Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

swarmofseals

Members
  • Content count

    555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

swarmofseals last won the day on July 7

swarmofseals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

500 Celestant-Prime

About swarmofseals

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    @Sception I think you are overstating it a bit. Assuming we're going with Great Wight Blades: Grave Guard provide .0807 rend 1 damage per point. Skeleton Warriors provide .108 rend 0 damage per point. Grimghast Reapers provide .0833 rend 1 damage per point against 5+ model targets and .0556 rend 1 damage per point against targets with fewer than 5 models. Against saves of -, rend 1 and 0 are the same. Against saves of 6+, rend 1 is 20% better than rend 0. Against saves of 5+, rend 1 is 25% better than rend 0. Against saves of 4+, rend 1 is 33% better than rend 0. Against saves of 3+, rend 1 is 50% better than rend 0. Against saves of 2+, rend 1 is 100% better than rend 0. So against Armor -, skeletons are clearly better on offense, and they are also slightly better against Armor 6+ and 5+. Against Armor 4+, Grave Guard are better and against 3+ and 2+ Grave Guard are VASTLY better. Grimghasts are better than Grave Guard by a little bit against units of 5+ models, while Grave Guard are vastly better against units under 5 models. It's also worth considering that Grave Guard scale a lot better with extra attacks than skeletons do. Adding an extra attack to a skeleton unit increases the rend 0 damage per point by .0358 while adding an extra attack to Grave Guard increases their rend 1 damage per point by .0397. So with +1 attack the skeletons are at .1438 rend 0 per point and Grave Guard are at .1204 rend 1 per point. That's enough to make Grave Guard better against everything except models with no save at all. Extra attacks scale similarly between Grave Guard and grimghasts, but it's possible to buff GG attacks passively while buffing grimghast attacks requires CP use (as far as I recall). So while I think Grave Guard might have a slight edge over grimghasts on offense, they become clearly better on offense if you are running Grand Host of Nagash with Lord of Nagashizzar. All that being said, I still agree that Grave Guard are hard to imagine fitting in because Grimghast Reapers are vastly better on defense and are twice as fast (with flying, too). But it's not fair to say that grimghasts dominate them in every way. If grimghasts didn't exist, then there would be a legitimate reason to take them over Skeleton Warriors if you planned to scale their attacks. The defensive difference between Grave Guard and skeletons is very large, but it matters a lot less when you can fully revive a destroyed unit. Granted this isn't 100% reliable, but it does go a long way toward making Grave Guard potentially viable. Their offense has always been great, but their defense was so bad that it didn't matter. Now the ability to bring them back means the defense is much less of an issue. @Evil Bob halberd harbingers are indeed nasty. They do about .048 rend 2 damage per point on average. Rend 2 is equivalent to rend 1 and rend 0 against a save of -. Against a save of 6+ rend 2 and rend 1 are equivalent, and both are 20% better than rend 1. Against a save of 5+, rend 2 is 20% better than rend 1 and 50% better than rend 0. Against a save of 4+, rend 2 is 25% better than rend 1 and 66% better than rend 0. Against a save of 3+, rend 2 is 33% better than rend 1 and 100% better than rend 0. Against a save of 2+, rend 2 is 50% better than rend 1 and 200% better than rend 0. So basically the skeletons do more damage per point except against 2+ save units. Grave Guard do more damage per point even against 2+ saves. Defensively they are pretty much worse than Grave Guard, performing a hair better against rend 0 but worse against anything with rend or mortal wounds, and quite a bit worse if the Ossific Diadem is in play. The main advantage that they have is, of course, greater speed. They have a better move, fly, and charge 3d6 (which is only marginally better than run and charge). But that comes at the cost of not being able to return models, return the unit if destroyed, or benefit from Vanhel's.
  2. swarmofseals

