Discussion in 'Seraphon Discussion' started by Kilvakar, Oct 31, 2021.
First PTG battle report is up in the battle report forum
going to take a look!
an interesting clame. you should try playng without alegenc abilities for a few games and see if it holds up. then play your friends army with seraphon rules and see how it goes
To be fair, our allegiance abilities are very good, and are basically what keeps our army going. I think we'll continue to do well, but will probably slowly move out of the top tier as more 3e books come out designed to take advantage or (or just ignore) 3e rules.
Let's just hope that we don't have to wait until the end of the edition again to get a new book!
Even without allegiance abilities Slann, skink priests, salamanders etc are top tier. Allegiance abilities just put things over the top because now you have a good unit that can also teleport or reduce damage.
What I am more trying to get at is that we are not a one trick pony. Our whole book is full of good stuff where most books have one or two really good units that they lean into heavily. Because we are a book of good stuff we see a lot of variety in our lists.
I mean this is the same nonsense as congalines isn't it? It's just as stupid a formation and doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense realisticly speaking. But it works because the rules for formations are written with round bases in mind, not ovals...
Really wouldn't count this as a "plus" to the new rules, it's just a new flavour of congaline.
Especially since a lot of the people I've heard praising the new coherency rules cite tighter formations looking more realistic as one of the reasons they like it
so dragons are just as broken as the gw made them sound. probably even more so. they crushed saturdays lgs tournament.
Debatable. It's a plus because 5 man cav bases can do it and no one else can. Call it a new flavour of conga line but the old flavour is dead so it is what it is.
I think this sounds like it could use some explanation. What sort of dragon lists did you see? Who did they play against and how did they play? I agree, GW has been playing up how powerful dragons are, and they seem really strong on paper. But we haven't seen any real-world examples yet, so I'm very curious to hear what your encountered
Hang on can someone enlighten me - I don't like 40k 9th because of all the "floating rules" ie stratagems and command point tracing and victory point tracking and the multiple layers of rules and buffs you can fire off for certain turns etc etc. I was under the impression that was already present in AoS 2, which I have never played... so is 3rd ed going more like 9th 40k?
Long story short: Yes. AoS 2 already had several rules in common with 40k, but 40k 9e and AoS 3e are honestly pretty close in terms of how you play. I've heard people here call AoS 3 "40k lite," and they're not wrong.
Both systems have victory points to calculate who wins, and these points come primarily from objectives on the board and battle tactics (secondary objectives in 40k) to get extra points. Both systems have always had multiple buffs you can activate in different phases, but AoS 3 has multiplied that quite a bit. 40k still has more rules in more phases to keep track of, along with additional mechanics like the Strength vs. Toughness to determine what your wound rolls are.
40k 9e actually took quite a bit of inspiration from AoS 2e, but AoS 3e also took a lot from 40k. The game is more about board control than straight-up battle like Fantasy used to be.
short answer yes. long answer YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES
2nd edition AoS was very much the simpler game you had CP VP and then whatever faction mechanic you may or may not have had. 3rd is much more complicated with stratagems once per game buffs once per turn buffs and so much more.
I find it funny because some gamers didn't like the old WFB system where it was layers and layers of interlocking special rules "So my models charged and get +1 initiative but your HElves have always strikes first however they're using halberds so..." but they can deal just fine with keeping track of all of these "I used a command point to buff THAT unit, and my hero allows me to buff THIS unit for a single turn, now it's turn 3 so my army wide special rule currently does THIS..." whereas individual units have fewer special rules they have more specific synergies based on abilities.
I'm a much bigger fan of the first style, WFB 8th ed, where everything is mostly "static" as long as you know (or are happy looking up) the complex relationship of generalised special rules. That's part of the charm, working it out like an intricate lock. However it does mean you look at the opponents sheet, see that a unit has Frenzy, Stupidity etc and you have a good idea how they work without so many army specific special rules.
Makes you wonder whatever happened to the promise of simple rules for AoS
Top 3 were Tempest lords with 9 dragons, tempest lords with 11 dragons and knights excelsior with annihilators and 4 dragons. They crushed morathi gotrek, orruks, thunderlizard, sons of behemat, lumineth etc. Most were 1 drop lists and they just went first and deleted the opponent. I wish i could describe it better but it was just oppressive the way they beat people.
I feel like the rumored pts nerf to them is justified. Making them battleline with the draconis genral was a serious oversight imo. As cool as all dragon armies are they should not be battleline.
yeah, it works also for 10 knights unit on charge, to "maximise" the hits: the first row is made by 7 knights side by side, while the 2nd "rank" is composed by just 3 knights placed sideway to keep coherence.
- it's horrible to see
- it works by raw
- i've used it
- i loathe it
i love how GW sticks firmly on the old tradition to break the game each once in a while with new OP releases.
they want to sell kits. i get it but encouraging spam and then nerfing it later is discouraging. i wish they would just make aos follow a rule of 2 and be done with it,