SwampHeart

Yeah, when its applicable. But there are times when I can't have my Enlightened walking up the board at 9", sometimes you need to use them aggressively to remove threats earlier. Also with more shooting coming into the meta the Ungor clip trick isn't as reliable as it used to be because opponents are either shooting the Ungors or the Enlightened off early.

Never really found that the Tz. Shaman can actually keep up with and maintain his wholly within buff aura on a unit of Enlightened in regular play.

Wildfire Taurus is a consistently good performer. The horn is solid as well though a bit more situational in when and how you apply it. I don't have a ton of experience with the flock, at its point cost there are usually just better generic endless spells I'd rather cast.

Strengths are (no particular order here) - access to some solid army synergy (but this is usually demon OR mortal specific, not a lot of overlap), very good prayers (nice because they can't be dispelled), and obviously good over all punch. Weaknesses - overall they're a slow army, maybe not on the surface but when you look at their ability to cover a 24" gap its not great. They also really rely on those support heroes who don't have a lot of survivability tricks (super vulnerable to stuff like ungor shooting, MW spells, etc). They're also fairly squishy - mostly 5+ saves across the board, again they rely on bronzed flesh to get most of their survivability boosts. I don't know that'd I agree they have better synergy than us. Our book has limited synergy but honestly the only synergy we need is a Bray Shaman handing out +3 movement early game. Its why I like BoC and do well with them, they don't fit the current mold of a competitive army. I don't care about character sniping, I'm not reliant on lots of 'wholly within' bubbles that limit my movement, I just use cost efficient units to control the board and win objectives. Its why BoC are both a challenging and rewarding army - they're very different from the current mold of competitive AoS armies. Overall I'm not convinced they're anymore durable as a whole nor do they actually deal that much more damage than BoC. A unit of Bestigors with re-roll failed to wounds is still an amazing hammer. Their damage is often flashier with big splashy mortal wounds or huge volume bloodsecrator buffed attacks but I've watched their army play and I feel like I kill just as fast as they do against similar targets. Honestly the way I play BoK is not to different from most of my other games. I shoot stuff with Raiders (usually slaughterpriests or bloodsecrators early) and I charge stuff with enlightened and bestigors. Its largely about getting your match ups set up favorably which with BoC speed shouldn't be an issue. Bestigors are great for cutting through Blood Warriors, Blood Letters, Reavers, etc and Enlightened are great for chopping down skullcannons, thristers, and juggers. You just have to play the objectives and use your speed to your advantage. I am going to play against a big jugger list this weekend so I'll report back from that to let you know how it went. I've got a super enthusiastic BoK player in my group and we've been working on lists and ideas since the book came out so I've been playing alot of BoK lately.

What you described isn't a matched play experience, its a narrative play experience which is very different. Absolutely its less true. Those terrain pieces aren't required and in a narrative game experience you are expected to shift the rules to fit your desired narrative. If those terrain pieces don't fit the story you are telling you don't use them. The argument that they're immersion breaking doesn't hold up because if that's your primary interest then GW literally has a way to play spelled out for you where by your immersion doesn't have to be broken with faction specific terrain pieces. The fact that you chose to play matched play when its clearly not a fit for what you want out of the game isn't the fault of the system. But by all means continue to complain about it - as I recall you spent a decent page in the BoC thread talking to me about how my negative attitude towards Gors wasn't helping anyone but I'm sure constantly complaining about faction specific terrain is entirely different.

This is called narrative gaming and you can and are supposed to alter the rules to fit the narrative. It isn't as if you're forced to used every matched play rule when playing a narrative game.

This is why WHFB died - because it had an ancient and ponderous release schedule. The more releases the better - I could not be happier with the fact that GW is pumping out content for the game. The idea of waiting years between updates is painful to even consider. More boxed games, more sources of interesting models that aren't tied to full blown army releases, this is what's making GW successful and the hobby fun again.

I play almost exclusively at 2k so my experiences are relevant to that point level. Khorne hasn't really been an issue for me for the following reasons: I run the Wildfire Taurus to help me deal with the Fight First BT I don't over invest in magic (usually 1 Shaman, 1 Tzaangor Shaman) so their magic defense is largely wasted I run a lower drop(3) list than most Khorne players so I'm not worried about an alpha, to the point where I usually give BoK the first turn I have 60 Ungor Raiders in a Desolating Brayherd which deal significant damage to BTs (or any other unit really) Tzaangor Enlightened on Disc still mince basically any unit in a BoK army even without access to their re-rolls. I've played against the new book three times now and just never felt threatened. The worst game was 3 Places against a 3 BT list but even then I felt like I had the upper hand the whole game.