    Lords of Sacrament & Legion of Blood

    Only if you are also taking Neferata. Arkhan is required as part of Lords of Sacrament, and you are only allowed to take an off-legion mortarch if you've already taken your on-legion Mortarch.
  3. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    @Sception @ianob, I'm in this camp too. While it's nice that Death has an "above the curve" unit or two, it's annoying how much it crowds out. I've got a big block of painted GG, too. The sad thing is that GG were poised to be relevant in the new edition!
  4. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    I finally have a moment and wanted to respond to these point by point. I want to be clear that my post was specifically geared toward thinking about Prince Vhordrai and what place he might have in a Legions list, not geared towards discussing any possible permutation of Legions stuff and certainly not Nagash himself as I think we already agree that putting V and Nagash in the same list is a mistake. 1. A totally fair point. I finally got my copy of the new GHB and I see what you mean about the specific battleplans. 2+3. It's not a question of which army is more defensive. It's a question of whether you can dislodge a defensive army that can get to the objectives before you do. It's possible that these armies won't show up in the meta at all, but one has to at least consider the possibility of things like: One drop Sylvaneth army that can basically guarantee the first turn (we will never be one drop) and drop their entire army on top of the objectives on turn 1. Clearly this doesn't apply to every battleplan, but there are plenty of battleplans where this approach will be very effective. Such an army can be built with an absolute buttload of dryads that are -1 to hit (-2 if their treelord stomps go off) with a 4+ (3+ in cover) save rerolling 1's, supported by behemoth wizards with crazy healing capabilities, and the ability to summon more dryads. Nagash is a real help here in that he can just eat those behemoths with Hand of Dust, but again I'm not really talking about Nagash lists. A tunnel-based vulkite spam Fyreslayers list. I'm somewhat more dubious about this kind of list, but chugging through 90+ vulkites is not an easy task. The idea here being that having an offensive powerhouse unit that can concentrate damage in a small space and pick of key support heroes regardless of lens (like V can) could be very useful in these situations. Maybe I'm underestimating how much work skeletons and grimghasts can do. 4. Yeah, I run skellies and grims plus VHD in every list too, Nagash or no XD won't get any argument from me there.... 5. I think maybe you are missing what I'm trying to articulate. It's not that an army fits into one of those niches itself, its that a particular dynamic is created by the relative composition of your list and your opponent's list. To use an analogy from Magic, one of the key skills in that game is to be able to recognize what your role is in a given matchup. If you are playing a midrange deck and your opponent is playing control, then you are in the aggro "role" for that game. Your opponent is highly favored in the long game, so you have to try to make sure that the game doesn't go long. Meanwhile, that same deck against a suicide aggro deck takes on the control role. They are going to be attacking you, and you have the stronger lategame so you are trying to make sure the game goes long. A more interesting example is in semi-mirror match between a creature based aggro deck and a burn based aggro deck. In such a matchup the burn deck will often end up taking on the control role, although it's possible that in certain combinations of opening hand either deck might end up in the control role vs the aggro role. Knowing what role you are in is absolutely critical in that if you judge incorrectly, you are likely to make play decisions that will drastically reduce your chance of winning even if they seem better at the time. If you are in a control role, trading resources for damage is a terrible idea, but trading resources for time is great. In the aggro role, the values are exactly the opposite. While I don't think things are quite this clear-cut in Warhammer, relative army composition in the context of a specific battleplan will still create role-based dynamics where either your role is to weather your opponent's attack long enough to win or your role is to push your opponent off the objectives. Other things like offensive vs. defensive efficiency and ranged firepower affect these dynamics as well, of course. Just to give some simple examples: You are playing against a Seraphon player with a very heavy investment in summoning, but your army is faster and you can reliably get an advantage in objectives on turn 1. Your opponent will likely put an extra 1000 points of models on the board in the next two turns. Consider two possibilities: your army is fast and deals a lot of damage, but is defensively inefficient OR your army is very defensively efficient and even 3000 points of Seraphon would likely take at least two turns to dislodge you. These two scenarios create vastly different role dynamics. In the first situation, you are highly incentivized to push forward and try to destroy or at least heavily limit the opponent's summoning as soon as possible. If you sit back and score while your opponent builds up, they will be able to overwhelm you quickly. In the other scenario, the onus is on your opponent to attack you as early as possible because if they wait until they have that extra advantage from the summoning, they will no longer have enough time left to realistically take back the advantage in VP. Your opponent is playing a low-drops pure alpha strike list. No matter what you are playing (unless you have fewer drops and are also an alpha strike list), the game dynamic is going to put you on the defensive and you will likely win if you can weather your opponent's initial onslaught. A smaller scale example: you currently hold an advantage in terms of objectives. You are given the choice to attack in such a way that you sacrifice some models at the cost of causing damage to your opponent. Even if the attack is relatively efficient, it may be a mistake to do so simply because the onus is on your opponent to destroy you to get you off the objectives. Simply trading models with the opponent at this point is not good for you. I hope that makes sense.
  5. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    No problem, I'm following you just fine. There's a lot to respond to, but just to start I want to be clear -- when you say a "Nagash list" do you mean Legions in general, a list specifically featuring Nagash, or a Grand Host list? My post was meant to be pretty general and covers any Legions of Nagash army -- I only posted it in this specific thread because it's the one we were discussing in already. I do think it's kinda weird that there are four different threads for Legions of Nagash XD.
