Yeah, but their damage is also not incredible. At least based on their warscrolls. Maybe they'll end up being super oppressive, who knows. I just dont see it. Okay damage, the lowest model count in the game and a few super interesting rules (like kicking objectives) doesn't exactly scream "broken" to me. Im pretty excited to see such a different, interesting army on the table. I think it opens up the opportunity for some really interesting games.
Never said they're broken, i was just pointing out the possible issues with them. In truth, I'm eagerly waiting to meet 'em on the battlefield!
Thats totally my bad, wasn't trying to say you were implying that! They are definitely going to be a unique challenge on the tabletop. A lot of their weird things like destroying terrain and kicking objectives will be hard to judge in context without that context, so yeah totally agree. Eager to see what they are like.
None of the guys in my club are interested in SoB at all after the previews have revealed everything, which is unusual since there is usually always a couple that jump on the newly released army. Im considering 3D printing giants just to get some experience with them, because it seems like they will be rather rare to face around here.
The owners of my game shop tell that ATM sob is going unsold. Must be said that actually the hype is focused on 40k and a bonus point is that probably many giants will be bought later, to be played as allies.
The red terror has a debatable size from a large Ravener to the size of a trygon. I can see them trying to make it with a ravener kit but honestly just making it into the trygon/matloc kit would make more sense imo since its basically the pinnacle of raveners since it took out 2 colonies by itself
GW actually fucked up pretty hard on this one. The Mega-Gargants are hot garbage as allies because the most of their power comes from alligiance abilities. The warscrolls themself are quite meh. Many people probably wont bother with buying a single Mega-Gargant as ally, which would otherwise have been a way to slowly start a SoB army. Probably on purpose though - I can see GW being a bit afraid of putting too much power into just a couple of models on the table. Imo having such few models should inherently be weaker than "normal" armies. On the flipside - If Mega-Gargants were too good, people would whine that they would feel forced to buy one.
to be honest it's mostly the price 195$ is steep for 1 model even if they where the best thing ever i think it would be quite a while until we saw all that many of them.
What @Killer Angel says here basicly. Magic against single entity targets is rather limited, usually to max D3 damage with a few unreliable exception like the purple sun that can theoreticly deal D6 or something. If that entity has 35 wounds, and doesn't degrade much when wounded, that's not super usefull. Against eels you'l at least kill an eel every 2 spellcasts or so, even if the spells themselves aren't super good against this kind of target at least having 2-3 spellcasts per turn will give you reasonable certainty that you'l reduce their combat effectiveness to some extend every turn. Against a gargant 2-3 spellcasts per turn aren't even enough to kill the thing over the course of an entire game, nor does it really drop them down their degradation table. So magic-based lists will end up unloading their entire arsenal into a single gargant, probably fail to actually kill it and then have to pray their screens hold long enough that they can do another round of magic next turn. And of course that's ignoring the fact that there's multiple gargants to deal with. Whereas against eels magic-based lists will probably at least kill or decimate an eel unit, making it much more likely for their screens to hold until their next round of magic. I don't think they'l exactly be "broken" just really frustrating to face if you favour a particular playstyle due to them skewing so hard into a certain direction they end up flat out invalidating certain tools those playstyles may rely on. And yeah, a full shooting army like KO can create similar problems, especially lists that rely on minor support heroes can suffer from facing so much shooting (On that note, we seriously need something better to protect minor support heroes from a stray bullet...).
As can a full seraphon magic army Just the existence of a slann in a list can essentially ruin the magic of entire armies. Anytime you skew one list to an extreme its going to create... well, extreme scenarios. And why this game isn't balanced over a 1v1 scenario but seemingly over multi round events. It ensures that these extreme lists have a better chance of matching up against the paper to their rock. If your concerns are correct, it might actually be a nice way to pump the breaks on the extreme spellcasting direction a lot of lists have taken recently.
Yes and no, at least a Slann has a limited number of unbinds, so any list that seriously relies on its magic probably does at least have something left as serious magic lists tend to have a lot of spellcasts. Plus any serious spellcast list will have its own modifiers evening the playing field. They're just functioning at much lower effectiveness. On the other hand lists with 1-2 spellcasts total and no modifiers for its wizard probably don't rely on those special to do something crucial and thus won't suffer as heavy a loss from effectivly losing its entire magic arsenal (and that's of course without going into other things that might be different and allow a bit more power to be retained, like the slann can get unlucky with unbinds but the gargant will never have less than 35 wounds) It's simply a bit less extreme with a bit more wiggleroom. Obviously if we ever get a Nagash or Teclis level kind of Slann then that'd probably be problematic... imho a terrible way of philosophy for balancing a game, it eventually leads to individual games constantly being outlier v.s. outlier. Where the games are largely decided the moment you know the matchup because whomever showed up with the right counter will probably win. While players who want to play a more "normal" list (or more general, a more "normal" playstyle) find their games constantly ruined because you're not going to be able to standup to one of those outlier armies without using an outlier yourself. Imho every given matchup for army A needs to have a reasonable chance of succes. This is more important than the winrate of A averaging out over all possible match-ups because eventually you run into enough hard-counters for your broken outlier (or into enough things you counter to artificially inflate the winrate of your underpowered disaster) I am curious if they'l manage to shake up the meta for tournaments. Because although they will screw with certain lists there's also plenty of others left to ensure they'l never really reach a top-stop.
Meh I honestly dont really see SoB having any effect at all. It isnt exactly a unique concept of having few but strong models and they have no new unique rules you have to be afraid or aware of. Tournaments around here always have Better Part of Valor and Places of Arcane Power. Both are incredible hard for SoB tbh. You will likely either build towards one of them or the other.
its similar to Carnifex's in 40k, they deploy as a unit of up to 3 models, and then operate and count as separate units afterwards. not to far a stretch to have the little ones count as battle line in sperate units after deployment once you think about it from that point of view.
I don't think its a nid, unless they are making some sort of diorama model that has one chained to a structure of some sort after it had been captured. I agree the claw looks Nid like big time, but I cant help but have this feeling that its a small part of a bigger model that will be like a Tyrannic war veteran or something.