AoS Second Edition

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Of course, even their new stuff is magnitudes better than SCE (although that isn't saying very much).

This is true in that at least we’re not being swamped with yet more of them every year like we are with Sigmarines...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

This is true in that at least we’re not being swamped with yet more of them every year like we are with Sigmarines...

No worry of that happening. I don't think they are that big on GW's radar. It will probably be a while until they receive an update of any real significance. SCE on the other hand...

 

[Canas]

I'm sorry, by half the other Nighthaunts, do you mean Hexwraiths and Spirit Hosts? Because apart from heroes, they're the only 2 units that have the Frightful touch rule. I don't see achieving this kind of list with Hexwraiths or Spirit Hosts, much less on a single hero, so I don't see how they're replaceable in that manner. Also can you tell me which Nighthaunt units have a lesser reliance on the buffs? Because the more Elite stuff that you could try to compare are probably the Bladegheist Revenants, and they're 2/3+/3+/-1/1, which isn't that much better, even considering their special abilities. and then they cost a lot more for a max of 20 models.

I'd say this can be achievable with Chainrasp Hordes, but then again you're losing the -1 rend, which is a lot.


Not this effectively, no. Atleast not IMO.

Looking at the list, and the available options, it just feels as if the only reason the grimghast are there and not say the bladegheist is due to them being cost efficient bodies with decent stats, but not due to them filling a particular niche or having a particular synergy or ability that other options would lack, in fact the other options often have advantages that they don't (such as the frightfull touch or the Bladegheists extra attacks). The only thing in that list that the grimghast take greater advantage of, to some degree, than some of the other options is the knight of shrouds' command ability, but it requiring CP it's not like he can abuse that more than 1 or 2 times during a game which limits that strategy.

I'm not saying it's a "bad" list, he won with it so it obviously works. It just feels as if they're very replaceable which makes it, to me, an unfun list to play against. It feels like a list where you just have a random collection of decently strong stuff which creates massive target saturation but doesn't follow any particular strategy beyond that thus leaving your opponent in a situation where pretty much regardless of what he attacks you won't really care unless he wipes out your entire army in one go. It's basicly what bugs me about the SCE as well.

Does that make it clearer what I mean?

 

[Xasto]

Does that make it clearer what I mean?

Not really, as in one post you'll argue that this is not a reliable tactic but in another you'll say that whatever unit gets killed, the list is still going to kill you, which is pretty much reliability in itself. Your train of thoughts is very hard to follow, but maybe it's just me.

IMO the Grimghast Reapers are the perfect unit for this kind of list, given all that was previously said.

 

[Canas]

Not really, as in one post you'll argue that this is not a reliable tactic but in another you'll say that whatever unit gets killed, the list is still going to kill you, which is pretty much reliability in itself. Your train of thoughts is very hard to follow, but maybe it's just me.

IMO the Grimghast Reapers are the perfect unit for this kind of list, given all that was previously said.

I never said the list wasn't reliable, unless I managed to somehow completly misphrase something.

 

[Xasto]

I never said the list wasn't reliable, unless I managed to somehow completly misphrase something.

Though even then I'd question how Reliant the tactic is on them given the various advantages the other options have, such as lesser reliance on the buffs or the mortal wounds on 6+ half the other nighthaunt have. They still appear increadibly replaceable.

This is the part

 

[Canas]

Right, I didn't mean the list was unreliable, I meant the list wasn't Reliant on the grimghast as it appears like they could essentially be replaced by most other nighthaunt stuff and the strategy would be basicly the exact same as well as the results not differing terribly much as you'd trade in some minor advantages and disadvantages for some other minor advantages and disadvantages, none of which makes or breaks the list.

 

[Xasto]

Right, I didn't mean the list was unreliable, I meant the list wasn't Reliant on the grimghast as it appears like they could essentially be replaced by most other nighthaunt stuff and the strategy would be basicly the exact same as well as the results not differing terribly much as you'd trade in some minor advantages and disadvantages for some other minor advantages and disadvantages, none of which makes or breaks the list.

That is not how I understood it so I guess that was my fault. But I still disagree with them being easily replaceable!