  6. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    I'm definitely not considering using V in a Nagash list, I completely agree that such a choice would be crippling. I also agree re: double dragon lists (although fwiw I'd consider tier 2 to be perfectly playable, but I'm not sure such a list is even tier 2. It is probably at least tier 3 though, which I'd consider playable under special circumstances). I don't really love the VLoZD as a lens caddy mostly because it creates a bit of a role clash. A big advantage of the VLoZD is in its ability to get around the board relatively quickly and hit vulnerable targets, but if he's carrying the lens then you can't really afford to move him away (at least in the matchups where the lens matters). His base size is nice for creating a bigger bubble, but his points cost is just so high that you really don't want him to get stuck babysitting. Now if you aren't bringing lens then yeah, he looks a lot better. Doppel, Gryph Feather Charm, Dimensional Blade, etc. all are really tasty on a VLoZD. One thing to consider that I don't see discussed a lot is the Coven Throne. It doesn't do anything spectacularly well, but it does have a couple of attractive qualities: Arguably the best defensive general/caddy choice because she has a lot of wounds but still benefits from cover and "Look Out, Sir!". Large base size is also relevant for support artefacts/command abilities and ability to reach multiple gravesites. Can potentially provide some board control by forcing retreats with Beguile (this is a niche point I know) Good Deathly Invocation Potentially very powerful command ability Single reroll looks to be much more powerful now, at least in some builds. If you are running cogs, for example, Coven Throne has an 86.2% chance of casting it without any bonuses at all, 92.2% with +1 to cast and 97.2% chance with +2 to cast. Prince V also gets particularly stupid with Quickblood and Tactical Insight: 19.551 rend 2 damage and 10.7 rend 1 damage on average. So if you are taking a Coven Throne as your general/artefact caddy, then V might fit in well as a hammer. Still though, I think your (almost) final point is very valid -- even with all of this, I have no idea what builds V might actually fit in. If there is an alpha strike list out there, I could see V being a part of it. I have no idea if such a thing would be good though. It seems to me that competitive AOS games are likely to fall into one of three different dynamics: Your opponent is playing a list with a primary focus on destroying your army. In this case you want to either be able to destroy them before they destroy you, or be quick enough to get onto the objectives and defensively sound enough to hold on long enough to win on VP. Your opponent is playing a defensive list with a primary focus on scoring. In this case you either need to get to the objectives first or you need to have enough offensive punch to push the defensive army off. Your opponent is playing a summoning list that is intended to snowball on you. In this case you either need to either leverage your initial advantage on the table to cripple your opponent or you need to be fast and defensive enough to hold off the avalanche while scoring. Legions of Nagash are pretty well suited to fight the defensive game, but there are some opponents who can also play a defensive game but get on the objectives faster (Sylvaneth for sure, maybe Fyreslayers). So we either are going to concede a bad matchup against those kinds of lists or we need to include enough offense to push back these lists. Grimghasts and allied Nighthaunt hammers are very nice, shiny new tools but I'm not totally sold on them as being good enough. Think about it this way -- if an opponent's army is designed to be able to plausibly withstand an assault from, say, a Daughters of Khaine army or an Idoneth army (or something more gimmicky like a double Dragonlord Host if that becomes a thing), are we really going to get anywhere with Grimghasts and the like? It seems to me that the answer to this question is no. So we're likely going to need something that can either deal much more concentrated damage or can pick off lynchpin support heroes if we want to overcome that kind of defense. The question then becomes, "if we spend points on that kind of offense, will we still be able to field a strong enough defense to deal with scenario 1?" I certainly can't claim to answer that one. To sum up specifically around the question of whether Vhordrai has a role to play in a competitive list: If you are playing a primarily offensive army with the goal of destroying or crippling the enemy, then Vhordrai is almost certainly worth considering. I'm not sure such a strategy is T1/T2 for LoN though. If you are playing a primarily defensive army, you either have to concede having a poor matchup against defensive armies that are also faster or you have to have enough pressure to push them back and give you the initiative. If you are looking to do the latter, Vhordrai is almost certainly worth considering. But can you do the latter without irreparably harming your matchup against opponents that are either trying to destroy you or snowball you? That is the question I think.
  7. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    @ianob I promise I'll stop picking your brain... soon. Thoughts on Vhordrai? In 1.0 he seemed to me to be better than a VLoZD in pretty much anything except maybe Legion of Blood with his generally better offense and only marginally increased cost. His breath weapon seems even more special in 2.0 with it being generally harder to snipe support heroes (not for us as we don't really shoot anyway, but it seems logical that "Look Out Sir" will lead to more people taking fragile support heroes in general), and the VLoZD looks relatively worse now that there is a greater cost associated with using his command ability (which is pretty much required for him to get even close to V on offense). That said, some of the new artefacts are very powerful on a VLoZD... but unless you are taking a battalion (and I'm not sure if any of the Death battalions are playable really) that means you aren't taking Lens of Refraction. So all that leads me to think that the Vhordrai vs VLoZD comparison generally favors Vhordrai, but I'm not sure that either one is a good choice competitively. With grimghasts providing a great hammer along with the possibility of allied myrmourns or bladegheists, are there even more efficient choices for a hammer? But none are as mobile as Vhordrai, and none feature that breath weapon which just can't be matched by anything else in Death. What do you think, and what does your experience tell you?
  8. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Legion of Sacrament Discussion

