bad internal balance between starborn and coalesced i mean 2 of coalesced abilities are useless more often then not and one is a out right detriment.
I think coalesced is stronger than people give it credit for, but I do agree that the terrain and the bravery allegiance ability are poorly thought through. I think they are just a small tweak away from being good (only negative debuffs and impacting all terrain).
bad spell lores 2/3 being bad/useless and our stand out spell being a bog standered hoard killer. we have great bonuses to cast but nothing to use them on it's one of the reasons kroak is taken so often he has enough warscroll spells that he doesn't have to fall back onto the lores.
I mentioned this a little in the above post, but I think there was a little reluctance to give us a powerful lore and bound endless spells. Bound spells are just absurdly strong. I do think they could have spent more time on the lore, I think it suffered from how long our book sat in playtesting. At the time of it being written, it wouldn't have stood out nearly as badly, but when it's dropped right between tzeentch and Lumineth it looks pretty sad by comparison. I would argue that a vast, vast majority of the spells in AoS are pretty useless. Maybe the Lumineth lore is a sign of things to come /shrug
Regardless, even with a bad lore we still have great spellcasters and magic is an important part of our list. So its not exactly like the end result is much different than if we had tons of spells to choose from.
bad monsters over all it's a constant problem in AoS but for the faction that is all about dinosaurs it hurts and no mount traits just makes it worse
I agree and disagree. I think carnosaurs are very strong. Trogs are okay for their one trick. Bastiladons are strong. Stegadons could use some love.
If i had to say, my complaint with the dinosaurs is they are all kind of the same. The whole army is actually. Everything is more in that "glass cannon" space than anything. Not a whole lot of diversity, but i'll get into that below...
no effective anvil this is where temple guard could have come into it's own but they nurffed their save. instead we got worse warriors that can act as wounds for kroak not great for our eleat infantry.
This is where i think design philosophy comes in a bit. It feels like this book was written with a specific idea of seraphon in mind. Every unit seems to be build around this ability to do a ton of damage, but can't take a punch at all. The monsters, the units, the heroes, it's all the same. With that in mind, I think that's the reason we didn't get an anvil unit. Our army isn't intended to have an anvil, because we've been designed (and hopefully balanced) around being able to do a level of damage that doesn't need one.
Whether you agree with that or not is something else, but I don't mind that all armies don't get everything. I like that seraphon feel fundamentally different than an army like fyreslayers or something.
the realm shaper not getting into that again but out one new sculpt being so subpar is a gut punch.
No arguments there. it's a real shame.
the major hits to our game macanics did need to happen but they went to far in a few cases and didn't replace them with anything but +1s. so we have a very boring play style nothing interesting just buff units and throw them at people.
Hm. Can't say I agree here. I don't think seraphon have a boring playstyle, and I think it's far more nuanced than you're giving it credit for. I think our playstyle changes drastically depending on if you lean into skinks or saurus, coalesced or starborne. You might need to elaborate a little here, cause i'm not seeing it at all.
so many bad units things that where just poorly thought out or badly balanced with the rest of the book. they didn't need to hit rippers that bad or the ark or chameleons or eternity warden or skinks(not that they are bad but they did get triple nurffed). and a lot of the things they tried to fix failed hence why you still don't see them in lists
Again, not sure i totally agree. A vast majority of the units in this book are usable at a casual level. A decent amount are usable at the competitive level. In terms of flexibility, we're actually doing pretty alright compared to other books. Ark and eternity warden are not good, i'll give you that. Ark really wasn't ever good tho, so not sure what you mean by it getting hit too hard. I think skinks are in a great spot, but i was sad to see wary fighter go. Like i mentioned above, it feels like they tried to make up for it by just cranking the damage up to 11.
a complete lack of strikes first strikes last double pile in's fight after death run and charge(on actual melee units) retreat and charge and several other tools means our melee struggles even when fully buffed that and the high drops lowers our options a lot
They've largely moved away from activation wars, for better or worse. I think not having run and charge (or some ability to move with speed) is problematic for Warriors for sure. I think being able to dictate the flow of the game with a good one drop could have helped with this. However, Saurus Warrior armies still work, and they work better than in the last book. Saurus knight lists are genuinely strong, even without those things.
i don't think our battalions are worse then any thing else out side of tzeench they work no complaints here
saurus are better even good if you build them right but they do not stack up well next to good melee builds right now and they suffer from over reliance on squishy heroes
salamanders are great no complaints not broken just the new razordons
i like the bound spells fun flavorful rules
sorry for being a bit gripy but i have been being positive for the most part recently and just had to vent
all in all, i'll say thank you for responding at length! I do think that ultimately the opinion that shapes my beliefs is you gotta take the good with the bad. Every book has compromises, and so far i'm pretty happy with the compromises made here. I can see how those compromises might not be as palatable for everyone, but I do think that conversation should be had in the context of a book that's
VERY VERY strong. It's important to understand that this is a good book, and if we want to complain about its faults, we should do so knowing there would be a cost to adjusting those faults. Giving this book everything you've outlined would create an extremely problematic battletome (moreso than it already is).
My last point is in reference to this:
we have solid tools but with anything that's not salamander kroak and/or skink spam(with out the fun parts) you are working twice as hard for 3/4 the out come and while still good more often then not it hurts to see things in other armies that so effortlessly out class us
I think you can always say "a list made up of b-tier units is going to perform 3/4's as well as a list made up of a-tier units." That's true across every book in the game. However, i also think that people have taken the Kroak/salamander meta to an absurd place. There are plenty of other viable builds for how most people play, and there are even other viable builds if your intention is to be as competitive as possible (which is far from most peoples intention).
I think Kroak and salamanders strength have made us blind to the rest of the book, when there's some really cool stuff in there. Thunderquake is still extremely viable, as is Saurus Knight spam. If we're talking about more casual situations, you can run almost anything. If you aren't literally trying to regularly podium at tournaments, your options are hardly limited.
I don't think we, as a community, should get so lost in Kroak and Salamanders that we mistake the rest of the book as being bad.
Edit: i'm bad at getting everything in at once apparently. To bring this back to the topic at hand, I think if we're talking about what we want for the 2020 GHB, that notion of compromise should still be infused in what we are wishlisting for.