AoS NEW *rumor*

Ah I understand. I think it's still a tech army because you're revolving around laying debuffs (which could just be denying your opponents spells) and buffs. Skink lists are still powerful, thunder lizard lists are definitely a little more straight forward but it's an army that requires multiple pieces working together in clever ways, but yeah. Definitely see what you're saying.

 

I agree that 3e has vastly lowered the technical aspect of our army. Definitely doesn't mean we're bad, but I agree with what Erta says that we basically just take our best warscrolls and throw one or two buffs on them, which is what practically every army does. Our weaker units required 2, 3 or more buffs stacked on them to make them good, and we can't do that anymore. So the best units in our army aren't really any worse, but the less good ones are much, much worse.

I think the biggest difference here is that nearly all of our buffs come from a hero which must be within a certain range of the unit. Nothing out of the ordinary there. But then unlike a lot of other armies who's heroes give buff auras, ours can only target one unit. Our subfaction buffs are also command abilities, and thus can only be used on one unit at a time. Contrast that to something like the new Stormcast book, for example, and you see a lot of the buffs are built into the units themselves, or a subfaction that buffs all of a specific unit type all the time.

With the way 3e works, I have a feeling that if we're to remain a tech army we'll have to receive some serious re-works to how our buffs and synergies are granted. The new command ability rules alone essentially gutted our 2e playstyle. Again, we still have good lists, but the "variety in listbuilding" that GW was touting so hard before 3e's release is absolutely not there.

But I digress. All we can do is play with what we have and speculate on what might change when we get our 3e book, which could be years away.

 

Not trying to be argumentative so let me know if it's coming across that way but I really don't understand what you're getting at here.

Our competitive list building is more varied now than its ever been. kroak and skinks in fangs, all stegs in thunder lizard, skinks and bastis in thunder lizard, sallies in dracos tail, have all gone 4-1 or better. Even koatls lists have performed admirably. To me, that shows there's a ton of variability in how seraphon can show up at a GT (and do well).

If that's not varied list building I'm just not really sure what the expectation is. Seraphon do well in 3.0 with a lot of different builds in a lot of different metas across the world. Is there any other top army that can say the same?

I'm just not really sure why it seems like there's this strong push for change when we are having positive results. Why fix what isn't broken? It feels like instead there's just this desire for a different playstyle and IMO that just feels like an army selection problem.

Edit: and if this is all just about saurus can we just say that then? Saurus are languishing, and that sucks. A playstyle revolving entirely around them isn't as good as it could be. But to say seraphon don't have variability in list building muddies the actual issue. The issue is saurus aren't great and whole they we're propped up by the ability to stack a ton of buffs, that has kind of (but not really if you think about it) been removed making an already subpar choice in the book more subpar.

No argument from me there. But saurus being bad doesn't mean seraphon are a solo build/playstyle army. I have a hard time seeing how anything about seraphon was "gutted" but totally willing to accept that maybe that's just me

 

I think you are correct on most points, I generally agree with you. Our army is doing pretty well. Not top-tier anymore, but definitely still upper-mid where at least people won't complain that we're broken, lol!

The only issue I see is that all the lists you mentioned, Fangs of Sotek, Draco's Tail and Thunder Lizard are what everyone played before anyway. What 3e has done so far is to take Fangs down a peg so it's not the be-all-end-all list that makes all others look like you're handicapping yourself by using them. However, it took Koatl's Claw down even more, so our top and bottom army lists both got worse, allowing the middle ones to shine more. (Arguably Thunder Lizards got a bit better overall, but that's still one buff to two nerfs to our subfactions.)

The main reason I don't see an increase in listbuilding variety is because everyone's using more or less the same units as before. Most things that were good before stayed good, but a lot of things got worse, and nothing really got better aside from the monsters and objective holding rule. So while it's true that we have more than one good list in the army, those lists are essentially the same as before, just smaller because of point increases. So there hasn't been an increase in variety for our listbuilding, contrary to what GW was saying while hyping the new edition.

So I guess the point is that we didn't really see an *increase* in the variety of good lists. The good ones stayed good and the bad ones got worse. But again, I still agree with you that our army as a whole is in a decent place. It kind of hurts to get knocked from top-tier to middle, but at least we aren't in any danger of getting squatted like some people were thinking before the 2e tome came out

And finally, I would agree that it's probably *mostly* about Saurus, but not entirely. I don't get why GW doesn't like them, but buffing them would solve a lot of the issues that myself and other often bring up. They already want Skinks, Saurus and Dinosaurs to be their own separate lists, so why make the Saurus one purposefully bad?

