The issue is that you're throwing the aura on every unit creating something similar to Cathay in TW. In TW this works because armies tend to keep similar formations in all battles. Neat battlelines, spears in front, archers in the back cavalry on the flanks etc. all moving as one big block towards the objective (with some sneaky flanking here and there). This makes it relativly easy to maintain overlapping auras of the different types of units. It's also relativly difficult to snipe a specific unit to break the overlapping bubbles. This means that the uptime on the buff is going to be relativly high & easy to predict for any given battle. And thus it's relativly easy to create a mechanic around that which is powerfull enough to be interesting while staying balanced and avoiding the frustration of outliers ruining specific battles (e.g. extreme high v.s. extreme low uptime compared to the average game) In AoS formations are considerably messier. Objectives are spread out, forcing armies to split up. It's relativly easy to snipe specific units. This makes the uptime far less predictable, and games on the extremes will feel frustrating if the buff is powerfull. On the other hand, if the buff is relativly weak it won't be (as) frustrating if you end up with a extreme high/low uptime that game, but it also raises the question, why bother with such a weak buff? Which is why I suspect GW so far hasn't really done anything like this. Because it's a very obvious and flavourfull idea for factions like ours that rely on synergy. Anyway; tl;dr: I like the idea but suspect it's just a difficult one to get right in AoS and that's why it doesn't exist yet
I don't really hate the objective playstyle of AoS, but I still kind of wish it was more straightforward combat with secondary objectives. I like the feeling of armies clashing, not skirmish squads scambling over random points on the map. It does seem to lead to a lack of army coherency. Especially with all the deepstriking, teleporting and turn-1 charges you have to worry about.
Madness take the wheels. Troglodon 10" ld10 4+ 12w It's still an oracle Sucks in melee jaws 2 4+ 3+ - 2 Claws 4 3+ 3+ -1 1 Still an oracle because it's cool Fuck it comets call It's ranged attack I forgot the name. range 12" 3d6+2 3+ -2 2 Primeval roar is cool Can cast a spell Let's beastmode this bitch it's 360points There it has a couple of clear ideas on what it is gonna do. Be one hell of a shooter that can do some cool magic shit don't worry about charging and move it around properly to get the most out of it Sure it might be "undercosted" but quite frankly it makes it more fun and I don't really care because acid spewing spinosaurus
Due to the Troglodon's "blind sense", I think it would be interesting to maybe remove "Drawn to the Screams" and replace it with something that either forces teleporting/summoned/etc units to set up further away or allows the Troglodon to make a free move/Redeploy. Basically, it senses the arriving units before they get there.
That one sounds interesting. It kinda pigeonholes it into being a starborne but it would work. I'd say Drawn to screams. Whenever a successful wound is landed by this things acid spewing. Let's say every unit/squad within 12" gets a +2 to charge and a +1 to hit and rend That way it can be utilized in both coalesed and starborne
I think it's supposed to force enemy units that are teleporting or deep striking to be set up further away, so a bit more of a defensive zone against enemy teleporting, which works in either army.
Yes, that was more of my thinking. I don't know, the Troglodon is pretty much a Slann buffing unit currently. This was just one of my crazy thoughts for something different that might help the army, but still be kind of niche. Either a "no teleport/deep strike" bubble OR maybe a free move (or Redeploy?) when a unit gets within a certain range.
Caleb Hastings just put out a new video talking about fixing Saurus. Definitely in line with what I've always been hoping for. Either big stat buffs or better abilities (he basically gives them Kruleboyz mortal wounds abilities)
i generaly agree with him but savagry incarit is way to strong. 20 saurus have 60 attacks thats 10 MW before anything with the CA that becomes 20 MW flat out. thats more than a little silly And then you put star Venom on top of that And whatever attacks go through because none of these mortals stop the attack sequence It's a 300% increase in damage
On the topic of Saurus being not worth taking, a while back I made this comment on the Rumours thread: Examining this further, especially when looking back to the days of Warhammer Fantasy, Saurus as a whole were crippled by the loss of such attributes as Strength and Toughness, as many others have commented on, while Skinks are boosted by it, with attack profiles befitting damaging the equivalent of a human-like WS3 S3 T3 stat-block. Back in 8e WFB, a successful hit with that profile on a Saurus Warrior (S4 T4 W1 Sv4+) would have a 1/6 chance of killing that Saurus, whereas it would have a 5/9 chance of killing a Skink (S3 T2 W1 Sv6+ with bucklers & after attack strength modifiers). Thus, you'd get a 10:3 Skink-to-Saurus ratio in terms of how many of either would die on average to a given number of attacks. Compare and contrast that to the current defensive profiles in AoS: even barring the use of bucklers, you're generally looking at greater parity between the two at a 5:3 ratio instead (4:3 with bucklers). A single additional wound on the Saurus would amend that, even if it might mean that Saurus Warriors would have to be bumped up to being twice the per-model cost of Skinks. With that said, Saurus Warriors don't need to be super-good, just good enough to be heavy infantry. As for Saurus Guard (S4 T4 W1 Sv3+ in 8e - 1/9 chance for a hit to kill), simply giving them a 3+ save instead of their current 4+ would help differentiate them more from their normal brethren as the elite option, trading comparably at a 2:3 guard-to-warrior ratio in both average number of deaths per hit and points cost per model as seen in as late as 8e WFB. Saurus Knights (S4 T4 W1) on the other hand are a bit of an odd one. Back in WFB, the combination of shields, a Scaly Skin save, and the Cold Ones' Thick-Skinned special rule meant that they usually had a 2+ or 3+ save against S3 attacks - that is, a 1/18 or 1/9 chance of being killed by a hit from such an attack. For AoS, it's probably likely that neither 2+ or 3+ save would really be a balanced approach for the unit in terms of durability. However, statistically speaking, a unit comprised of 3W Sv4+ models has the same probability of losing them as does one comprised of 2W Sv3+ models. As for making it more of the hammer unit it should be, that's a matter of attack profiles and special rules.
i also miss toughness and strength it gave a lot of room for buff potential made a lot of things far more durable in a fluffy way and held off the onset of wards making MWs a very rare and very valuable thing. i don't understand the reasoning as to why it was dropped. it's not complicated it doesn't take more time it's simply more less or the same. it also went a long way to make monsters and different weapon prophiles useful, there is absolutely no reason to use a vets greatblade nowadays when it should be your anti heavy option
To be honest what confuses me most about the removal of strength/thoughness is that their other two games still use it. If it was so complicated to use, then why have they kept it for LoTR and 40K?
Well, especially at the beginning, the password was "simplification", 3 pages rules easy to master even to children. So we have only 4 stats: move, save, bravery and wounds. S and T would have increased these to 6. To bring back T v S would mean a new edition, with a simultaneous release of ALL upadted armies, otherwise you could simply not play an army without those 2 new stats. That said.... yes, it sucks depth from the game.
or just a PDF with the S/T for all units. would take a much shorter time and could hot fix somethings
...do we wanna talk about Chaos Space marines and the lack of their 2nd wound since the beginning of 9th ed.? Easy fix and GW are not on the same plane of existence