• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS NEW *rumor*

Just A Skink said:
Could a unit of 5-10 Temple Guard hold off, or defeat, the Palladors?

EDIT: In looking over the SCE warscroll, I'm ticked that the Pallador's standard-sized mounts have -2 rend on claws & beak. Our Carnosaur's big jaws only have -1. I know I shouldn't compare this in a vacuum, but come on! :mad:
Click to expand...
Hi my jaws are -2 rend as well. I have never been ok with it. Gimme my -3 like I should have
 
Canas said:
To make it the question more specific, because "what warscroll can unbuffed clear off 200 points of palladors" isn't entirely accurate as the palladors are just an example.

My question is:

"What response do I have for under 200 points or less to fight off a unit of palladors (or rough equivalent)"

An acceptable anwser could theoretically be "20 saurus warriors", but it could also be "10 warriors and an oldblood", or "10 warriors and a salamander" etc.

The point of this question is to figure out what we actually have available to hold our flanks against medium threats while our big stuff (e.g. carnosaurs, 40 man buffed hordes etc.) are busy fighting more important things elsewhere.

And so far I have yet to find an answer that isn't just "Wait for our big stuff to become available to kill it".

The reason I don't find strategy changes/deployement changes acceptable answers is because ultimatly those won't stop an opponent from trying to flank. And your carnosaur can only be in one place at a time. So sooner or later you will find yourself in a situation like this. Eventually you're going to run into a game where your opponent will use a pallador to try and steal an objective and you can't always have a carnosaur waiting on that objective. So what can we put on there that does stand a fighting chance?
Click to expand...


Will strategy and deployment stop an enemy from trying to flank? No. But flanking isn't a win condition. Killing stuff isn't either.

Let's say it's scorched earth just to make flanks as threatening as possible. As soon as I see a Pallador squad lined up in the like, way off on one side it says to me a few things.

Whichever of my points is on that side is threatened turn 1 if I give it a charge. So I won't give it a charge, forcing at least 2 turns for me to solve problems elsewhere or before I really have to deal with it.

If he has the potential for a double going into turn 2 he'll be able to burn it without me getting a chance to contest.

Hes not using that 200 points somewhere else.

Then I can start weighing risks and rewards. On scorched earth it's hard to hold everything. I could simply abandon that point depending on when he takes it from me. I just would keep on mind I clearly don't want to give him 3 turns of holding it and the burn points. I could also go diagonally from the center to the point he just abandoned and basically react to what he does with my point. I could aggressively push into his two central points, displacing his army to the edges.

Basically the goal of the game is never to kill that unit of palladors. It's to score enough points to win. If that pallador is going to contest points I can contest points elsewhere. I can also "drown him" in bodies by simply not engaging him and outcontrolling that unit of 3 or whatever it is. Trading 20 skinks to control that objective for 3 turns is a win.

I could also deploy an element of my army on that side to actually deal with it. On scorched earth you're always deploying centrally, but if I was using my knight list I'd have a unit of 10 on that side (or maybe like 18 inches in from that side so i can make a charge into the palladors from the center). I can easily ensure my carno is wholly within 18 if it needs to get into combat. 18 from the carno is a pretty massive range, especially when you have movement from both units to situate ranges. And even if it doesn't get buffed and loses the fight, i'm hopefully winning a fight elsewhere on the map in time to eventually support it or score more points elsewhere.

If the fear is the palladors circling back into the side or back of my buffing center instead of contesting a corner point, then I can simply use my superior strength when buffed to deal with it.

This is what I mean when I say I don't like how the question implies you need a warscroll solution to a warscroll problem. The solution can be multifaceted and involve things outside of of drawing one to one comparisons between stats on a warscroll. We aren't simply lining numbers up across from each other and seeing which ones are higher.

If you need a warscroll solution, the things I've mentioned before are still my answer. That's what I've used. That's what I've found to be effective. I'm not sure why I'd need more options. But in that sense you are right. Given your specific criteria there is not an unbuffed unit that pound for pound matches the units you described. I'll reiterate that I'm still not exactly sure why it's needed, and the above nonsense is why I feel that way.

I hope that helps answer the question.
 
Putzfrau said:
I hope that helps answer the question.
Click to expand...