I also wish that at least some of our dinosaurs were on part with other faction's big monsters, but that's been talked about a lot. I know that you prefer the smaller but cheaper monsters, but I'd rather have at least a few that were more expensive but were on par with other monster-heavy factions' big guys. I think if the Ark of Sotek Bastiladon could actually do a little damage in melee it would be the perfect cheap "spammable" monster. Stegadons are fine where they're at. But Carnosaurs deserve to have the stats more fitting to an 8ft-tall Lizardmen riding a roided-up T-Rex. It doesn't make sense to me that they're not stronger and it never will. The Dread Saurian was at least close to being on par with the Gargants, but GW hates people using Forgeworld models for some inexplicable reason so he got nerfed as well.

But as always, I appreciate being able to have a civil back and forth with you, so thanks for that! I'd actually really like to hear your side as to why you prefer the current playstyle and what you think needs to be buffed/nerfed/changed, if anything, about our army

 

I think we're certainly still in the upper echelon as far as tiers go. And our book is very deep with lots of tools, so as the meta shifts we will be able to adapt much better than other tomes in order to stay relevant. At this point it seems pretty unlikely that we will fall below a-tier, outside of just getting power-creeped out over time. The only units in our book that actively bad, as in a handicap to take, are ripperdactyls, the sunblood post errata nerf, and saurus oldblood on foot, imo. I think just about everything else is either great, has a niche use, or is close enough to being good that it's not hugely detrimental to your chance of winning if you take it. And some of the things that aren't great or are borderline at this point, like razordons or the ark basti, could get a chance to shine as the meta changes.

 

Appreciate your response. I don't inherently disagree about seraphon having the option for say, a 450 point carnosaur, but I think it would change a lot about the army I like. You couldn't just add a mawkrusher into the seraphon book without some interesting balancing decisions. I'm not willing to risk what I do like about the faction for something the faction has never been (from a gaming pov, at least.)

I do want to quibble just a bit about the list variety issue tho. All stegs was not a viable 2.0 build and the existence of that in 3.0 is pretty huge. Losing basically none of our competitive builds while adding one that's equally as strong is a huge testament to our books flexibility and strength. I'm not really sure I'd definitely say we've dropped to a "middle tier" position. And I'm not really sure if I'd call koatls a "bad" list either, unless your meta is exclusively archaon and lumineth. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 4-1 koatls list on the tournament scene.

In terms of what I think needs to be buffed, I think warriors should be cheaper or have a built in +1 to save. Maybe build the 2 attacks right into the profile. I think it would be awesome if the Ark of sotek was good. Make it a priest. Give it an defensive aura like -1 to wound or save. I'd give rippers a 4+ or more rend and they'd be good. Terradons should just drop rocks on a 2+ and I'd just straight up remove the flying heros from the book. Their command abilities are way too specialized, it's just fat that can be trimmed.

I don't think slanns unlimited range unbind is a good playing experience. I think any point and click buff as strong as the starpriests is kind of whatever. I don't think either of those abilities are too powerful it's just game design choices that remove interaction.

The priest buff should work on saurus units. Or give the same buff but for saurus to the sunblood or something. It would instantly make saurus builds viable.

I like the way seraphon (specifically starborne) plays because I think it rewards mastery and gives you a lot of flexibility on the battlefield. Also I like that there isn't this unkillable monster you can just push towards the general direction of someone. You gotta be thoughtful about how your positioning and directing your threats because there's the very real chance you'll lose your whole army if you didn't plan and screen well. You can play top or bottom of turn, you can alpha if needed or play the patient game. You have good monsters, battleline, and heroes which gives you play into lots of battle tactics and all the weird scoring battleplans. Decent game into shooting or melee. Just feels like I always have a path to victory. Losses are on me for not using the right tool in the right way, not because my toolbox just doesn't have that option.

This stuff is honestly my favorite to talk about so glad to elaborate on anything if your curious hah.

 

I suggest you guys check out: https://aosshorts.com/useful-resources/age-of-sigmar-tournament-list-archive/

As seen we are very capable of both 4-1s and 5-0s. We are ranking in the top 5 armies which I would say puts us top tier.

