SwampHeart

If that's the case then why did KO almost win CanCon? Why was CanCon won by Blades of Khorne? Why is BoC doing very well at the hands of a few skilled players? I'm not debating if power creep is real - it is, its always been there. You deal with it and move on, what I take issue with is the hyperbole in the above quote.

I think a major part of the issue with both LoN and DoK is they create some serious NPE (FEC and Skaven are likely to as well). I do think both armies are a little too good right now, but I think most of that can be fixed with a few tweaks (points increase to Hags and change their buff to wholly within for example). But I think the thing you have to look at (and this could could apply to the power creep thread as well) is how do these armies feel to play against. I'm a long time BoC player who does have success against many different armies. But I know when I first got involved with AoS (right around the start of 2.0) playing against either of those two armies always felt frustrating, and honestly it still does. Do I know how to manage grave sites and how to work around DoK buffs? Yes I do. Is it a fun game experience? No it really isn't. That said I don't think the correct or fair answer is to punish those armies because they aren't fun to play against - I just hope GW can look at those armies and make adjustments for the future to make armies more engaging to play with. TL;DR - Balance is different from play experience. DoK and LoN aren't fun to play against - GW shouldn't nerf the armies because of that but should instead use them as learning points to make strong armies that are fun to play against.

He's our only high maneuverability caster - tremendously important in Places of Power, Duality, etc. Even if he isn't using his buff on Tzaangor units he's an effective method for delivering tendrils to the right place, great for tying up shooting units like ballista, WLC, etc. I don't think the usefulness of a Tzaangor Shaman can be over stated.

Weird play group - 40k has a more potent alpha strike right now with less interactivity due to shooting. But I guess it feels better because you sometimes get to roll dice?

Sort of? It was released in that in between time of books that were ready for 2.0 but 2.0 wasn't out. They had a summoning mechanic rather than summoning spells but they still had to pay reinforcement points when the book was introduced.

That is correct - I too was confused by the FAQ language (because I thought Thanquol's wording was already clear). What the FAQ was stating is that you don't make 4 attacks at 4 dice per model within 8" (i.e. not 320 dice if 20 models are in range). You roll x dice (where x is how many warpfire projectors the model is equipped with) for each model within 8" in the target unit and for each 4+ the unit suffers 1 MW.

Tzaangors can specifically mix and match equipment. The optimum set up for 30 Tzaangors is: -12 Great Blades (including command models) -6 Mutatants w/paired blades -11 paired blades -1 Shield The shield will give the entire unit a 6+ save after save.

Both are solid options - I think you have to look at what bonuses you want outside the Tzaangors. I play primarily BoC but some DoT as well and often run Tzaangor heavy lists. I far prefer the herdstone, great frays, BoC spells and traits, etc. to the DoT options personally. I think the BoC summoning really helps offset the points investment of Tzaangors for example - you can summon in good cheap chaff usually on turn 1 or 2 to help take advantage of the gaps Tzaangors will inevitably create. Also if you get an opponent inside the herdstone aura it really boosts Tzaangor offensive output. However fate dice are a powerful mechanic that can turn games on their own. I think its really a matter of examining both allegiances and discovering which one suits your goals. I will say that the most successful Tzaangor & Enlightened on Disc setup right is Dan Bradshaw who is playing them as BoC.

I think the key to using BoC units successfully in god aligned armies is taking units that fill usually unavailable gaps in a given army. Ungors work well for example in Tzeentch because its a cheap screen/battle line selection. Centigors work well in Nurgle because they can become ludicrously fast and punchy with blades. From a game play point of view you have to have a very specific vision in mind if you want to really leverage BoC units in non BoC armies but there are some interesting builds available.

No - if you take the BoC Nurgle Battalion it isn't an 'ally' for a Nurgle army - its just a regular part of their army. Subject to all benefits, restrictions etc. Basically you trade primal call, the herdstone, great frays, and BoC traits/relics/spells for Nurgle's wheel, summoning, and traits/relics/spells. The god aligned BoC battalions can be included in their respective god aligned armies as a natural part of that army, not as an ally. When you take a god aligned battalion you are basically given the option to choose between BoC allegiance traits or god specific allegiance traits. You still cannot ally in god specific units with BoC (correctly I might add, this is intentional and should work this way) - you can only ally in BoC units with god specific armies. However any unit you take in a god specific battalion can be a regular (i.e. not an ally selection) part of that god specific army.

You are correct - was mixing him up with a Bestigor champ.

You've got it - make sure to add 1 additional attack to your greatblades for your champion (who should definitely have one). As a general rule your casualty removal order is Dual Blades > Mutants > Shield > Greatblades as the Greatblades do the lion's share of the damage in the unit.

Ungors are (unfortunately) better in almost every conceivable scenario. You get 10 more bodies for 10 less points at max size - so if you want a large screen they're most cost efficient. If you want to cheaply fill battle line or have a cheap summoning battery then Ungors get you the same body count for 20 less points. Gors are fantastic models but are largely there to fill a battalion tax. You can equip the banner and musician with any equipment options. This means they're usually equipped with a Savage Great Blade since you're going to want to remove them last. Maximum Savage Great Blades (make sure to equip your champion, banner and musician with these so as to make casualty removal easier), maximum mutants, 1-2 shields, rest with paired savage blades. Its what the rules say and its how I play it. Is it a benefit? Absolutely. Do I feel bad about it? Not at all - a maximum sized Tzaangor unit is a quarter of a 2k list, you're paying for the benefit. As to Tzaangors as a whole - some people may give you slack about their use but they're an awesome unit with great models (IMO) that are fully a part of our army now. They fill several roles effectively for us and I think they're 100% worth playing with to figure out if they fit your style.

Probably a language difference thing but the line you quoted doesn't require you to be a top tier player - it just requires your advice be sound and something you've actually tested rather than pure 'theoryhammer' as it were. I have 2 distinct points I'm making - the first revolves around if AoS has tactics or not (it does). My comments regarding skill/experience are largely directed towards that point (i.e. we see people who are consistently successful at AoS demonstrating a grasp and application of higher level tactics than simple list building and synergy). The second point is that I think something like AoS tactics would be fantastic - assuming the information it conveyed was of quality. You don't have to be a tournament winner to write quality tactica at all - just someone who plays consistently and can convey the information in a clear and consistent way. I'll be the first to admit that I take issue with the 'AoS has little to no tactics' refrain - its oft repeated and wrong every time. I don't appreciate seeing a game that has some of the most depth of a game GW has produced (at least for a mainline game) reduced to 'it works like MtG'. And it simply isn't something I'm willing to leave alone because I passionately disagree with that thought process.

To a point but a large part of the game is dealing with bad match ups and finding a way to win (see for example Russ's game against Sylvaneth at WHW Heat 1 this weekend). Having a good list is basically the base line for being successful at an event but the way you pilot it and how you deal with match ups is what determines if you're going to make a podium or top 10 spot. If list and match ups were 33% each of a 33/33/33 ratio you wouldn't see similar names placing consistently in multiple events. Player skill is still worth more than either of those 2 variables. The argument isn't actually about who's opinion is more valid, its about 'is there tactical depth to AoS?' - the answer (based on observable metrics) is yes. And yes new players use tools like AoS tactics - 100%. However the validity of those tactics is still worth talking about. We don't want or need a 1D4Chan situation here where people can go to a place and consume massive amounts of bad advice. One of the reasons AoS Tactics was such a valuable resource is that the author was putting out tested and valid advice that was useful to more than just new players.