Sadly it doesn't. This anwsers the question:

"How do I win the overal game when flanking palladors are a thing I have to deal with"

And your anwsers are essentially one of the following options:
  1. Gain local superiourity elsewhere that is more valuable than the local superiourity of the palladors will be over there. (e.g. sacrifice one objective to the palladors, but take 2 objectives yourself elsewhere)
  2. Keep something scary ( e.g. over 200 points worth of seraphon) nearby so the palladors don't gain local superiourity.
  3. Buy time by sacrificing minor units to them so the local superiourity isn't worth the effort for the palladors.
Which is fair enough for a competitive setting. But these are all global solutions to a local problem. None of those solve the local problem locally.
To solve it locally you'd need to anwser the following question:

"How do I realisticly retain local superiourity, or at least local equivalency, against a unit of palladors when my local options are limited to mostly unsupported basic units (e.g. sub 200 points worth of seraphon). E.g. when protecting an objective away from my main army"

And the anwser to that question seems to consistently be:

  1. You can't. You need at least 200+ points of seraphon locally to realisticly fight back against palladors. If all you have locally is something like 20 skinks or 20 warriors, or 10 skinks and a priest etc. they will lose and die. Probably without doing much damage in return. And even if we weren't limited locally to sub 200 points we'd still need to get the first strike, because those palladors can take down a carnosaur, stegadon or horde of skinks if they go first.
And I do not like that because the grander implication of this is that sub-200 points we're very easy to outmatch locally. And imho it kind of sucks to need to bring 200-300 points worth of stuff everywhere I go and make sure to always get the first strike just to not give away local superiourity to a random unsupported 170 point unit (and in the grander scheme of thing, to similar independent units. Usually in the 150-200 point range)

And again, for a competitive setting this doesn't matter much. There's global anwsers available in the grander scheme of things. But for more casual games this matters. Plus, what I personally really don't like is that it only allows global solutions to solve a local problem. I want to have some local solutions available as well. I'm fine with the global solutions being better competitivly. But I want the option of solving a local problem locally.

Also you know, it is kinda weird that we can't deal with a 170 point unit without having at least a 40 point advantage, preferably more, on top of needing first strike. Like you'd think 200 points worth of stuff would be able to beat a 170 points worth of stuff. You have 17% more stuff after all. That should be a significant advantage. Not being able to do that does not seem super fair... And yeah, globally this isn't an issue, but it seems like very weird local balancing.

Erta Wanderer said:
Well you did weight it heavily in their favor if you sent 20 in at once you have a good chance of winning and 30 would win outright. The only reason paladors did so well was them only having to deal with ten at a time
Click to expand...
O sure, it's heavily in their favour. But that is kind of the point because that is what realisticly happens in the situation I'm describing. You wont have a unit of 30 Saurus just standing around on the objective, that'd be a waste. A big unit like that should be doing something more usefull. But you might have 1 MSU guarding the objective and another screen or two nearby enough that they can try to come and help the next turn.
 
Last edited:
Erta Wanderer said:
i am addressing angels claim that quote "Eels and similar warscrolls, go against the core spirit of the game." when that is clearly not true.
Click to expand...

Well, this requires some clarification from me.
Some things that i say are objective facts.
When i say that Seraphon is an army that depends heavily on synergies, so we select a portion of the battlefield where we are going to concentrate our buffs, to have a local strong superiority, I'm stating a fact.

What i perceive as "the spirit of the game" is obviously strictly personal.
At the beginning of AoS, we had a great majority of the armies that were made with warscrolls which, more or less, were fairly similar. The real power was unleashed with buffs and stackable bonuses, so you were able to have your 20 Tomb King archers with 40 shots hitting on 2+, doing additional attacks for each 3+.
Units alone, even the strongest ones, weren't able to win again properly buffed core units.

Now, things are different. So many new armies, new units, the need to differentiate between factions and armies, increasing number of uniques abilities and so on. The mechanics and the balance of the game were forced to change.
Now there is a growing number of armies that rely on a very minimal part on synergies (SoB), armies that enjoy strong warscrolls and passive bonuses (OBR), armies with "basic" units that simply don't requires external buffs to wipe their target (the first version of plague monks, the infamous Eels), and armies that can make all of these run for their money, but need external buffs (Seraphon)

The game has evolved, and this is actually its spirit: plenty of units and armies are strong by just existing, and there are armies that must answer with coordinated efforts. But IMO this was not the original way AoS was used to work.
 
Last edited:
Canas said:
And I do not like that because the grander implication of this is that sub-200 points we're very easy to outmatch locally. And imho it kind of sucks to need to bring 200-300 points worth of stuff everywhere I go and make sure to always get the first strike just to not give away local superiourity to a random unsupported 170 point unit (and in the grander scheme of thing, to similar independent units. Usually in the 150-200 point range).
Click to expand...