 

[Canas]

That is not how I understood it so I guess that was my fault. But I still disagree with them being easily replaceable!

Sure, it's merely how it feels to me. It might be entirely possible that in practise none of the others can truly pull it off as they're simply not cost efficient. Though regardless it makes it feel like a cheap and unfun lists to play again, which in fairness is not too surprising for a tournament winning list given that those aim to win as easily as possible and not to make the game fun for your opponent

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Sure, it's merely how it feels to me. It might be entirely possible that in practise none of the others can truly pull it off as they're simply not cost efficient. Though regardless it makes it feel like a cheap and unfun lists to play again, which in fairness is not too surprising for a tournament winning list given that those aim to win as easily as possible and not to make the game fun for your opponent

I agree with this - I prefer seeing thematic armies that really do justice to the faction they represent, and simply spamming the same unit in hordes and using all the named characters at once to give brutal combos isn’t what I like to see. In fact if I were ever to host a tournament I would reward the armies that were most fun to play against and looked the most thematic just as much as the army that wins outright, if not more so. Ben’s army would get points for the pretty spectacular scenery that came with it but the fact that he has resorted to using inflexible hordes and all the named characters just to give him the best in-game combos would lose him points in my view.

However, it is ironic that he is primarily a Sigmarine player yet he’s best at playing the game with non-Stormcast armies...

 

[Xasto]

I mean, what's the difference between what he is doing with the Grimghast Reapers and what anyone else would do with, say, big blocks of 40 saurus or 30 Vulkite Berserkers? That's pretty much what battleline units are for, being okay on their own and becoming great with synergy.

I agree with this - I prefer seeing thematic armies that really do justice to the faction they represent, and simply spamming the same unit in hordes and using all the named characters at once to give brutal combos isn’t what I like to see. In fact if I were ever to host a tournament I would reward the armies that were most fun to play against and looked the most thematic just as much as the army that wins outright, if not more so. Ben’s army would get points for the pretty spectacular scenery that came with it but the fact that he has resorted to using inflexible hordes and all the named characters just to give him the best in-game combos would lose him points in my view.

However, it is ironic that he is primarily a Sigmarine player yet he’s best at playing the game with non-Stormcast armies...

The named Characters aren't even part of the ''combo'', so I don't see how it's bad to take all 3. Also let's not pretend that players entering tournaments do it only for fun and games. There's also the want to win. Penalizing a player for bringing an optimised list because you subjectively don't like playing against it would be a very bad way of hosting an event. There is as much thought put into writing lists that there is into presentation of the army itself, and players at the very top are masters at doing both. I, for one, love both Matched play and Open/Narrative play, but I'm glad they're separated the way they are.

 

[Canas]

I mean, what's the difference between what he is doing with the Grimghast Reapers and what anyone else would do with, say, big blocks of 40 saurus or 30 Vulkite Berserkers? That's pretty much what battleline units are for, being okay on their own and becoming great with synergy.

The difference is that those 40 saurus tend to come in armies where those 40 saurus have explicit synergy with other parts of the army that other seraphon options do not and use strategies that you would not with other options. You wouldn't be able to swap it with say 40 skinks and play the same. The nighthaunt don't have particular synergies, or disadvantages, that only work with in this case the grimghast, you could swap them out for something else and play the exact same. It might not be as effective if you'd swap em out, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it and playing with the exact same tactic. While for example swapping saurus warriors for skinks requires a completly different playstyle.

Also let's not pretend that players entering tournaments do it only for fun and games. There's also the want to win. Penalizing a player for bringing an optimised list because you subjectively don't like playing against it would be a very bad way of hosting an event. There is as much thought put into writing lists that there is into presentation of the army itself, and players at the very top are masters at doing both. I, for one, love both Matched play and Open/Narrative play, but I'm glad they're separated the way they are.