As for list variety we have more variety now than we did in 2.0. and I would say we have a lot more variety in our lists than the vast majority of armies right now. Other top tier armies like DoT, SoB and DoK all have only one build. And I think we have more.viable builds than lumineth and soulblight. We are in an amazing space where we can play many different units, play them competitively but without being completely oppressive.

 

All very good points. I'm definitely interested in how you would make a good Koatl's Claw list, because I think that there are a lot of armies besides Lumineth and Archaon that they'd have a really tough time handling, KO, Orruks, DoK, Cities and Stormcast all being on that list. Probably Nurgle too, because I just can't see Saurus getting enough wounds through against such a disgustingly resilient army. (pun intended )

Do you think it would be a good idea if our heroes had the ability to buff any unit type rather than just Skinks/Saurus? Like you said, having the Priest's prayer work on Saurus would go a long way to making them useable, but in general it's always felt weird that our heroes generally only buff their own kind, so to speak. It means we always have to have specific heroes to babysit each individual unit if we want them to get the good buffs, and it leaves units like Kroxigors without any buffs at all a lot of the time.

I think the Slann deserve at least something that makes them feel like the superior spellcasters they are supposed to be. And the Starpriest's buff is very often the only thing that makes our battleline units viable, so removing those or giving them the chance to fail or be unbound seems like it would be too harsh. Also, just saying, we have entire armies like Lumineth that have little to no interaction with the stuff they can do, so a couple of abilities on certain units doesn't seem like it's that much in comparison.

Honestly, this is the part I dislike the most. I know that you have to plan ahead and try to think strategically when deploying with any army. But the fact that if we don't deploy *perfectly* many armies can just dumpster us in two turns is something I've never enjoyed. I agree that the flexibility in playstyle is very nice, though. I'm probably not experienced enough to know how to deal with every army and how to play an "all-comers" list. I've only played against Orruks, Khorne, Idoneth, Nurgle, Skaven and Stormcast. Out of those, Orruks and Skaven were the hardest to deal So maybe I'm just overly influenced by the tales I hear about armies like Lumineth, KO, DoK and Tzeentch being able to utterly crap on you if you don't play absolutely perfectly. I also never really played the FoS Skink-and-Sally-Spam list, even when I knew it was OP, so I probably never experienced the true Seraphon dominance everyone was complaining about when we were at the top of the meta.

One big question I'd like to hear your thoughts on would be regarding Starborne vs. Coalesced. Everyone knows that in general, Starborne is more competitive because summoning and teleporting are just that good. Bravery 10 across the board is also very nice. I do like that they tried to offer a different playstyle with the Coalesced, and they certainly aren't that much weaker than Starborne that's it's not worth playing them. But what would you personally do to try and narrow the gap between the two subfactions? How would you go about balancing the two so that Coalesced was just as useful as Starborne, even without the teleporting and summoning?

Really? That's cool. The last tournament data sheet I saw placed us much lower, so that's why I was assuming mid-tier strength.

 

Spoiler: 5-0 thunder lizards Pompey Pillage

.
Allegiance: Seraphon

- Constellation: Thunder Lizard- Mortal Realm: Ghur- Grand Strategy: Beast Master- Triumphs: InspiredLeaders

Saurus Scar-Veteran on Carnosaur (215)

- General- War Spear- Command Trait: Prime Warbeast- Artefact: Fusil of Conflaguration

Slann Starmaster (265)

- Artefact: Itxi Grubs- Spell: Stellar Tempest

Engine of the Gods (265)

Saurus Astrolith Bearer (150)

Skink Priest (80)

- Universal Prayer Scripture: HealBattleline

5 x Saurus Knights (110)

- Lances

5 x Saurus Knights (110)

- Lances

Stegadon (265)

- Weapon: Skystreak BowBehemoths

Bastiladon with Solar Engine (235)

Bastiladon with Solar Engine (235)

Endless Spells & Invocations

Emerald Lifeswarm (60)

Additional Enhancements

ArtefactTotal: 1990 / 2000Reinforced Units: 0 / 4Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 91Drops: 10

Spoiler: 5-0 thunder lizards Justice Series GT

.
Allegiance: Seraphon

Constellation: Thunder Lizard

Grand Strategy: Beast Master

Triumphs:


