I was looking at the warscroll on the app, but my Azyr book also is showing it as bolded. Very interesting. IMO book tends to trump app in situations like this, so sounds like bloat toads are back on the menu for ripper chiefs! edit: it's also bolded in my warscroll cards, so i would say that about confirms it.
Sweet. IMO ripper chief should have its own toad. The blot toad chief or something. And it gives rend... or just brings back the old warscroll hehe
Yup. I mentioned it before, but I wonder if they don't give it a toad because the kit only comes with one.
True. But you need to have more than one kit to have a ripper unit plus ripper chief, so at least 2 toads. It would be cool if the ripper chief had his own toad. It would also be good if the terradon chief had a rock.
That has actually been revoked thanks to the flash eater corts FaQ. So far they are the only ones who have been directly change but president has been set.
Isn't that in specific reference to battalions tho? The whole ghoul king on terrogheist thing had to do with the whole "subhead" section in the core rules about battalions.
I do hope they don’t alter the Oldblood on Carno in the Sunclaw battalion. I think it’s a good boost for saurus. That battalion would be a little less appealing if it’s just on foot heroes.
Just my two cps. Let's be clear: Seraphon is a strong army. We can performa at a great level in every single phase of the game. Very good movement, solid magic (beside Kroak a Slann is no slouch, plus worldwide dispel and bound endless spells), good shooting and good melee. this was not self-evident when seraphon 2.0 arrived, but we'll talk about it later To have all of this power, however, we NEED combo, synergies and peculiar builds. Seraphon IS NOT an easy army to play, it requires a mid-high level of competence to exploit its potential. Why? well, because many of our warscrolls are mediocre. Or at least, that was our first impression looking at Seraphon 2.0, and that impression is not baseless. Compare skinks to plague monks. Take a look at the eels. While we require active synergies, many armies have plenty of good stuff merely by existing, as for example Ossiarch, that enjoy a combo of good warscrolls and solid passive bonuses. There are armies that are good and don't require a high level of competence. As a consequence, usually we select a portion of the battlefield where we are going to concentrate our buffs, thus having a local strong superiority. Other armies can simply afford to deliver punches anywhere, because the single parts don't require that much of a work, except waiting for a particular general bonus to trigger. Now, the twist: are our warscrolls really mediocre? i don't think so. we shine when we buff our units via magic and/or synergies... AND THAT'S HOW AoS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. Since its beginning, when bonuses were stackable, AoS has always been a game where the victory was not achieved by the single unit(s), but by the ability of the player to pump the army. So, i'd say that our warscrolls are not bad.... they are right; it's just that we look at Eels and we see that those are crazily good by themselves. The fact is that Eels and similar warscrolls, go against the core spirit of the game. It's not that we are bad. it's them that are stronger than they should be.
uh they are both normal. there are just as many very good warscrolls as there are buffable ones even in the same army. having a powerful warscroll is not wrong or if it is you are going to have to have a talk with IJ BS IDK FEC OMT BCR CoS Skaven SCE KO SoB OBR Sylvaneth DoZ LRL. thats more then half of the armies in AoS and all of them have (or had before creep got them) very good warscrolls that don't need buffing to work. buffable units are just as common they are both valid. sometimes a unbuffed unit breaks the game(keepers eels ect.) sometime a buffable unit does(Hearth guard, old stanch cast stardrake, plague monks).
Making it synergize with other casters in short range would probably not be a good idea; you're liable to end up seeing your big behemoth just standing in a corner alongside the other casters because all of our other casters are squishy cowards who don't want to be anywhere near danger. Which imho doesn't exactly fit the style of a behemoth. Not unless you make it an artillery style behemoth like the squig gobba from forgeworld and it has something else to do than stand back and look pretty. The hero status isn't the most important part, though it helps, as heroes are force multipliers with their buffs, can carry artifacts, can have traits etc. making heroes inherently valuable to kill. The important part is that it's a 200+ model. It's by definition valuable because its a decent chunk of your total point value (on top of the aforementioned bonus value it simply being a hero brings). If your opponent seperates >10% worth of his army from the main body it's nearly always worth formulating a proper response to that. And yeah, obviously the exact point limit is arbitray, there's no real reason why it should be 200+ and not 210+ or 190+. But you need to pick something. And most point ranges do fall in certain classes. E.g. a unit of ~100 points tends to be basic battleline or a minor support hero, ~150 tends to be more elite troops that can function independly or the more powerfull heroes, 200+ tends to be where the behemoths, the most powerfull heroes & most elite units are. 200 also seems to be more or less the minimum for combo's to start (e.g. 1 MSU knights + any relevant buff hero is already 210+ or so). Hence I took 200+ as a cut-off point I need it because of what @Killer Angel says Achieving local superiority isn't hard for us. However, we are hyperfocussed on creating local superiourity in one specific spot, and sacrifice nearly all combat effectiveness in every other area for it. While focusing on local superiority is fine, we shouldn't be completely harmless everywhere else. Imho, those places where we are not currently focused should at least retain the ability fight back. But right now, whereever we don't have local superiority we basicly only have bodies to be fed into the meatgrinder and our opponents can pretty much attack with impunity, even their own fodder won't have terribly much to fear. We're basicly complete feast or famine when it concerns local combat prowess. Either there's at least 200-300 points worth of seraphon locally for a big scary combo or behemoth, or it's sub 200 points worth of cannonfodder that'l struggle to do more than a handfull of wounds against even basic opponents in a single round. There's no in between, like the aforementioned eels/palladors/etc. who might not achieve direct local superiority against the more powerfull foes, but can at least threaten them, and who will utterly crush basic units & screens with ease. Might be, but it appears like GW themselves seem to think differently/have forgotten. There's very few armies that seem to be as reliant on active synergies as us. Most seem to rely much more on raw warscrolls and passive synergies.
hmm who else khorn, parts of cities, DoK, uuuuh death? i think that's it not many armies out there that need 3 or more overlapping heroes to work. most work off of 1 maybe 2 or just run in power pairs.
didn't SoB just come out though? there are almost no buffs in that book. sure GW buggered it up royaly but they are still making attempts to make unbuffed armies. KO is also fairly new and they have very few buffs. stone horns, phoenix guard, keepers, marauders, pinks . all of those came out in the last year and a half and they all are unbuffed good warscrolls. so out of the last 8 books at least 5 of them have that as a option.