I have refrained from largely weighing in here... because the three of you seem to have a great debate dynamic going and I love it, but I did want to weigh in right here. and yes its a bit of a global answer... but it can be applied locally.

we have summoning. SCE does not. if you look at the points conversion for what we can put in, that prolly comes close to answering the need to bring 300 pts to beat 200. so mish mash of answering pallador answer, AND global response to a general application of the 300 for 200 issue you present.

is it a good answer? not really. but it is a thing GW would take into consideration.

counter argument: that's only starborne. correct and is in fact another shot in my salvo that scaly skin should be a 5+ FNP not a reduce non-mortals by one to no less than 1
 
Canas said:
Sadly it doesn't. This anwsers the question:

"How do I win the overal game when flanking palladors are a thing I have to deal with"
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. Then I guess I'm still not sure why the question you're asking needs answered.

More specifically, why does this question need an answer:

"How do I realisticly retain local superiourity, or at least local equivalency, against a unit of palladors when my local options are limited to mostly unsupported basic units (e.g. sub 200 points worth of seraphon). E.g. when protecting an objective away from my main army"

When it's not a gaming objective? Retaining local superiority against this unit isn't a win condition in the game. So I'm not really sure why it's inherently important.
 
ILKAIN said:
we have summoning. SCE does not. if you look at the points conversion for what we can put in, that prolly comes close to answering the need to bring 300 pts to beat 200. so mish mash of answering pallador answer, AND global response to a general application of the 300 for 200 issue you present.
Click to expand...
Might be, but it points to two other major issues.

1) Starborne & Coalesced really shouldn't have the same pointvalues since they have such different abilities
2) The summoning tax imho really shouldn't be spread out over the entire army. Only those troops actually involved in summoning should get a tax.

Putzfrau said:
When it's not a gaming objective? Retaining local superiority against this unit isn't a win condition in the game. So I'm not really sure why it's inherently important.
Click to expand...
Simply put; cuz there's more to a game than simply winning & losing. :p

More specificly:
  • Not having a local response available in these situations creates issues during more casual (or fluff-based) play, or at lower levels of play.
  • "Accept your local loss, win the global game" is generally not a very 'fun' solution, after all it involves accepting a loss. And in this case it is especially bad because 1) by design we constantly need to accept this solution throughout a match. And 2) we're forced into it, by design. Because our unsupported units guarding our flanks and objectives are underwhelming at best.
  • It's not like this is a particularly uneven fight against a massive scary threat. It's a unit of palladors at 170 points, not a 400 point stonehorn. the 200-ish points guarding our objective should not be hopelessly outmatched by those palladors. So being forced to accept a local lose feels extra bad.
All of which combined makes it very dissatisfying to only have "accept your local loss, win globally" as an answer
 
Canas said:
All of which combined makes it very dissatisfying to only have "accept your local loss, win globally" as an answer
Click to expand...

Hm, yeah i guess i just assumed that was part of the game. You accept losses in some places to win in more strategic places elsewhere. The alternative is win in all places, which sounds equally as unfun for your opponent ;)

I think all armies are forced into this type of thinking. You're always risking something to be rewarded somewhere else.

But fair shake man, if that specific instance is important to you than as mentioned, you're right. There isn't a one to one warscroll solution that isn't one of the options i've already stated.
 
Putzfrau said:
Hm, yeah i guess i just assumed that was part of the game. You accept losses in some places to win in more strategic places elsewhere. The alternative is win in all places, which sounds equally as unfun for your opponent ;)

I think all armies are forced into this type of thinking. You're always risking something to be rewarded somewhere else.
Click to expand...
To an extend, yes. At some point sacrifices will have to be made. But they need to be sensible, and not feel forced.

There's three things that make it exceptional in this case particular case that make it feel like a forced and a rather game-y sacrifice. Purely there for the sake of balance.
  1. It happens too frequently for us as it happens in a lot of, if not most match-ups where we have less than 200 points locally. We have very few favourable reasonable matchups here. Reasonable being an important keyword; of course if we have an overwhelming local advantage we'l win. E.g say 20 warriors will beat 1 liberator, and technicly that's a sub 200 matchup. But it isn't exactly a reasonable matchup to throw 180 points against 9.
  2. It happens even when the match-up is supposedly fair, or even in our favour when looking at points. Again, based on points a 170 points worth of pallador should not have an overwhelming advantage over 180 points of saurus when you look at the points. Yet the saurus get crushed.
  3. Since these situations involve sub 200 point enemies you don't even gain much from your sacrifice. It's not like your opponent is wasting something big to chase to 10 skinks of an objective.
If 3 palladors v.s.20 warriors had a (roughly) 50-50 chance of going either way I wouldn't be complaining because then it'd be a fair fight and at the very least those palladors shouldn't come out unharmed when it's that close. And similarly, I won't complain when 3 palladors absolutly destroy the last 2 skinks from a decimated unit, because you can't expect 12 points worth of anything to stand up against a 170 points worth of opponent. In both cases I happily take my local loss and focus on gaining ground somewhere else.
But that's not the case here. I'm solely forced to make a sacrifice because game balance dictates I cannot win in this situation, no matter what I bring against those palladors within the boundaries set by this situation.
 
