Deathbringer, Wrathmongers and whatever behind that. Makes for a really annoying blob of units and buffs. Skullreapers are either to the flanks or where ever they are needed, they are not really dependent on any additional buffs. The Blood Warrior unit with axes is used as target for the Goretide catapult if the chance arises or the opponent makes a mistake (worked like a charm in my first game against a Celestar). Game was against Nighthaunt with the big banshee lady, a lot of characters, two big units of elite ghosts (Bladeghast, Grimghast), a big unit of Chainrasps and some small stuff like minimum Hexwraiths, some Glaivewraiths and Cogs. Scenario was Total Commitment. I messed up in the beginning and he got to choose who gets priority, which promptly was given to me. Like always my opponent then got the double turn on turn 2 and rushed one of my objectives with a big unit of ghosts. He pretty much denied my stronger flank (we had a huge blocker in the middle of the table) and went for my weaker side, clipped my axe Blood Warriors with another unit and killed my Reavers off the objective. My two priests almost killed two of his characters with Bloodboil and the Wrath-Axe, one unit of Skullreapers rushed to retake my objective and the other plus two units of Blood Warriors rushed to the other side. Due to Slaughterborn, an activation of Apoplectic Frenzy on a unit of Skullreapers and the sheer amount of grind potential, his army was gone by the end of turn 3. Even with his cushion of points I ended up winning through having all objectives for a couple turns. Some thoughts about my list: I am convinced that Slaughterborn, while pricey, is the most competitive Mortals setup -1 rend is pretty common and the effect hits all the working parts (was absolute MVP against Nighthaunt) not having a dedicated hammer is sometimes weird but not having to care about characters is liberating characters dying is not a huge hit and equals Blood Tithe, sometimes sacrificing them via priests is a good move (e.g. Stoker when he no longer has targets or purpose) Wrath-axe was useless in Celestar game (no successful summon) but almost a match winner in the last one, it's almost like having another priest for less points that is not using a leader slot I don't feel like changing anything for now, everything has a clear purpose maybe kicking the Wrathmongers and trying to squeeze in the Manticore Lord but over all it feels like weakening the core concept of the list Some thoughts considering Khorne over all, Khorne feels like a mid to low tier 2 army (so pretty much the same as the last 3 years, except some small spikes through Skullreaper + Sayl bomb or Murderhost) which is fine by me, more or less a harsh FAQ for DoK and point changes for SCE and other under-costed armies could do wonders the change from command abilities being used in the hero phase and now being used whenever they become relevant is super awkward, especially if you play AoS for quite some time (it might be more intuitive and interactive in the long run though) the most annoying thing about the new book for me are some unnecessary inconsistencies, i.e. abilities that are similar should work in a similar way (e.g. Skullreaper, Wrathmonger ability on death or 1s on prayers doing 1 or D3 damage) Most of the time this feels like obvious oversights or design-clutter, the weird FAQ on Wrathmongers doesn't help to shake off this notion I'll keep playing my grindy mortal list until my Bloodthirsters arrive and I'll try to provide some pictures in the future.

Expensive model with low wound count that has to be in melee range to do most of his interesting stuff. Bloodsecrator is rather expensive at 140 as well, but what he does is a lot less conditional and works regardless of his range to the enemy lines. Heroes that you want to use in combat should either be expendable or durable, Khul is neither. Which means you pay a lot of points for a fancy command ability, which is rarely worth it.

I'm probably too judgmental, but how dafuq did you clip his priests when he had screening units available and handed you the first turn... was his measuring tape broken or something? I mean, Blood Warriors are super annoying for every melee army but it seems he pretty much dumbstered himself. (At least I got reminded of Aetherquartz Brooch, totally forgot about that one!) The problem with Skullreapers and Khorne (especially the mortal side) is reliable MW output. Volume of attacks was always our selling point but getting into range and then doing reasonable damage is another story.

Sorry, I didn't get you there. This question was answered in the FAQ of the previous edition and is now in the Core Rules. A Normal Move means that you can move the distance shown on the warscroll. Furthermore, you can run and you can retreat as part of a normal move.

