Enoby
-
Posts
3,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Enoby
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I definitely believe that strategy games are better if the strength of alpha strikes is mitigated in some way. In AoS, the double turn serves that function. However, I think there are other designs could do it better, particularly because of what some people in this thread have mentioned
I do think you've raised some good points, and I wonder if simultaneous casualties would help mitigate this to an extent; I think this may have been an apocalypse rule.
So, from memory, how it worked was that you attack with a unit, tally up the damage it caused (but don't apply it yet), and then attack with the opposing unit (again tallying up the damage but not applying). After everyone has attacked, you apply the damage and take away casualties. I'm not sure how this worked with shooting, but it may be that shooting phases were simultaneous too.
I think this was added to save time, but it is an effective countermeasure against alpha strikes. It does come with its own issues, in that there's less reward for tactics (because it's bound to be a bloodbath on both sides unless you can pre-emptively debuff an opponent), but it does get rid of the issue where your favourite units are put back in the box without doing anything at all.
I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's something I'd want to try in AoS, just to see how it feels. I can see some potential issues developing, especially when it comes to greater tactical input (perhaps the unit that strikes first should get a bonus to give some reason to do it) and certain abilities no longer working (though I think they did have a rule that strike first did cause casualties before the strike back), but I think it'd remove the risk of melee alpha strike altogether.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
One reason might be that we transitioned to a new edition, but it does not feel like there has been an all-around improvement of the state of the game, or even overall progress towards a better gameplay experience. The edition change broke as many rules as it fixed. Some army books started deteriorating, having to play in an environment for which they were not written. A lot of the new rules that were introduced were good and adressed existing problems (like not having anything to do on your opponent's turn), but there are one or two new rules that really do more harm than good (the amulet and unleash hell before the battlescroll, coherency still).
I do agree with this, especially when it's combined with a dry AoS release schedule at the moment. I think, in first to second edition, the vast majority of armies were promised something new in the GHBs (I think for two years running in the last year of first and the first year of second) - basically, everyone who didn't already have their own allegiance abilities, got one. In AoS 3, it was basically a case of the core rules changing, which impacted armies indirectly but not exactly in a way that was as exciting. In AoS 1 - 2, there was loads of discussion around armies because nearly everyone was getting something new (especially compared to the nothing they had before). Currently, armies that haven't got an update don't have much more to discuss.
I don't know if it would have been too much work, but if all of the White Dwarf matched play updates were included in the first AoS 3 GHB, I think the reception would be better.
6 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:Another thing I am observing is that the community seems to have a hard time dealing with their new battletomes
I agree with this too, and I think it may be because this is one of the first times in AoS that battletomes are being updated on a wide scale; while Stormcast have had a few refreshes, the majority of armies have only had the one battletome and so have rarely had to deal with losing something (which is necessary to avoid rules bloat).
I have also noticed that there are some posts which are unhelpfully negative in relation to new battletomes; not that the comments themselves are wrong, but occasionally (and not just on this forum - it's especially common on Twitter) people have the opinion that not only is something bad, but no one else should be allowed to enjoy it either. I know Slaanesh groups (but thankfully not this forum) are really bad for this; I do think the book is sub par, but anytime anything is said about the book, its dogpiled by people insisting it's impossible to win with and that there's no point in even trying, to the point where people handicap themselves by refusing to learn.
On the other hand, as mentioned before, I do think some battletomes feel subpar and sometimes soulless. As @Koala said, the ingredients are there but some battletomes (not necessarily the AoS 3 ones) just feel grey. As if the writer didn't have much time or passion to give to the project. I think these issues are made more apparent with passionate fans - if you look at the Slaanesh thread (or the survey a while ago) a lot of people were really passionate about the army and the possible new mechanics that could come with the new mortals - surely, we thought, they'll have to add something exciting for these new models. In the end, the book had some solid quality of life changes and very questionable points values, but more importantly, it had a lot of people saying "I could have wrote this better".
When you have passionate fans, you have a lot of ideas and expectations (which are difficult to manage) about how the army should perform. The writers may not feel the same way, and they can't accurately translate these hopes into the battletome. So when an army gains a larger following of excited fans, the updated battletomes need to exceed the quality of the previous battletome, and in many cases I don't think they do.
I think this leaves some tomes feeling like wasted potential. I can only really fully comment on Slaanesh, but the ideas for combat drugs, perfections, and customisable excesses were just not met in what was overall a retread of the first book with the same emphasis on summoning; this was combined with all of the troops having fluffy sounding abilities that translated into 'get a ward save/do mortal wounds/add to hit or wound/reroll hits' - just bland gamey rules. Look at Glutos's scroll for example; the theme is a multi course meal, which is awesome, but the effects of this meal don't really translate that well into gameplay - they're not weak, but they feel like the effects were made without regards for the fluff (e.g. why does 'main course' translate into battleshock immunity?).
However, if you look at something like Lumineth's new scrolls, Sevireth (hurricane fox) has the 'into the gale' ability, which is basically a tornado surrounding them. This gives a ward save (because weapons struggle to find their mark through the wind) and a reduction on pile in because its hard to walk through the gale. This is a great ability because not only does it have a tangible effect, but it mimics the fluff.
I think AoS 1 (and to an extent 2) did a better job at translating this fluff into rules, though it did come at the cost of balance. For example, the old Chaos Lord ability (think it was something like "Death or Glory") where you could swear to kill the opposing general that turn, and if you did you got to be a daemon prince, and if not, you got to be a spawn. Now the Chaos Lord has a weapon that does mortal wounds and a command ability that allows a unit to strike twice - you could copy that warscroll into any other army and it wouldn't feel out of place with a slight refluff.
I don't think it's a universal problem with every book, but I do think this thread has helped put my finger on it a bit more - there are a lot of rules that sound fluffy, but are actually really basic. Warscrolls like The Chaos Lord, Glutos, Sigvald (who has cool rules, but nothing on vanity - no bonuses for being the centre of attention in his own army, or ways he can distract himself with his own beauty), and Knight-Heraldor are pretty bad for this.
On the other hand, there are plenty of new warscrolls that do feel really creative - Lumineth are a great example, a lot of Soulblight seems pretty cool, and new Nurgle's abilities seem much more fluffy than before. I appreciate it's very difficult to make creative rules that don't just boil down to mortal wounds, pluses to hit, ward saves, and battleshock immunity, though it does feel like some books suffer more than others in this regard (with mortal Slaanesh, imo, being the worst offender (and ironically daemon Slaanesh being pretty great with it's fluffiness)).
-
13
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Wordy9th said:
Sigvald's 'fight first at the start of the combat phase if he's charged'. Does this mean I can attack with him, and then immediately with another unit if it's my turn? If not, what's the benefit of this?
Yes, you can fight with Sigvald and then something else so it's pretty strong
27 minutes ago, Wordy9th said:The Keeper's CA. Can I use it to make Sigvald immediately attack after his start of the combat phase activation? Or do I have to wait until my next activation, after the opponent's? Does it also count as a full activation in itself?
You can use the Keeper's command ability to attack twice in a row, and it counts as an activation. So it would go like this:
- Sigvald charges
- Sigvald fights first
- Keeper uses their CA
- Sigvald fights again
- Opponent fights
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
This conclusion might be quite a leap. To me it seems that the books have become more or less a reprint with almost no new ideas and mostly minor tweaks to favour one playstyle over the other. There seems to be a shift away from making rules (and games?) flavourful and thematic - which is the number one reason I play this game. It seems like the books are mostly catered towards a competetive environment that doesn't need or want flavour, they want powerful Warscrolls and abilities. And the comp. players will be fine and even like this. However, most of us are not competetive players
I think, overall, I do agree with your conclusion but it's hard to put my finger on why.
Certainly, I can say I was more excited for AoS 1 and 2 battletomes, and I do remember being a lot more wow'd by their warscrolls and allegiance abilities back then.
On the other hand, that could just be nostalgia talking - or at least the excitement that comes with the game being new.
Regardless, as the game has matured it's seemed like there's been a push for more standardised battletomes and simpler Warscrolls. That doesn't necessarily mean weaker, but rather less 'creative' (or open to manipulation, depending on how you see it).
It's very easy to point to AoS 0 where the Warscrolls were absolutely insane and had you act differently depending on the time of day, but it's been a long time since AoS 0 and we would probably be best looking at the beginning of AoS 2.
Slaves to Darkness came out early into AoS 2 and while the battletome and warscrolls themselves are controversial, I do think the abilities themselves are narratively inclined (Eye of the Gods especially, the different Tribes and their different playstyles, the Marks of the Gods etc.), but even then they got rid of some of the sillier rules like the Chaos Lords big stick of 2d6 death (the biggest tragedy of the book). Lumineth, while a lot more recent, is a very narratively inclined book with loads of exciting Warcrolls, and the reason that makes me think it's not just a nostalgia thing - their books and warscrolls feel fresh and creative, giving me a similar feeling to AoS 1.
I don't have any empirical evidence, but from looking through the Warclans books, there's a lot to do tactically, but it feels a bit like fluff covering for bland (or perhaps too standardised) rules.
I do think there are still fun warscrolls in the game and interesting allegiance abilities, but it feels like there are some that were designed with functionality over form.
Partially (if not mostly), I'd reckon the reason is that you can only have so many ways for rules to interact with one another, so we've often seen a lot of the new rules before.
Path to Glory, if it had more work on it, would be a great way to add your own fluff - I really hope that they release a large book for PTG to help make it feel like a fully fleshed out game mode.
-
3
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, HollowHills said:
Second, I'm disappointed that the book (coming out nearly 4 years after the first) seems to be so low effort. It fits the trend of streamlined AoS books, but I would have liked to see a few more options. For example, a prayer lore and more spells / artifacts
It does seem that, when compared to 40k books, you get a lot less bang for your book with AoS battletomes
A lot of it is just the differences between the games, but the 2021 Slaanesh book had loads of copy and pasted rules (one of which doesn't work with the new allegiance ability) and I think this has been true with a lot of other redo books unfortunately.
It's not always the case (looking at Nurgle), but often is - I'd personally prefer they only release books when they have a good chunk to add/change to the rules.
Some changes will always be present in new books, which is a given, but they'd be more exciting if they took more risks rather than just nudging things around a bit.
-
2
-
-
Finished another Path to Glory character, this time with two models
Queen Akhash as a Warqueen (Undivided) and her as an Aspiring Champion (Tzeentch) after making an unwitting pledge to a Lord of Change.
-
4
-
-
I've played a lot of sub 1000 point games in Path to Glory, and have enjoyed all of them a lot
They have always been with friendly lists, but one thing I have appreciated is that on foot heroes feel much more heroic - my Chaos Lord actually did a decent amount of damage, and one of the opponent's Orruk Megaboss on foot is very scary with Destroya (or whatever that +3 damage weapon is called).
This is narrative so there will be more friendly games and unbalanced battleplans, but each unit feeling more impactful is a huge boon when you want to be a bit more experimental with unit choices (you can of course experiment in 2000 points, but the smaller the points the more a unit will stand out usually).
The speed is also nice too - I've played a lot of 750 point games, and getting them done in an hour or so is great.
There are a few issues, but nothing that's been game breaking. As mentioned, every unit is proportionally more impactful, so certain units may be too big to use in a fun way. For example, I was asked to stop using the Karkadrak lord at 750 points and under as it was too difficult to deal with. That wasn't an issue with a group of friends, but may be harder to moderate with strangers.
-
5
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, HollowHills said:
Honestly as an Idoneth player I don't want the book to come out and be seen as clearly superior to existing armies. Why? Lots of reasons.
Totally agree with what you've said, and have a few things to add:
When I played 2019 Slaanesh, which as many remember was an awfully overpowered and oppressive book, it left me in bad situation when it came to casual games. The reputation of the book meant that nobody wanted to play against the army, no matter if you were playing three Keepers or only a single hero and a load of chariots.
In addition, depending on the attitude of the opponent, occasionally there were lose-lose games:
- If you won, you were carried by the book.
- If you lose, you must suck to have managed that.
That's not to say being significantly underpowered is fun either, but OP sounds much more exciting than it is when it comes to casual match ups.
-
8
-
-
2 hours ago, Kitsumy said:
*snip*
As Liquidsteel has said, do you know if the data you have is accurate (like a full battletome leak) or is it just speculation? While I have no doubt it could be true, I'm just concerned it might be someone trying to stir the pot.
-
10 minutes ago, Doko said:
So far 3 nerfs for the same old hability and 0 buffs......in the style of every new leak of the book
I don't play against Fyreslayers very often, but isn't it the case that their strike first ability was locked behind a particular subfaction? On a quick glance, that doesn't seem to be the case here and will hopefully open up lists, rather than every army being from one lodge.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dingding123 said:
Question: what all changes between 1500 and 2k games besides the number of points? Fewer battleline requirements? Is that it?
As mentioned, at the moment god models would be impossible to field under the "no unit worth half your points" rule.
One of the other things is that the smaller the game, the quicker it can swing. Not always the case, but imagine a 200pt game - it would be tiny, and potentially won in a single turn (or whenever the two units clashed, probably the first striker winning). To an extent, the smaller the game the more chance it has to be decided in the first turns as the wound count is smaller (damage is also smaller, though not 1:1 amounts of smaller as most people will cut chaff from smaller lists rather their damaging units). This isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.
Finally, some combos don't work at lower points, usually because the combo piece (e.g. Morathi) doesn't have enough to buff.
Sometimes these changes won't matter, but they're worth considering.
-
Just now, Wordy9th said:
Hey guys, if I’m looking to start collecting slaanesh does anyone have any suggestions on what to go for?
I’m thinking the shadow and pain box and the blade carnival with sigvald? I’m a fan of big boxes for value but I’m open to suggestions.
cheers!
The Slaanesh Christmas battle box, if you can find it, is probably the best bargain you can find - everything in there (besides Slaangors) can be used to good effect
That, a start collecting (for summoning - half of Shadow and Pain could also work if you can split the box) and Sigvald would easily make a 1000+point army.
Other things to look at in the future would be:
- A Lord of Pain
- Additional Twinsouls up to 10 (you want a unit of 10)
- Glutos (very strong all rounder)
- Keeper of Secrets (this is usually just for summoning though so don't feel as if it needs to be an instant buy)
-
On 2/25/2022 at 8:31 AM, CeleFAZE said:
A bit of last minute painting before representing as the only Slaanesh player at a 2-day tourney this weekend.
She's absolutely getting shot off the board turn 1, but I still wanted to give her a try.
She looks great!
Also, off the topic of the game but still interesting, Josh Raynolds was talking about what BL books have sold well this year and he actually said Darkly Dreaming was his best selling audio book this time around. Doesn't mean all too much, but maybe it might persuade more Slaanesh work in the future...
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, madmac said:
To be fair though, this is just a battletome transition issue. As units with shields granting+1 save get updated with new warscrolls, they've been reliably getting bumped to just having a better base save, as they should. It was a meaningless distinction in 2E because there were no limits on save stacking, now it's something that GW should honestly have already addressed for all armies using errata.
Personally I'd prefer it if it went the other way, and any "3+ with a shield" monsters became "4+1s" instead. I do agree that GW is going the other way, but at the same time, I think a 3+ save makes some very deadly monsters too tanky. Partially this is also because there is very little that would ever be worth missing out on a 3+ save (but a 4+1 is less good so it's more of a choice), but it's mostly because a 2+ ignoring 1 rend Mawkrusha is just too much hassle for any casual list to deal with.
I'm one of the people who'd like AoS to become more toned down in damage, but I don't think the best way to do that is give 3+ saves on the most deadly of units. If Chaos Warriors had a 3+ save, they'd be totally fine as they do like 2 damage average a turn, so they can be a tank without being good at everything.
This is very off topic now, but it has made me think about monster saves.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Doko said:
Ok to provide actual data(btw freeguild general have save 4+1 that is 3)
4+1 is considerably different to a base 3, and considerably worse. The biggest difference is that your best possible save is a roll of a 3+ on a 4+1, but it's a 2+ on a base 3.
Nearly every 4+ save monster can get a 4+1 save from either finest hour (if a hero), all out defence, mystic shield, or any of the other ways a faction may provide a save bonus. A Freeguild General on Griffon just gets that easy +1 for free, so the advantage is small.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
This is just my experience. How do you feel about TTS games? Did you have(ish) same experiences or adifferent one all together?
The last time I tried TTS for AoS, when I tried to move a unit of 40 marauders, the unit exploded. It felt like I was fighting a war on two fronts - one with the opponent and one with the physics engine. That just wasn't enjoyable for me.
I'm happy it works for some people, but I don't think I'll ever try it again. Though I appreciate I'm lucky to have a decent number of friends who play AoS so I can play in person easily.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, novakai said:
@madmacI get the frustration but one could also said they bum rush Slaanesh, DoK, LRL, BR, Cursed City, Kragnos and SBGL over releasing Hexfire and shadow throne earlier in order to release AoS 3.0 on time last year too. It wasn’t like there was that great of coverage for Death guard to Grey knights either
Edit: wooops I reply to Enoby post instead of madmac lol
Yeah, that's what I meant by "That said, I do remember last year (maybe around this time last year with Broken Realms) the discussion was in the other direction; in fact I think I remember saying "maybe AoS is growing faster than 40k and that's why it's getting so many more releases". It could well be an issue of warped perspective when it comes to releases"
We do likely have a bias for AoS here, considering the forum we're on, so lack of 40k is hardly on the radar. I'd happily admit to likely being wrong about the release state of 40k!
My main point was more looking at AoS in its own bubble, compared to previous AoS, it seems like there's less online effort and less hype. If this turns around, I would be overjoyed to be incorrect - but at the moment it seems like hype is low and that the discussions on battletomes are more poor compared to early AoS 2.
-
47 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:
My worry is that up to now the coverage and support for AoS has been conspicuously on parr with that of 40k. They've spent the last five or so years really pushing the game, and !making it clear that it's their big fantasy system, and on an equal footing with their primary game.
Yeah, this is sort of where my worry lies as well. I don't think they're going to scrap AoS or something like that, but I do think it's ended up proving itself significantly less popular than 40k. That's not a surprise at all considering how much history 40k has behind it, but I worry it'll end up with big releases always leaning 40k and AoS getting less support over time.
That said, I do remember last year (maybe around this time last year with Broken Realms) the discussion was in the other direction; in fact I think I remember saying "maybe AoS is growing faster than 40k and that's why it's getting so many more releases". It could well be an issue of warped perspective when it comes to releases.
Whether either or neither of these are true, I do think that the quality of AoS website content has decreased. Not necessarily in a linear way, but a while ago (maybe mid AoS 2) it felt as if every battletome had a proper hype week at least about it, going over loads of rules and design thoughts in detail. While we have had some rules articles for the newer battletomes, Slaanesh 2, Nurgle, Fyreslayers and I think Soulblight to an extent had very sparse 'hype weeks'. I distinctly remember how poor the Slaanesh 2 'hype week' was, with a single rules preview (after the battletome was leaked) and a couple of 'look at these pictures and models' articles. Compared to Slaanesh 1's 'hype week', they redecorated the website, had a in depth talk about what Slaanesh means to the designers (with a neat little spider diagram talking about each part), a neat video with the fiends, a look over at the new allegiance abilities, and a look at the new warscrolls. This is despite the second release being bigger and more people seemed hyped about it. I'm not sure the reason for the change; maybe the social team just prefers 40k, maybe the orders come from data and 40k articles just get more clicks, maybe someone left their position and they're struggling to find an AoS writer. It could be any number of reasons, but I have noticed it.
The end isn't nigh for AoS, but I do think things have changed slightly. Back in my day, in the Age of Myth known as AoS 1, getting a battletome was a big and exciting event. This was mostly because loads of armies had no allegiance abilities at all, and so getting something was a huge change to their playstyle and thus really exciting. Now, getting a battletome can be a worrying time, compounded by strange rules previews that read as if they have something to hide. We can't really go back to the time of AoS 1 without removing all allegiance abilities from the game and starting from scratch, but I think AoS needs to go a bit further with the battletomes. Quite a few of them feel as if they don't make changes meaningful enough to warrant a new book.
I mention this because, compounded with the release drought, there seems to be a general lack of hype around AoS at the moment. New models are sparse and battletomes don't always drum up excitement (besides of the anxious kind). I'm hoping things improve in the future - it's still a really fun game, but the breaks have really been hit.
-
3
-
-
22 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Nurgle and now IDK and Fyreslayers are almost being straight up ignored at this point.
While, like you, I do understand the focus on 40k when it comes to releases, it's very disappointing that AoS hardly holds a candle to the number of 40k articles. Of course, you could argue that more releases should mean more writing, but that doesn't really excuse the minimal number of articles on Nurgle, Fyreslayers, and Deepkin - it makes it seem like they're unimportant.
I will admit I am personally biased against 40k, but even if 40k wasn't getting anything, it feels like AoS 3 has been shoved on the backburner in all regards
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
Indeed. It’s just the best format! (Worst Missions though) ^^
I really hope they release a P2G book soon with better missions, more territory, outposts (still not sure what they do), and hero customisation. It's a really great format, but it could use more love.
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, Grimrock said:
Funny enough, her lore on page 37 of the current army book says that Khorne reforged her as a 'Daemon Queen'. So the lore specifically says she's a daemon, but instead of DAEMON she has MORTAL. I've written the FAQ team for the last two books asking if it was a typo, but according to the FAQ it was omitted intentionally. Absolutely no idea why or what possible rules abuse they're trying to avoid, but the rules just absolutely directly contradict the stated lore for the model.
Thanks for the info
It's a very odd choice - sometimes the rules department feels really disjointed.
In fact, it reminds me of when the Darkoath Savages didn't get the ability to take a mark (lack of cultist keyword), and when asked why, a rules writer said the reason was the same as why the Warqueen couldn't take a mark.
The Warqueen was given the ability to take a mark a few weeks prior.
I think the rules team likely have a lot on their plate (and perhaps too few of them) so they end up with disjointed feeling rules that don't make that much sense.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, Noserenda said:
Well she is a Daemon prince isnt she so she could just exist in 40k, that said the newborn Slannesh daemon princes didnt get rules in 40k afaik so far
I'm not actually sure if Valkia is a daemon prince in AoS - I thought she was, but her rules would suggest otherwise.
I think she may come under the "immortal mortal brand of Chaos champions", where the god resurrects them and they don't age, but they're not a daemon.
-
I've been playing a lot more Slaves to Darkness in narrative play, and I can say that (fittingly) S2D is a really good army for Path to Glory. There are a wide selection of models that come under "decent stats but not too strong", meaning you can bring pretty experimental lists safely. In a way it's made me appreciate the warscrolls a bit more from a casual perspective, but it has caused a problem competitively.
