AoS Warhammer Weekly: Seraphon OP?

I'd also submit that his unique spell is not great on it's own, the 10" range would be very challenging to use without putting him at risk of combat. At that point the support isn't really synergy, it's a requirement if you want Kroak to make an impact

 

This is a conflation with a wholly separate issue though. The similarity in role is what makes the comparison so useful, as they are essentially different flavours of the same model. Is the slann overcosted? I've never heard anyone make that argument. If not, how is Kroak not undercosted? One or the other must be true.

 

or the slann does have a purpose and people are just ignoring it to gripe. in draconians tail the slann performs better, being less then half the price of kroaknado and haveing more utility. he makes for a better dispeller and caster with his ability to reroll both(see artifacts) can take 2 spells and still works as a horde and hero killer if not as well. kroak is good but he is a cannon and nothing else, for anything that isn't that the slann does better.
we even see this in turny results(what little we have) with slann kroak lists doing very well and strait slann lists running even with kroak ones.

 

They aren't two different flavours though, Kroak is literally just a better Slann, with the exact same abilities and on top of that something extra.

As an example of two models that are actually two different flavours of the same base model look at a oldblood and a scar-vet on carnosaur. Those two actually distinguish themselves from one another with two very different command abilities, that serve different purposes.

That requires you to give your Slann the general trait & an artifact though. Just to distinguish him from Kroak in a meaningfull way. Which imho is bad design. The base warscroll of the slann should already give us some reason to pick him over Kroak, aside from him just being a slightly cheaper option; a different command ability, a unique spell, a unique ability, a ranged attack, whatever. And right now it just doesn't give any real reason for that.

Don't get me wrong, you can make a slann work. It's not a bad unit by any stretch. But as long as they have basicly the same warscrolls with the same spells & command abilities Kroak will always remain a Slann+.

 

Easy way to make slann more desirable, give the book actually useful Traits and artifacts that are powerful and make players want to take a slann to have them. Our book is so weak when it comes to the faction artifacts and traits. I have never taken them. I don't remember what they are. I take the traits and artifacts I'm forced to to play dracothian tail or thunderquake or what have you, and that's it.

the problem isn't they kroak is so cheap he is overshadowing the slann, the problem is the slann and other heroes are so weak they aren't worth taking

 

ehhhhh, i've yet to hear an argument to why the slann warscroll is that bad. The artefacts are a bit hit or miss, but that's every book. The skink artefacts are amazing, and i'd say most of the allegiance traits/artefacts are at least okay. I mean, getting a 3 cast wizard with a built in +1 and command point generation AND unlimited range unbinds is a pretty sweet package for 260 points.

I genuinely think the problem is that Kroak is so cheap he's overshadowing the slann. There's literally no reason to not pay 60 points for all that Kroak gives you.

 

I play slann and kroak together in dt all the time so I've had a lot of experience with both. Like at least 75 games this year I'd say. We play all the time and have monthly rts. I feel Generic slann is bad for these reasons:

1. Slann is a 3 cast wizard that doesn't really have good spells to cast. The best spell in the lore is stellar tempest, which is situational. The comet's call spell is also situational and best when finishing off units on their last wound. Celestial equilibrium is the next best spell in our lore, but it feels really bad using a spell to make another caster better because you have nothing to do with your magic phase as a generic slann. Kroaknado build is really the only reason I'd use that spell. The other spells in the lore are pretty weak and I don't find myself ever wanting to use them. So really you have to rely on endless spells, which you pay points for. That 260 wizard casting bound Geminids is really 340. A generic slann for 340 is pretty bad in my opinion.

Kroak on the other hand, has 4 spell slots and a single purpose. To summon balewind vortex and spam mortals 3 times onto people. He is always using his spell slots and dealing mortals. This is a big deal. You pay premium for magic in AoS, and wizards that cannot make the most of their magic are really weak.

2. they have board wide dispels, but the game is moving away from magic to shooting. Paying a premium to be masters of magic when people are either throwing bodies or bullets at you and foregoing the magic phase entirely, means you are wasting points.

For the generic slann this is half his identity. Half the reason you take him. He is there to dispel and cast spells. He is supposed to be a big wizard. Kroak on the other hand is there to do one thing, mortal wounds, and the ability he has to dispel is a bonus. I'd take kroak even if he couldnt dispel because I want his offense. I can't say I'd take a slann who couldn't dispel. It would feel too weak.

3. he doesn't really support the troops you have or allow you to project power on the board. He just sits there as a beacon, making command points if you roll well, sacrificing worthless spell slots you can't use for summoning points and allowing models to be summoned near him. He's more of a terrain piece you pay points for than a hero model you take into battle.

This contrasts with kroak who wants to be in the middle of the board, is constantly dishing out mortal wounds, killing enemy heroes to remove their buffs and weakening units to allow your troops to finish them off. Kroak also carries a giant target on his back, drawing fire away from your own troops to him, which I can say the slann has never done in my games.