Leaders

Slann Starmaster (265)*

General- Command Trait: Arcane Might

Spell: Celestial Apotheosis

Skink Priest (80)*

Universal Prayer Scripture: Heal

Engine of the Gods (265)*

Artefact: Fusil of Conflaguration


Battleline


Stegadon (265)*

Weapon: Skystreak Bow

Stegadon (265)*

Weapon: Skystreak Bow

Stegadon (265)*

Weapon: Skystreak Bow


Units

2 x Salamander Hunting Pack (240)*

Reinforced x 1

1 x Salamander Hunting Pack (120)*


Behemoths


Bastiladon with Solar Engine (235)*


Core Battalions*Battle Regiment

Total: 2000 / 2000

Reinforced Units: 1 / 4

Allies: 0 / 400

Wounds: 81

Drops: 1

Here are the two 5-0 lists that I know of. Both of them are thunder lizards which shows you that thunder lizards is just as competitive as fangs and DT. But also both lists are very different. The first list really surprised me with two bastiladons and no salamaders. The second list seems much more standard thunder lizards.

Right now monsters are very strong so maybe next season we will go back to starborne but being able to earn extra points with monsters is just really strong.

 

Hm, it's definitely a good question. A core of saurus knights with engines to give Curse to stuff is probably what I'd start with and see what happens. So much of Coalesces power is in -1 damage, you have such a huge advantage against any army with low mortal wound output and high damage weapons, which a lot of the listed armies are. DoK will be hard but doks hard for everyone. Knights have a lot of output for their points so you should be decent there and a slann still gives you great magic defense while a handful of monsters let's you stay competitive on battle tactic bonuses. Some matchups might get a little dicey but it is what it is lol.

It doesn't inherently bother me I just think that specific buff would basically solve the saurus speed problem. And it's so overloaded it's like 3 buffs in one lol. Just feels like they weren't really fair in how they were handing out the keyword specific buffs, that buff being the most obvious example. I think krox should have a 3+ save personally. Would help thst it takes no buffs.

Totally, I wouldn't remove those abilities. Just examples of stuff I personally understand how it causes some grumbling haha. And I pretty much hate everything lumineth does so I'm with you there.

People like to talk in hyperbole on the internet and I think it paints a far more black and white picture than the game lends itself to. Things like battleplan, battle tactic choice, and target priority play such a huge rule in how games go. People put way too much stock in what list people are playing and don't give enough credit to player agency or experience. The times I've had to play perfectly was because the player I was playing, not the list they were using.

Regardless, I don't think you, or anyone else, should think they have to play perfectly to win. I think seraphon can have a higher skill cap than some armies, but it's not outrageously so. Basically, more forgiving armies certainly exist but the concept that seraphon requires some 9000 iq brain to pilot effectively is far from the truth.

I actually think they are a lot closer then most people give them credit for and Coalesced might actually be the stronger build right now. I'd still put my money on starborne but there's been great results posted with Coalesced, and no 5-0s with starborne yet.

If I had to change something, i'd get rid of that ridiculous terrain rule and give them ignore battleshock while they're wholly within 12 of a seraphon monster. Call it king of the jungle or something.

 

It wouldn't just make a lot of stuff more viable, it'd also help with the (percieved) lack of diversity. If our buffs were more broadly applicable it'd allow us to make some mixed lists without it immeadiatly being detrimental. Something as simple as a saurus hero actually being usefull in a skink list could do a lot to change the perception of our lists not being diverse. They don't need to be tournament dominating lists, but just being decently viable would be nice.

Aside from that, we just kinda suffer from having a tome that seems tailor made for 2e and then 3e comes along changing a lot of things. We can still make it work, but there's definitly some weird quirks in there that make you wonder how much the rule-writers actually communicated when they work on different projects. I'd really love to watch their process once to see how they so consistently manage to produce rules with the same kinda issues.

And you know, of course the occasional weirdly obvious flaw that for some reason got through testing (e.g. rippers or the troglodon, half the coalesced traits)

 

i would settle for saurus heroes being useful in saurus lists to be honest...

 

o, that'd definitly be a priority, and this was simply an example. Just saying that in general having buffs be applicable more broadly will result in more diverse, or at least the perception of more diverse, lists because you'l occasionally see people slot in an odd hero that fills a particular niche the mono-list normally can't fill.

 

All interesting posts to read, that is why I love this forum. To chip in with my rather shallow experience with AoS, I started playing from the very start of AoS 1e, but took it seriously and bought all the units only in the past half a year or so. 3e was my switch to really apply my self, and my findings are that what I usually did in 2e against my friends simply didn't work any more. I took Coalesced Firelance with Cogs and enjoyed the +5 to charge and 10" move Knights. I was sad to see that both of those are dead, and that 2x40 warriors that I used to buff through the roof with the Oldblood on foot with the 4+ returned CP is also trash now. Not only is the mandatory trait now only able to work once at most, the bonuses to hit no longer stack, and the max unit size is reduced. I still remember my buffed knights, 10 of them, killing Alarielle in their activation top of the combat round with all the buffs on them (The new Alarielle, nothing special I know, but felt nice.)