The current P2G has made me aware of how much of a 'narrative' book S2D seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of units that don't fit their lore, but by 'narrative' I mean there are lots of Warscrolls that just exist and perform fine. I think SCE perform like this too - their competitive winrate is carried by a tiny fraction of their warscrolls, but the others do just fine in a casual sense. This extends to allegiance abilities, especially the Eye of the Gods.
In Path to Glory, the Eye is carried over on heroes and it's actually really cool to see your hero grow stronger. But in a normal matched play game it seems close to useless, with only the Krakadrak and Manticore Lord having the chance to benefit. In P2G, people are using on foot heroes as actual combatants so you can challenge them. In matched play, foot heroes are at the back buffing and you're going to struggle to kill a 2+ save Mawkrusha unless you're Archaon (who gets now Eye).
Then for units, looking at Chaos Knights as an example, while I don't think they fit their lore, they are 'fair' units in that they are never overwhelming and can be countered, but if played well they can dish out respectable damage. They do also act like cavalry, which gives them a niche. In P2G, this means you can take a unit of them and have them feel pretty useful. In matched play, the opponent can probably shoot them to death, or just charge something useless into them to keep them tied up all game (also possible in P2G, but there are fewer alpha strikes or teleports from experience).
So on one hand, it's been nice trying a wide array of units that perform to a satisfying standard. This contrasts against a unit like Slaangors or Black Knights which don't fit any role and are just bad. I feel I can add most things and have them do well enough that I don't regret taking them against other casual lists.
On the other hand, in a competitive sense, it only feels as if there are a small number of stand out units - Archaon, Chaos Sorcerer Lord, Chaos Lord, Khorne DP, Marauders, Varanguard (in certain circumstances), and Belakor. Everything else feels a bit overbalanced when it comes across another powerful unit.
This may be a criticism more against AoS than the S2D book, but most S2D units feel as if they've had the breaks put on them to make sure they don't get out of hand. If everything was designed like that, it'd be fine (better, even), but when taking the army competitively, anything but our creme of the crop crumbles. In a strange way, some of the design harkens back to AoS 0 where, without points, most things were reigned in.
I know this is a bit rambly, but the more I play in P2G, the more I'm pleasantly surprised how well some of my more disliked units do. However, when I move over to matched play, it tends to fall apart unless I bring our strongest stuff. In a way, I think this is the case for 90% of AoS armies, but S2D does feel like it's more overbalanced than average with the number of restrictions that crop up (especially the Aura of Chaos allegiance ability).
I'd recommend trying P2G *if* you have a group that won't just treat it like Mini Matched Play. There are a tonne of decent units that we have access to which are fun to play but would never see a matched play table, and you don't have to resort to Archaon to kill something.
-
4
-
-
Kind of starting a new army in that I'm building up Slaves to Darkness for a Path to Glory army. Now, I say "kind of" because I had quite a few S2D models to use in my Hedonites and they're being reused here, but I've added quite a few things I wouldn't normally use.
I've also done a tonne of writing for the army, mostly just to exercise my writing muscles, but I was thinking of posing it here at some point.
-
15
-
A lot of it is just the differences between the games, but the 2021 Slaanesh book had loads of copy and pasted rules (one of which doesn't work with the new allegiance ability) and I think this has been true with a lot of other redo books unfortunately.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
From today's White Dwarf Article, regarding Khorne:
"They also earn a Battletome update including a new battle trait, a new warscroll for the Skull Altar, a Grand Strategy and three Battle Tactics for matched play, and further goodies for open play and Path to Glory."
Doesn't say all too much, but if it's the scenery is as improved as the BoC Herdstone and the new battle trait is good, then maybe a Blood Warrior will have killing power deserving of their title!