4. generic slann has one good use that I've found and it's as a support hero in DT. You take generic slann, make him the general, bring along arcane knowledge so you can cast equilibrium to buff kroak while keeping a healing spell in the back pocket. Use the slann as general to generate summoning and then sacrifice spell slots for more. In this build he will make his points back through summoning and helping kroak do kroak's job even more. Its the only way I've found to make the slann feel useful.

kroak on the other hand is always useful because he's so focused. Do I want to take mortal wounds? Yes I do. Ok I'm taking kroak. He doesn't do much else besides spam mortal wounds and that's ok, I always feel like I'm getting the most out of him. I don't need a big elaborate strategy and setup. He's simple and will slot into anything.

so yes you can argue that kroak makes the slann obsolete by being better, but really it's the slann is weak. He's hard to fit into lists because he doesn't being much to them. He's pricey and actually not the best at the role he is supposed to be played. Rather than nerfing kroak, the slann needs to be buffed. He needs to be bringing more to the game. That will encourage people to take him more. As is it is too difficult to make him feel worthwhile and that is why kroak is seeing so much ply, because kroak is simple and straightforward and always getting work done.

 

Appreciate the response, but not sure I totally agree. Feels like you gloss over a lot of the strengths with some pretty surface level complaints, at least in my opinion.

1) A 3-cast/3-unbind wizard for ~85 points per cast is good. Period. Almost none exist in the game, and your assertion that comet's call or stellar tempest (2 of it's 3 spell slots) are "situational" is arguable at best, flat out wrong at worst. Comets call is an UNLIMITED RANGE mortal wound spell that doesnt require los. Even if it hit one target that would be amazing but it has the potential to hit 6! It's easily in the tier of "best spells in the game." Stellar tempest also single handledly gives seraphon options against horde. at 24'' minimum you aren't going to outrange it and can easily do 20+ mortals over the course of a game.

Paying for endless spells as a downside also is kind of unfair, considering bound geminids is criminally undercoasted and again, probably one of the best spells in the game.

Between those 3 spells seraphon can pressure 1) armies that rely on out of range, low wound heroes. 2) armies that rely on tough, large blocks (mortek, dok) and 3) everyone else because bound geminids is literally amazing always.

2) Magic is still at a premium. Seraphon, Lumineth, Cities, Skaven, DoK, and tzeentch all really, really REALLY want to get spells off. Unlimited unbinds is literally the best part of a slanns kit, and this opinion sounds heavily skewed by local meta. Almost all the best armies in the game besides KO and fyreslayers want to get spells off.

3) You said it yourself, he makes command points. A lot of command points. That's arguably a better "support" resource than spells. Also, we've already talked about stellar tempest, comets call, and unlimited unbinds. What exactly are you looking for this wizard to do?

4) All you've done is argue that Kroak is better. And he is, he's a lot better. It's why in a world where kroak is 320 you never see a slann at 260. But that doenst mean a slann is bad, and hand waving away comets call, stellar tempest, command point generation, and rangeless unbinds to make your point, kinda makes my point. All of those things are pretty awesome IMO.

Your opinion also sounds a little warped in that you are always playing them together. A slann is, by definition, a support piece in your list. You're criticizing him for being a "terrain piece you summon around" when that's exactly how you treat him. I've played dozens of games with only a slann, and he gets along just fine on his own. I'd suggest giving it a spin and leveraging the points you save from not taking the kroaknado to getting more toys.

edit: i will say, i'm fully aware i may be a bit biased and a full on seraphon apologist. I think the book is pretty great top to bottom and am reluctant to really call anything in it "bad" outside of a few extreme examples.

 

I guess if you knew what army you were going to face, then even a generic slann could feel more useful. Just for example, I played a team game against Nagash recently. It would have been nice to have at least 3 board-wide dispels against his 8 casts.

To digress, I think that Seraphon feels very much like LoN in build and flavor; strong focus on magic (with the right faction), critical heroes for synergy (decent to strong casting or decent fighting/commands with the right heroes), similar bravery/battleshock features, horde units, adequate MW generation, teleportation and summoning (with the right faction). I would argue that undead does it a little better than us, but that's just my opinion.

 

Personally, I can kind of see where both arguments are coming from. I don't actually own a slann yet, so I only know about them from the forums and "on paper" as it were. @Putzfrau, do you play with a regular slann often? Or do you play Kroak more often?

 

I play with both. A lot of my tournament games I run with Kroak, but i've also ran a few with a slann. My favorite place for a regular slann is in a thunder lizard list where you can leverage the points you save for more toys, since you don't have the advantage of summoning stuff in for late game plays.

edit: I'll also say, I think people are overly infatuated with damage. The seraphon book oozes damage out of every warscroll, we don't really need our slann to be pumping out the level of mortal wounds Kroak does. If you can get that mw output for basically free (which is what kroak gives you) then awesome. But the slann being a support piece with a few key, matchup winning spells is really all you need. He helps the rest of the army function with command points and magic defense, while providing constant pressure on heroes with comets call.

