AoS Double Battalions Worth It?

[Mees]

Definitely not competitive, but I'd like to try Sunclaw Templehost with 3x10 warriors for battleline and Carno Oldblood + Thunderquake templehost and whatever support heroes I'd have points left for. Just a big dino stampede with -2 rend carno jaws.

For competitive point of view, I see no way to fit two battalions, without hurting the list.

How is the carno getting -2 rend on it's jaws? The sunclaw batallion can only have an oldblood on foot or the sunblood.

 

[ILKAIN]

How is the carno getting -2 rend on it's jaws? The sunclaw batallion can only have an oldblood on foot or the sunblood.

this is actually not true. I thought so as well because its not bold for the keyword. but there is a rule that says for the purposes of battalions you can ignore sub headers and "on carnosaur" is a sub header.

 

[Just A Skink]

this is actually not true. I thought so as well because its not bold for the keyword. but there is a rule that says for the purposes of battalions you can ignore sub headers and "on carnosaur" is a sub header.

If this ends up being what GW intends (meaning they don't change/clarify it in a FAQ), then it adds a definite punch to running saurus and specifically Sunclaw battalions; -2 rend carnosaur jaws (temple-host) or -2 rend spear (starhost), plus all of those saurus!

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

If this ends up being what GW intends (meaning they don't change/clarify it in a FAQ), then it adds a definite punch to running saurus and specifically Sunclaw battalions; -2 rend carnosaur jaws (temple-host) or -2 rend spear (starhost), plus all of those saurus!

I agree. It just makes the Carno that much deadlier, and while I think I would almost always want a Sunblood in a Saurus-Heavy list, this just gives me one more option

 

[Killer Angel]

If this ends up being what GW intends (meaning they don't change/clarify it in a FAQ), then it adds a definite punch to running saurus and specifically Sunclaw battalions; -2 rend carnosaur jaws (temple-host) or -2 rend spear (starhost), plus all of those saurus!

Well, to be fair it's not a rule that's hidden somewhere. People tend to forget it, but (the rule that for battalion requirements you can ignore sub headers) it's in the core rules, so it's pretty much intended.

 

[Grotpunter]

Drops mater a lot. And, it use to be one of our best tools for board control. Sadly, I think we are just too bad at the drop game to really aim at playing it anylonger. Battalions now feel useful largely so we can dip into Aetherquartz Brooch or other strong Seraphon artefacts.

Yeah this is my thoughts too. I will largely be focusing on the Skink part of the book, so my view is from that point.

First of all they really made Seraphon into a super hero dependant army, so you will likely always have 5-6 heroes. Very few of the batallions cover any of the heroes, so straight off the bat you wont get lower than 5 drops ever, unless you make some severe sacrifices to your list. 5 drops isn't even that amazing, and certainly not worth sacrificng proper synergy in your list imo.

Secondly both Fireclaw and Sunlance seems great for Saurus, but for Skinks it is very limited. Thunderquake really forces you into loads of big dinos, and Shadowstrike is so close to being awesome, but it requires you to run a unit of Rippers or Terradons. I mean they aren't bad, but I would personally rather have Salamanders. If it was 0-2 units of Rippers or Terradons, the batallion would have been amazing and allowed Skinks to have a decent list and still lowish drops instead of the current 9+.

Considering above and our artefacts, I'm really surprised that batallions cost between 130-170 pts. as well. I don't really feel a need to run a batallion at all considering the cost and the effect it will have on my army. I will just be conceeding the idea of ever getting to decide who goes first, and maybe use endless spells to mess with my opponents possibly double turn.

 

[Just A Skink]

Well, to be fair it's not a rule that's hidden somewhere. People tend to forget it, but (the rule that for battalion requirements you can ignore sub headers) it's in the core rules, so it's pretty much intended.

True. I know it's in the core rules and it works. I guess I'm just joking that, solely based on how the battalion used to be structured (with only heroes on foot), it wouldn't surprise me if that was an oversight on GW's part.