Now, 3e is a new game, and something I had trouble wrapping my mind around. Smaller units, more of them, and having just the EotG from the Steg line of models, I was sad. I still only have the Engine, not having enough disposable income to get 3 Stegs just yet, so I'm struggling with the lists that contain either the Chad Chief proxy of the Engine, or the Engine itself, together with 3 3rd party sally's I got, and the rest of the units that I have that are legit. Sadly, 40 knights from 2e collect dust, as do the 90 warriors that I got... So, with tear filled eyes, I decided to try and have fun in 3e, and the game it self is super enjoyable. For me, the new edition is brimming with list diversity from my personal angle simply because I never played anything than a variation of KC 40/40/10 warriors or 10/10/5 knights. So it was a whole new world.

I had to learn to actually screen with 10 skinks, I was blown away with how amazing 30 skinks with Serpent Staff were too. Salamanders are still kinda meh for me, I don't understand why everyone considers them amazing when they do 8 damage with high rend on average. Yeah it can kill a on foot buff hero, but not much else, with their short range? I must be missing something due to my inexperience, who knows. Engine is amazing, Chief is incredible, 5 knights never did anything for me. The problem I have these weeks with the game is that I feel as if we are such a reactive army with solid pieces, that in order to win, I don't have to actually play well, I just have to not make mistakes and wait for my opponent to make mistakes.

A good friend of mine replied to that line with something like "That is what skill is in this game. You can't roll dice more skillfully, it is simply a matter of making less mistakes." And I agree with it, but there was not a single incredible moment for me in the whole 3e. No huge damage from one unit, no clutch redeploys, no flashy abilities turning the tide of the battle. It is simply a solid army, that relies on a 10 minute long hero phase to do everything followed by skink shooting, and maybe a Chief in close combat. That is how my games look.

Sorry for the long post stream of consciousness, just felt like sharing my findings. 3e is great fun, but the army it self is something I find I had more fun with in 2e. I always wanted a Temple Guard army. That has always been my fantasy, and the unbalanced mess of 1e allowed that to be the reality, with the battalion just for them, and the rerolling saves buff. Then came 2e and Warriors and Knights were good, so I was still happy. Now, I feel as if I have 2 or 3 win conditions on the board, with 1500 points buffing the 500. If I field Kroak, he is one good unit, if I field the Engine or Chief, they are the 2nd, and 30 skinks + Starpriest are the 3rd. Everything else is a speed bump, or a buff unit. Not the style I enjoy the most, but due to novelty I am ok with it currently.

I'd wish for the fantasy of this incredible line of interlocking shields from the Guard as they hold against the tide of incredible odds as the Slann's warp reality versus the enemy. Or at least Knights and Warriors doing amazingly. Yes, 5 buffed knights can carry their weight, I was just never able to pull it off in 3e since I feel 30 skinks are just so much better to carry all the buffs. Again, apologies for the wall of text, and have a good day.

 

Eat your heart out, Doc Ock!



I'm quite happy that the Van Saar arachni-rig is finally getting an official model, not least of all on my birthday today.

 

That can still work against a Stormcast player. Sure, your unit has greater board control than most if you do that, but it also opens you up to being more vulnerable to hordes of gobbos, clanrats, skinks... just about anything with a 25mm base (and even quite a few on 32s. My only guess is that it's meant to be such that you can stagger multiple units within the same footprint, or if it's dealing with the dragon riders emphasize their relative independence.

 

Potential silver lining: flyer minis with wide-ish wingspans could get a similar rule added on in their tomes, preferably an updated FAQ - especially cause the prosecutors (older winged SCE minis) also have the rule meaning it's not entirely new-mini hype to push sales for the dragon riders. I'm thinking terradons & ripperdactyl for us, but I guess their wings don't extend too much past the base size.

...but if they don't do that and this does stay an SCE-only rule, then yeah, way to go GW.

 

Of course they won't do it properly, they're never consistent with these kinda things. At best they'l only change it for like half the (flyer) mini's that need it, at worst it'l just be SCE.