yep. To field hordes is harder, and they are easier to be wiped away. The only way for the message to be clearer, would involve fire letters in the sky.
Saurus Knights. And they are even good. (yeah, i agree that skinks clouds raining poisoned death are less effective now, but even before 3.0 saurus hordes were not the optimal choices)
Honestly the most disappointing thing for me is that Krondys has a +3 to casting! Like, apparently he's an even better wizard than Lord Kroak, at least in the developer's eyes. I'm guessing he doesn't have as many spells, though.
True, and I'm assuming that he'll be at 2 or 3 spell casts per turn, not 4. But still, that's the highest built-in casting bonus in the game right now. (Teclis auto-casts, so he doesn't count, lol!) It'll be interesting to see how much the Stormcast jump up in the meta when their new battletome comes out. On a different note, while it's somewhat disappointing to see only Stormcast getting new dragons, I still like that they're going to be in the game. Because, you know, dragons! I know it will be a while before our book comes out, but my hope is that we move away from being a synergy army with weak warscrolls and our monsters get buffed to be the powerful single combatants you'd expect a dinosaur to be, and our battleline gets re-worked to function better in MSU and without constant hero babysitting. IMO, we really don't need a brand-new centerpiece monster, our Oldblood on Carnosaur just needs to get buffed to perform that job. That model deserves to have stats closer to a Stonehorn or Maw-Krusha. Also, now that I'm rambling about units, the new Troglodon in TW:W2 is a perfect example of how that unit should play. A monster with a powerful but short-range spitting attack and some lower-level spellcasting. A high-damage, high-rend shooting attack but with a lower number of attacks and 2 spell casts per turn would make him go from rarely picked to a near auto-include in monster-heavy lists, I think.
What irks me about the trog in game is that the developers nerfed the carnosaur and still made the carnosaur a higher tier dino than the trog but functionally being worse in game but I don't want to bring total war in here much outside of the references
So, anyone heard any Seraphon-related rumours recently? This is very very unreliable, but I recall reading that the Saurus line is going to be overhauled towards the end of this year (it was a classic Facebook comment with 'I know a guy', but I'll take anything I can get at the minute). Aside from that, I can't find anything on Seraphon rumours/leaks, and I need something, anything.
If Saurus were going to get overhauled, it would probably mean the release of a new battletome. I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any updates that big that have been released in a GHB or FAQ. While it certainly wouldn't be that long of a wait for a new tome, considering how quickly some armies get new books released for various reasons, I doubt that would be the case. But who knows? Maybe GW realizes that Seraphon are popular and knows that the Saurus side of the army was absolutely gutted by 3rd edition rules? I certainly can't imagine any logical reason for the massive points hike on the Oldblood on Carnosaur, for example, without a planned warscroll buff. They also waited several years before releasing the Seraphon battletome in 2e, and their schedule is completely random when it comes to who gets new books (aside from Stormcast always getting the first) in each edition. So while I don't expect a new book to come out that soon, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility...
100% agree. You can almost push the Oldblood into that role just by giving him -2 rend on Jaws and Claws - I'd happily pay extra points for access to that, seeing as high rend is otherwise so rare in our army. If we're going really wild, then ideally he'd have: a 3+ save like his unmounted variant a rework of Sunbolt Gauntlet - would be cool to see this work similarly to the Thunder Lizard artifact a Command Ability that isn't made more or less redundant by 3rd edition
The article says Krondys is a two cast wizard and can get "up to" +3 to cast so maybe he has some sort of scaling buff that increases over the course of the game, or starts at +3 and it brackets. As for a refresh, I do think there's one coming from for us in the not too distant future. There was a bunch of rumors floating around a couple months ago that included a seraphon refresh, and a lot of it ended up being true so far. Also, I just think between the new kroak model and us really moving to the spotlight in the lore recently points to a possible refresh in the pipeline. Fingers crossed!
I knew I read it somewhere! Did you have a link to it? Or is it just something you recall. I never read the actual rumour and just wanted to see it in writing! Cheers.
I mean sure, but this is kind of the issue with creating armies that are very support/synergy heavy, it looks kinda silly when your big fancy centrepiece model, who can cannonically dominate gods, needs to rely on synergy like a puny mortal. You'd think that given Kroaks power in lore there wouldn't really be anyone in existence who can really support him in a meaningfull way, not unless it's another god-level character helping him out.
if they were to write a fluff accurate profile for kroak it would basically be a miniature that is immune to damage, auto casts, and never miscasts. he has foresight, so you can always change the dice results of any role made by you or your opponent to whatever you wish it to be as all things are according to the great plan. his spells would be summon up to 2000 pts of seraphon at once and summon a meteor that destroys all the models on the table, and hed be 5000 pts and legal in only apocalypse style games. nerfed he may be im glad our version is at least playable.
There's definitely a middle ground they could do, as evidenced by Archaon and Morathi. I was hoping with the new model and warscroll rewrite we were finally going to get an actual god-tier centerpiece but sadly that's just not the case. It would have been nice seeing as how the meta is becoming godhammer.
Hence, gods should probably not be playable models in the game to begin with Though I must admit Kroak seems to be the least lore-accurate of the various god-tier characters as he has far too many rules that are conditional on external factors in some way to be usefull (or maximized). Which means there's a massive gap between Kroak in an optimal and a sub-optimal scenario, which is especially weird for a god. You'd think a god-tier character would be fairly consistent and not particularly dependent on external factors. Regardless the same holds for other models, even if they aren't god-tier. It's just more noticeable the more important, and powerfull, the particular model is supposed to be. You can for example also notice it in our behemoths, and to an extend in our saurus heroes (though that last one is hidden a bit by the fact that buffing footslogging heroes isn't very efficient to begin with in AoS). It's the downside of this kind of design, and imho, why you should limit the extend of power put into synergy when designing stuff, because if too much power is put in the synergies then the baseline power becomes bad & that is often not fun especially in PvP games (PvE games can generally get away with more because you can control the AI opponent's behaviour to some extend)
So i see this conversation come up a lot, and just out of curiosity what ARE people looking for in our monsters? I've always thought GW handled the balance quite well. Our monsters, just from a model perspective, aren't chonky boys like stonehorns or mawkrushas or even vlozds, but generally have high damage outputs that can be supported through lots of different means. Basically, the defense is a little on the lackluster side but the offense more than makes up for it and they are pointed to be able to bring 2 carnosaurs for every 1 stonehorn or mawkrusha, etc etc. What is it about this set up that people inherently don't like? Feels like the community is constantly clamoring for seraphon to be more elite (saurus should have 2 wounds, knights should have 3, monsters should be tougher, kroak should level cities, etc etc etc) but they've literally never been like that in the history of fantasy battles or aos. Is it a lore thing? A 'we all play seraphon so we just want seraphon to be better/cooler/tougher' thing? A 'this is the internet so we need something to talk about' thing? Honestly just curious, it's an argument that has existed on this forum for as long as i can remember and i've never really understood where it was coming from.