 

That makes sense (as far as I can tell, ha ha ha). If Kroak was, I don't know, 420 pts, would that change over your Kroak tournament list to a regular slann? Would there be a point limit for you to take a slann over Kroak?

 

If Kroak was 420 points, it would depend on the list I was taking and what happens to the rest of the book. If the only change was kroak was 420 points, i'd drop a single salamander out of my competitive fangs of sotek list and still run him because even at 420 he'd still be good.

My favorite list is my koatl's claw knight list and if kroak went up in that i already have a list that sacrifices kroak and the astrolith for a regular slann and a knight incantor with the everblaze comet.

I just think Kroak is a little more valuable in fangs where you want the summoning and you want that threat to discourage people coming into you. 30 buffed knights generally has the same effect

I think at 400ish points you'd have to actually think about bringing him over a regular slann. Any higher and i dunno if he would be the MOST competitive option, but he'd still be strong.

 

Sorry. Yes, in my (arbitrary) thought experiment, Kroak is the only point change. Everything else stays the same.

 

If nothing else changed, it would depend on your list and if you could comfortable drop the 80-100 points. I think he'd be worth the points in a vacuum, but there might be a more efficient combination of stuff you could find.

 

The slann scroll is bad because it's literally the same as Kroak, but a little bit worse while bringing nothing unique or advantageous in comparison. The point difference doesn't even really matter, it's literally just a poor man's Kroak. It doesn't matter that even a poor man's Kroak is still decent, it'l always just be a poor man's Kroak. And as long as Kroak remains cost-efficient he'l always be the superiour option.

See, what you say here is very important to understand why the Slann is bad. The only question you ask when deciding between Kroak and a Slann is "Is this the most efficient combo". Not "Do I want to follow strategy X, which requires a Slann, or Y for which Kroak is better." Just "which is the most cost efficient.". The regular slann doesn't bring a single significant advantage beyond saving some points.

If you want the Slann to become more popular, and not just nerf Kroak into the ground, you'l have to actually give the Slann something unique and valueable of his own instead of letting him slink in Kroak's shadow for all eternity hoping to be chosen cuz he's more cost efficient.

 

Named characters are often just the base warscroll +

I'm not getting into the design strategy of named vs unnamed characters. I personally don't care that a slann is kroak minus mortal wounds spam. They are both fundamentally slann models and I want them to do slann things. Like have rangeless unbinds, cast comets call, and generate my command points.

I enjoy the option of getting the budget version of that or paying a little extra for that + mortal wound spam.

A different design philosophy doesn't make it a bad warscroll. Kroak being cost efficient also doesn't necessarily mean a slann won't be chosen. If kroaks 500 points, but worth the points, its still going to be a different list and list strategy than taking a cheaper slann. Do you need the mortal wound spam? Do you want more toys? Does your Allegiance make those toys more attractive? Does it make kroaks advantages more attractive?

 

And here I am running regular Slann because I think its kinda cool

 

O sure, but most named characters get to have a +1 to hit, or a different unique spell or command ability. The difference is generally fairly minor, or they lose out on something in the process (e.g. trading an offensive spell for a defensive one). This keeps the named character in check. It gives a reason to use the regular warscroll regardless of how good the unique character is.

But this isn't the case with Kroak. He doesn't trade in any base slann abilities for his own unique extra powers. Nor does he only get a minor boon.
He gets to be massivly more powerfull while retaining all the base abilities.

Again, all your asking here is "can I afford Kroak and still have an efficient list?". It might be a complicated question, cuz there's interactions with allegiance abilities and other units. But when push comes to shovel this just boils down to "Can I buy the fancy version or am I forced to use the cheap knock-off?", because the cheap knock-off literally brings no advantage beyond just being cheaper.

This might be an interesting question for competitive list building, but imho, if this is the only real consideration when picking between two units then they're failed designs. Especially when it considers a major unit who's supposed to take an important central role in an army both fluff & crunch wise.


Anyway tl;dr: when choosing between two options for your general (or a similarly important unit) the choice should be more involved than just "Can I afford the fancy version or not?"

You do you

 

I think simplifying it down to such an un-nuanced point doesnt give enough credit to the nuance. . Every list you make is a matter of balancing efficiencies. That's what you want. When everything is "worth their points" it means you have options in how you want to build your list. If a slann at 260 points is as efficient as Kroak at 400 or 600 or whatever he costs, there's still a choice to be made there, one that drastically effects the list you are building and the strategy you are going for. The question isn't "can i afford the fancy version" its "does my list need the abilities that the 200 point upgrade to kroak gets me."

Some lists might, and some lists might not. And "no advantages beyond just being cheaper" ignores the huge advantage of... something being cheaper. That's a huge advantage in a game where there is ALWAYS a trade off.

Feels like there's been a lot of "yeah but if you ignore the things that make it good, its bad" conversation in this thread. And its like yeah. Thats true. When you ignore the thing that makes it good, it is bad. Can't really argue with that. But I dunno why we are ignoring the thing that makes it good.