Canas said:
To an extend, yes. At some point sacrifices will have to be made. But they need to be sensible, and not feel forced.

There's three things that make it exceptional in this case particular case that make it feel like a forced and a rather game-y sacrifice. Purely there for the sake of balance.
  1. It happens too frequently for us as it happens in a lot of, if not most match-ups where we have less than 200 points locally. We have very few favourable reasonable matchups here. Reasonable being an important keyword; of course if we have an overwhelming local advantage we'l win. E.g say 20 warriors will beat 1 liberator, and technicly that's a sub 200 matchup. But it isn't exactly a reasonable matchup to throw 180 points against 9.
  2. It happens even when the match-up is supposedly fair, or even in our favour when looking at points. Again, based on points a 170 points worth of pallador should not have an overwhelming advantage over 180 points of saurus when you look at the points. Yet the saurus get crushed.
  3. Since these situations involve sub 200 point enemies you don't even gain much from your sacrifice. It's not like your opponent is wasting something big to chase to 10 skinks of an objective.
If 3 palladors v.s.20 warriors had a (roughly) 50-50 chance of going either way I wouldn't be complaining because then it'd be a fair fight and at the very least those palladors shouldn't come out unharmed when it's that close. And similarly, I won't complain when 3 palladors absolutly destroy the last 2 skinks from a decimated unit, because you can't expect 12 points worth of anything to stand up against a 170 points worth of opponent. In both cases I happily take my local loss and focus on gaining ground somewhere else.
But that's not the case here. I'm solely forced to make a sacrifice because game balance dictates I cannot win in this situation, no matter what I bring against those palladors within the boundaries set by this situation.
Click to expand...

If you feel that way, then sure man. I just don't know if its necessarily a fair way to look at the game. As i said, given the specific parameters you set up, you're right. I just dont think they are a realistic set of parameters. I don't have the same inherent problem with the situation. I look at it as being forced to make a sacrifice because this army has specific strengths other armies don't. If i was using a different army i'd approach the situation differently. I know i've said repeatedly to you so sorry if its getting redundant, but, i don't want all armies to handle problems in the same way. I dont think all armies should have the same solutions or the same weaknesses. We have a fundamental disagreement on how we look at the game itself, which is fine. But it means we're never going to see eye to eye on this situation.

Sorry you feel like this is a specific situation you need to enjoy the game to its fullest. I'd suggest looking into an army that's more suited to your needs if that was the case.
 
Last edited:
i reckon 10 saurus knights could take on those palidors, if they had to be cleared. or 2 salamanders is 220 so thats pretty close, a unit of kroxigors and a skink screen. scar vet on carnosaur for 210.
our book has loads of power multipliers.
skinks are meh, skinks with priest and starpriest is great.

Just because a unit or army has a whole is centralised around buffs doesn't mean its a lower powered army, there are so many options and pretty much everything is good and useable.

Seraphon is solidly an S tier army, and not just with 1 build either. If you want to win a tournament at any cost you should take Seraphon or IDK.
Lizards are power right now
 
Putzfrau said:
I don't have the same inherent problem with the situation. I look at it as being forced to make a sacrifice because this army has specific strengths other armies don't.
Click to expand...
It is, but this specific weakness is a very game-y, competitive, optimize your army focussed weakness. Not a weakness that logically follows out of the fluff about our units fighting style. And I don't like it when that type of approach to balancing is used, at least not in a game like warhammer where you play with characterfull units with rich lore. If it were an abstract game I wouldn't mind this approach as much. But in more concrete games like AoS I like my strength and weaknesses to make realistic sense, or at least as much as that is possible in a magical universe, and not just be there because we need some weakness and this works to keep the game balanced.
 
Did anyone mention that you can just nuke the Pallas with your slann/kroak? I guess I fail to find people flanking to be an issue with my unorthodox army build
 
I believe it would have fit AoS better than 40k, but what does a fan know compared to the corporate giants of WotC and GW?

Also, I have all the Godzilla cards hanging on my wall. Unless there is a full set of Tyranid cards, I will probably pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top