I think that's a common mistake, especially if you come from Oldhammer, but the Battleshock Phase is completely separate from combat. Murderlust is the move/charge, I think you mean Apoplectic Frenzy which is activated at the start of the Hero Phase... so no No Respite or Relentless Fury as well.

Both of those effects check for Combat Phase, which is resolved before the Battleshock Phase.

Facebook comes to mind if you use it but I'd guess that negative stuff gets removed. Maybe through the WarhammerTV stream but the chat might be in subscriber-only-mode or moderated as well.

Because we never got the chance to test it. Considering the copy & paste errors within the new BoK book, neither did the developers. The funniest thing is, that one of the developers said that Wrathmongers buffing the cannons was intended when asked on stream... At least, it seems that the guys working on Fyreslayers were a lot more passionate about the army than the interns scraping together the last couple Khorne books.

The book feels like as if it was on the agenda/development pipeline but no one in the team was actually passionate about it or the army. No matter what you plan on doing with the book or how you play your jolly murderous cannibals, I think we can all agree that this sentence is closer to reality than anyone of us would like. I've been lurking around the Fyreslayer rumours and threads the last couple days (seemingly like many other khorne players) and players are fairly happy with the changes. Not to mention that several aspects of the book seem rather strong and people already expect a harsh FAQ or point changes via GHB... My previous assumption seems to be true, that they produced two fairly strong books with FEC and Skaven, then paddled backwards hard with BoK and are now releasing a similarly strong book. Something that happens ever so often in tabletop for some reason, at least I've seen this happen in 40k a couple times. One book among several, ending up in a weird "power-valley" compared to books in close release date proximity. Personally, I'll keep playing Khorne but more due to me liking the aesthetics, having a huge collection and not having another army to use (I've got a good chunk of Slaves to Darkness and Everchosen but those aren't actually armies aren't they...) Maybe the big FAQ and GHB2019 can help by bringing other armies in line (DoK, SCE Celestar...). Which could help a lot and luckily we don't have to wait ~4 or more years for something to change like in oldhammer (nevertheless, it still stings...).

No, keywords and keyword checks are in bold. If the entries (e.g. in battalions) are not in bold, they are references to exact warscrolls.

Maybe something like this: Not sure if you'll end up with a lot of friends.

As the others said, I doubt DoK will see a new book in the foreseeable future. That being said, I'd guess they'll get the Tzeentch treatment this year (which was in a similar dominant position for quite some time). Harsh FAQ and/or severe point changes through GHB.

I think there is some confusion going around. These 3 entries are only targeted at abilities that allow the SAME UNIT to attack again. Meaning, the interaction with Tyrants of Blood is the same as before. The purpose of those entries is to make sure that you cannot abuse multiple activations of Leave None Alive. or similar, on a single unit, i.e. if you attack with a unit it still activates all abilities but every extra activation after the first are forfeit due to the sequential order of attacks (if that extra activation requires the first attack as trigger). Additionally, these entries made sure that start/end of a phase are still part of that phase and not some kind of sub-phase. So you cannot attack multiple times "for the first time" within a given phase (I'm not sure if there was some cheese I missed or people REALLY wanted to argue that begin/end of a phase is not the phase itself...). E.g for Tyrants + Reapers . -> Bloodthirster A attacks for the first time, I used Leave None Alive 3 times on him -> Leave None Alive triggers 3x, Fierce Rivals once -> I can now choose what to resolve* -> my order Leave None Alive(1), Leave None Alive(2), Fierce Rivals(3), Leave None Alive(4) -> I get my second activation(1) -> I already attacked a second time now and therefore (2) is forfeit -> I activate another BT(3), while still being in the same time frame -> "countable number of steps/subsequences" -> the last Leave None Alive (4) is thrown away due to FAQ restrictions like (2) -> ... -> end of time frame The sequence can be different, depending on how I order things but the result is always the same number of activations. To be honest, I am convinced that there was an easier way to fix Leave None Alive and the first attack per phase than this, but I guess it is what it is for now. * These abilities happen at the same time. The "immediately" in their rule text means that they are of higher priority than others but two abilities with this wording still happen in the same time frame and we can always choose what to resolve first thanks to: