AoS NEW *rumor*

IMO our "bad" warscrolls were not a great take when the book leaked and are less of a good take now. Synergies are an integral part of AoS and its a fundamental strategy that a lot of armies rely on. I dont think we can start being super critical of synergistic warscrolls without again, taking a more wholistic look at AoS in general.

I'd argue that as an army, Seraphon aren't any more or less reliant on their heroes than a lot of other armies, and even if they were it's not inherently a bad thing that makes balancing some kind of impossible or overly difficult task.

 

Synergies in general are fine, but our core barely does its job without the necesary synergies. We need something, anything that can work without needing external synergies. It doesn't need to be super powerfull, it doesn't even need to be super efficient point-wise. But we need some units that can still hold the line once our synergies have been disrupted, something that can reliably finish off those last few wounds on an enemy behemoth after it crushed our major threat, something that can go and contest an objective on its own and we can expect to actually do well. Somewhere in the 100-200 point range (so no behemoths or massive hordes)

Right now the only thing that'd fall in this category imho would be razordons & salamanders. They're pretty much all we have that has decent raw stats. And I wish we had some more. Especially seeing as we have a whole host of minor troops there should at least be some options in there that can work reasonably well independently.

 

If you think we have bad warscrolls then i can understand how you might have that point of view. Personally, I do not think we have bad warscrolls and never really could understand that POV. I always thought a carnosaur at 210 points, krox at 140, terradons at 90, saurus knights at 100, or chamos at 90 were at least borderline efficient warscrolls in and of themselves.

Regardless, I hope your fears are unfounded when the summer faq or ghb 2021 comes out.

 

I hope so, because Saurus warriors are useless without their synergies.

 

Ain't that the truth of it

 

The only warscrolls, imo, that screams bad to me is the ripperdactyls, Eternity Warden, and the Ark of Sotek Basti.

For rippers, their damage output is really low and the lack of rend hurts what would otherwise be a cool glass cannon for the Seraphon. The ripperdactyl chief is alright, but ultimately looks meh to bad when compared next to it's Ripperdactyl buddies (and it has no toad rage, that seems so silly). If I was to 'fix' rippers I'd increase their points but drastically increase their damage, I'd also give the ripper chief toad rage. Keep everything else pretty much the same.

Edit: They may have not given the ripper chief toad rage because the kit only comes with one toad, if I'm not mistaken.

As for the Eternity Warden, it's CA is literally a worse version of the Old Bloods CA. A more relevant CA for Saurus Guard would greatly improve an otherwise awkward hero.

Second Edit:
AND THE BASTILADON WITH ARK OF SOTEK WHAT THE HECK IT'S AWFUL.

Yeah, those three. I like everything else. Coming from a casual perspective, I find I can make use of most warscrolls.

 

Bad units is essential to internally balancing a buff army. If they make our units good we need to lose the buffs. No army should have good units and good buffs. Thats when you get Daughters of Khaine 70% win rate broken.

 

I would like to point you at ard boys who are better than our Warriors the same as guard and only get stronger from there being able to buff their guys much better and much easier than we can. Having easy access to permanent 2+ 2+ attacks A no roll double damage buff and movement out the wazoo plus attacking twice in a turn, they need one buff hero we need three to five they need one CP we need three or more. It can be done and Orcs aren't the only ones who do it

 

Yes but I believe that is part of their own internal book balance. As a faction the only things Orks do well is charge and smash. Its the only tool available to them. It makes sense that to balance this, they are the best at it for very little investment.

In contrast, I feel our book is balanced internally around our ability to bring many tools. Should we chose to invest in those tools we can be good at anything we want to be. The bad warscrolls and heavy investment cost, are there to make sure we cant be good at everything at the same time.

 

we can't really be good at much though. we are stellar at magic but out side kroak we don't have spells worth casting(hence why every one runs him) so we are stuck making sure no one else can cast ether. we aren't as good as a proper shooting armies, we cant stand up to even ok melee armies, we can't castle, our artillery sucks, and our summoning is terrible. we are truly jacks of all trades master of none. the few stand outs that let us be good at things are looking to get(or have been) swatted.
we win by being a counter army not letting the opponent get up steam by ether killing their heroes or countering magic and then being ok enough at where they are bad. since none of our stuff is truly good we need to be able to bring enough of it to deal with what is thrown at us. this means that the stuff that is bad or expensive does not do well. warriors are so pricy to make work that you can't bring the rest, and they aren't good enough to work on their own. even when fully buffed they are constantly out classed.
so yes our book is balanced over all but there's a reason half of it is rarely used, taking it works against how our book works. maybe when GW breaks our book to placate every one they will get a chance in the sun.

 

They're efficient, and might trade favourably. But virtually all of our basic stuff will get stuck on, or even be defeated by, even the basic units our opponents have acces to when our stuff is unsupported.

You don't fear a unit of unsupported knights being set loose in your backline, you just make them fight the nearest halfway capable unit and those knights will get themselves killed sooner or later without doing a terrible amount of damage. Yeah they might trade favourably if you don't respond well but unless you respond like a complete idiot and keep feeding them squishy support heroes or something idiotic like that they won't be rampaging through your lines racking up kills either. They'l most likely get stuck and quickly run out of steam when they encounter the first halfway capable basic melee unit.

Simply put, basicly all of our stuff that isn't riding a giant dinosaur is reasonably efficient (in one aspect or another..), but when unsupported it's little more than a nuisance and rarely a credible threat to anything. And we need something that is a credible threat that requires opponents to pay attention to it or suffer the consequences without it immeadiatly being a 200+ point combo or behemoth. It doesn't need to be more powerfull than that 200+ combo, but it does need to be a credible threat that requires an immeadiate response before it rampages through your backlines.

 

When it comes to buff armies, which tend to be jack of all trades as well, I try to focus not on how we compare to other armies, but focus on if we can do a task well enough to win the game. In our case the answer to that for me has been yes, We may not have game breaking spells, but if we want we can take a magic package backed by bound endless spells and leverage that magic win the game. We may not shoot as well as lumineth or KO, but we can take a shooting package and shoot well enough to table people. If we want to do melee can buff our melee units enough to destroy anything on the charge, and buff our charges to make sure we always get that charge. We dont have anvil units but if we want to be defensive we can sacrifice enough skinks to quagmire enemy melee and allow us to win the game. We have a clunky summoning system, but we can consistently summon enough to win. We have easy access to mortal wounds from multiple sources as well, which helps us play catchup in whatever combat style we try to do. I feel like we are good enough to win, which is all that should really matter.

 

This is the type of stuff that makes me feel like we are playing totally different armies.

I can't agree with any of that. It's unnecessarily exaggerated and paints a picture of an army that struggles to do anything when seraphon is essentially the exact opposite.

If you truly believe all of those things i'd argue it's not a book problem it's a perception problem.

We simply do not win be being a counter army. We win by taking entire armies off the table in 2 turns. We win by having more flexibility than entire factions, let alone armies. We win by having power in every single phase of the game, and the power in each of those phases is not insignificant.

I am tired of having to argue that the seraphon book is not a handful of garbage scrolls held up by kroak and a starpriest buff. I feel like i'm literally taking the least controversial stances and it's still a nonstop battle about anything that could suggest seraphon might actually be pretty damn good. I literally said carnosaurs were "borderline efficient" at 210 points which is such a massive undersell it genuinely blows my mind it's met with such firm dismissal.

Anyone who needs evidence to that should try to get more first hand experience using the army. IMO, it's extremely apparent as you play more games. If you aren't or can't get that first hand experience, then let's at least factor that in to the judgements being made. Or if your issues are entirely based on the list you play, we can at least acknowledge that. Warriors are clearly not the most op thing on the planet, but allowing them to shape your perception of the entire book does you a disservice (If thats what's happening, if not my mistake).

If you feel like we don't have a single option you can put into someone's backline that'll pull their attention id also suggest playing more games and seeing if you still feel that way.

I simply do not look at our army book and see what you see and I haven't had any in-game experience thats made me feel similarly. I've often flanked with knights or carnosaurs (why a carnosaur doesn't count is beyond me, but whatever) or salamanders or hell, even rippers to moderate effect.

I'm obviously in the minority here in my beliefs and that's fine. But I think when there's such a drastic difference in something as basic as the fundamental perception of the warscrolls, it doesn't leave much room for more discussion so ill still have to respectfully agree or to disagree and leave it at that.

As mentioned, hopefully all your fears are unfounded and everyone can get some more games in with the new book soon. Playing through different builds has genuinely been the most fun I've had playing age of sigmar. Almost everything feels viable and depending on the army and skill level of my opponent there's an army option for almost any kind of "social contract" you want to make with your opponent. Hopefully people can go out and play games soonish and everyone gets to experience that same feeling

 

We have very few options that can be put in someones backline unsupported and draw more attention than simply being stalled by a single screen until something more important can come wipe them out. I mean sure, that screen is some attention. But it's not exactly a high stakes effort to fight off a flanking manouvre.

Not counting the carnosaur cuz it's a 200+ hero on a behemoth making it a "big" unit with a high pointvalue. Any hero at that scale will draw attention by sheer virtue of being a 200+ point hero on a behemoth, even if it is a terrible one.

Try comparing a flanking with our stuff with say a flanking using paladors, or a mournfang pack, or a lone unit of gore-grunta's, idoneth eels. Stuff like that will smash through without breaking stride if your opponent only sends a basic screen to stall them. They can pretty much continue charging into fodder indefinitly without ever slowing down. And all of them are generally only a secondary threat (or there's simply several units of them and together they form the main threat).Our stuff in contrast is liable to already get stuck on the first screen and lose a couple wounds when its not supported, getting dragged down after running into only 2 or 3 screens.

We don't really have any option in this catagory of secondary medium level threats that can function independently from the main army. Usually around a 150 points, can be buffed but only needs those buffs to deal with major opponents. We basicly just have 200+ point main threat combo's and <100 point cannonfodder which barely scores a wound while screening, and very little in between. And imho that is a major designflaw.

 

Personally, I don't think the Troglodon fits to give saurus a bonus. Although I do wish saurus had a bit more love. Trogs obviously seemed focused on helping the slann specifically, or perhaps casting in general.

Even though a +1 to cast makes sense, if just feels repetitive. What about a CA to give a slann (since it is an oracle of the slann) or perhaps any caster within 6" (or 8"?) an extra cast? Or, if that's too powerful maybe just access to an extra spell? Or maybe even give a slann access to whatever skink spell the oracle knows? That way you either move out the Trog to use the "any range" casting or you keep it really close to grant more versatility.

 

I agree that all of those units could use some attention. Especially the poor Eternity Warden. I just can't really figure out a place for him.

However, I double checked the warscrolls for Rippers and I think, based on the way "Toad Rage" is worded, that the chief would benefit if he is close enough.

"At the start of the combat phase, you can set up 1 Blot Toad marker next to 1 enemy unit. If you do so, you can re-roll hit rolls for attacks made with Tearing Jaws by friendly Ripperdactyl units that are wholly within 6" of that enemy unit..."

The chief does have the "Ripperdactyl" keyword. So, it seems to me that he can benefit from "Toad Rage," he just doesn't have a toad to use himself.

 

Those armies don't have the same options we do. Every army doesn't do everything exactly the same. We achieve the same result with units that don't necessarily fit into this hyper specific niche you' seem to have constructed (i'd argue somewhat arbitrarily, the result is whats important not the point cost or 'non hero status' of the unit.)

And at what point in a game are you needing a flanking unit to run through "2 or 3 screens" ?

With every argument it doesnt feel like i gain a deeper understanding of your point, but instead the gap between the game i feel like i'm playing and the game your describing grows even larger.

I never once since this book came out have needed specifically an unbuffed 150 point unit to be able to charge through 2 or 3 screens. It is simply not a scenario i've ever found myself in, and i've played a ton of games with the new book. Like, a lot. I have never once thought to myself "if only i had gore gruntas or palladors or mournfang." We have salamanders, who all those units wish they were, and carnosaurs/stegs but for some arbitrary reason those can't count.

i have found myself wishing for eels, but honestly who hasnt. That unit is insane and there are literally no other units in the entire game like it. In isolation, it's arguably the single best warscroll in the entire game. Salamanders give them a run for their money, but yeah. Eels are wild.

 

That's a good point. I do want to try a ripper heavy list with some chiefs, just to try some shenanigans, so knowing he can toad rage (technically) is nice.

 

If its not bolded (which its not) it doesnt refer to the keyword but a warscroll name. A ripper chief would not benefit unless i am mistaken. Glad to be wrong as it feels kinda janky but who knows.