You can cast any spell from a realm list but only if your game is being played in that realm. So if you're at an event that isn't using realms for example you wouldn't have access to those spells. The only way to cast them is to be playing your game in that specific realm. Never seen anyone write a list with spells from a specific realm but artefacts are allowable no matter what realm you play in (assuming the event you're at allows them at all). You may pick a realm your army is from and choose artefacts from that realm for your characters (following all other normal rules for selecting artefacts). It is worth noting that you can only ever select artefacts from one realm - so if you had access to 2 artefacts (for having a battalion) you couldn't chose options from both the realm of light and the realm of life.

It certainly can be - the general wisdom is that if you're going for a Great Fray its Gave Spawn all the way. But if you want to go for say a Shaggoth general there are some decent non fray options that are attractive.

Counter point - this can be a very effective screen depending on your opponents various movement/charge/pile-in options.

I think it'd be nice to have both eventually. But I'd start with big picture rules stuff (basics like screening, good pile ins, how to deal with hordes by minimizing their pile ins, etc.) There are I think a lot of big concepts that are valuable to understand regardless of if you'll try to use them or if you want to know how someone would try to counter you.

This is probably the stronger list of the two but I'd drop cogs. We don't actually care about the speed buff most of the time because the army is fast enough on its own and you don't want to provide a bonus to your opponent. I'd rather find another 40 points to take the Wildfire Taurus, decent MW output plus its a solid answer to the Gristlegore Dragon problem.

You missed my actual point then which is: Why would I listen to someone who says the game can be played like MtG and has no tactics if that person isn't demonstrating a high level of performance at the game? There is no reason for me to do so because that is an uninformed opinion. I then used a wealth of available information to prove otherwise. I am making 2 separate points in this thread (as I have pointed out several times). Anyone who'd like can contribute to tactical discussion because there is always value in at least discussing new ideas (even if they're eventually proven to be ineffective). However I'm not going to listen to (or sit quietly while) someone with little top table experience describes AoS as a game with little to no tactical skill involved when it is demonstrably false. Again I want to be clear - I am not saying people who don't have top table experience don't have valid insight on tactics. I am saying that I won't listen to someone's over simplification of the nature of AoS if that person doesn't have podiums under their belt.

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.

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.

Statements of fact are neither a personal attack or an insult. I'm simply drawing what I think is a logical conclusion - if your assessment of the state of game play is correct then you should be demonstrating a high level of success. You've said the game lacks tactics and plays closer to MtG (a game you have experience with and enjoy), if we assume that is true then we should see players who have a high mastery of that given skill set (I'd assume its safe to say that's you given your general posting history) would be achieving a high level of success at the game. What I'm then pointing out is that (that AoS lacks tactics and is MtG like) is wrong - using the experiences of players who have achieved a consistent high level of success who exhibit a different skill set mastery. I'm also offering corroborating evidence regarding the perceived lack of tactics in AoS as compared to WHFB using my own experience (again at a high level of play) in WHFB.

To offer a different perspective - I don't know that I've ever been frustrated by a loss. I long ago adopted the mentality that failure is simply a step in a process. I read Bernard Roth's The Achievement Habit at a fairly young age and found it to be greatly influential (in both my professional and personal life). Since then I've approached loses as just another step in a feedback loop. Why be frustrated when its just a natural step in the evolution of a process? To get past that I think you have to examine why you're playing the game in general, what is your desired outcome? If your why doesn't align with your how I think you'll be consistently frustrated because you're never able to process the feedback appropriately. If you're primary goal is to enjoy the game with friends but you focus on wins or perceived power imbalance then your looking at feedback from one process that isn't relevant to your goal. Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.

But this is patently false. I played WHFB (at a high level - wins at Alamo, The Hillbilly, Lonewolf, etc) from late 5th all the way through 8th and I can tell you that I make as many decisions in a game of AoS that are meaningful to the course of the game as I did during WHFB. The mistake people make is they mistake rules complexity (i.e. wheeling, pivoting, flanks, etc) for tactical complexity. AoS is just as tactical a game as WHFB ever was - just in its own rights. It involves make a different type of decisions than WHFB (i.e. individual positioning, pile in moves, etc.) but certainly no less in its overall decisions. And I circle back around to the main point - why would I listen to someone with no major podiums opinions on the level of tactics involved with the game? Surely if this was correct and the game could be played like MtG you'd have more overall tournament success no?