The game should encourage thematic armies, but it shouldn't punish optimisation. Optimised list should be thematic. It leads to far more interesting games as, when done right, it results in vastly different playstyles and tactics which is interesting to play, play against and spectate. The game also does encourage thematic armies by providing us with bonusses through battalions & logical synergy between units as well as the natural synergy that exist between certain types of units (e.g. a slow support hero probably isn't going to work well in a hyper-mobile army). Also it is far healthier for the balance of the game to reward thematic play as thematic play has a natural logic to it, making it easier to balance mechanics. If an army is no longer thematic and is just a random collection of powerfull stuff the natural logic of what it should be good and bad at dissapears which tends to make balancing a mess.

 

[Xasto]

The game should encourage thematic armies, but it shouldn't punish optimisation. Optimised list should be thematic. It leads to far more interesting games as, when done right, it results in vastly different playstyles and tactics which is interesting to play, play against and spectate. The game also does encourage thematic armies by providing us with bonusses through battalions & logical synergy between units as well as the natural synergy that exist between certain types of units (e.g. a slow support hero probably isn't going to work well in a hyper-mobile army). Also it is far healthier for the balance of the game to reward thematic play as thematic play has a natural logic to it, making it easier to balance mechanics. If an army is no longer thematic and is just a random collection of powerfull stuff the natural logic of what it should be good and bad at dissapears which tends to make balancing a mess.

I'm all for rewarding, just not for penalizing.

 

[Canas]

I'm all for rewarding, just not for penalizing.

Depends on what the penatly is for, but yes in general penalizing certain choices would be indicative of bad design anyway.

 

[Hankster]

I imagine (and am hoping) all the armies currently released will get updates because the rules in the original books will certainly be outdated. If they have any sense of justice they should look into giving the older armies (Seraphon, Fyreslayers, Flesh Eater Courts, Bonesplitterz) new books and minis first. Fyreslayers are probably the most competent of these 'old armies' in the current edition and General's Handbook with Seraphon next, but they should all get an update in 2nd Edition. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what they do with Fyreslayers - hopefully they'll give them some named characters and some more creatures with a new book and updated mechanics. If they do, it'll be a great time for me to start them.

I'm hoping that they'll move the unit profiles closer to 8th Edition 40K too as they'll be more similar to the older editions of Fantasy and 40K and will still be reasonably easy to learn. However I'm also hoping that GW will keep the warscrolls free as that has been a real help to me in understanding the weaknesses of the other races.

Hey Lord A of L, have you looked at the Khardoron Overlords?
They look like an interesting second faction to poke at once I have my Seraphon up and running. They seem to be underpowered though, at least that is the sense I get from the little I have seen about them.

 

[pendrake]

It is hard to see how they could be underpowered what with giant deck guns floating around the table....??

 

[Hankster]

It is hard to see how they could be underpowered what with giant deck guns floating around the table....??

I dunno, they don't seem to appear much in any competition lists I see. I'm new to AoS though so I could easily be wrong.

 

[Aginor]

Kharadron Overlords took a hard hit by the new edition.
Their ships got cheaper but the thing is: the new edition makes magic more powerful and more important. KO have no wizards and no ways to counter them.
The new edition also introduced rules that make shooting somewhat weaker. KO are a shooting army and pretty crappy on melee.

The combination of those is bad for them so in the competitive scene they are basically dead right now.
They are still a fun and good looking army.
And if you play a few allies to get wizards and a bit of melee you can probably still build effective lists with them. Just not mega-strong and that's why you don't see them in tournaments.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Kharadron Overlords took a hard hit by the new edition.
Their ships got cheaper but the thing is: the new edition makes magic more powerful and more important. KO have no wizards and no ways to counter them.
The new edition also introduced rules that make shooting somewhat weaker. KO are a shooting army and pretty crappy on melee.

The combination of those is bad for them so in the competitive scene they are basically dead right now.
They are still a fun and good looking army.
And if you play a few allies to get wizards and a bit of melee you can probably still build effective lists with them. Just not mega-strong and that's why you don't see them in tournaments.

That's a shame... one of the best "new" armies in AoS. My second favourite of the new armies.

 

[little-myth]

Funny enough I still have my problems with the Kharadron Overlords Must be me and the whole 'Infernal Gateway' all over again
I get pelted with bullets before I even get there, then I am playing against a guy who doesn't like playing by the rules sooooo.
I think the Overlords do get something for dispelling but can't remember what.