    There are definitely magnets that are small enough and powerful enough to work. They are super cheap if you order them directly from China, too.
  9. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Legion of Sacrament Discussion

    For most warscrolls, the entire unit is equipped the same way. Even if the command models are equipped differently on the models themselves, they count as being equipped in the same way as the rest of the unit. So your banner bearer may have a flag and a one handed sword, but if the rest of the unit is equipped with great wight blades then the banner bearer also counts as being equipped like this. The exception to this rule are the warscrolls that allow you to equip different models in the same unit with different loadouts (eg: Tzaangors, 'Ardboyz, etc.). In this case it's up to you to make sure the correct weapons are represented. As far as multiple sets of command models goes, the unit can only have one leader/champion. Most warscrolls don't put specific limits on banner bearers or musicians, but it's pretty accepted practice to only have one of each per unit. If you are planning for a specific tournament you should check with the tournament organizers. Otherwise, the only safe bet for being able to switch between multiple small units and one large unit is to magnetize.
  10. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    It's pretty much peak defensive efficiency, used entirely for board control and not for damage. It's easy to string back to a corpse cart, too. It takes an average of 144/108/86.4/72 damage from rend 0/1/2/mw to destroy the unit, so it can hold back all but the punchiest units for multiple turns. In 1.0 it was one of the few units that could actually reliably stand to shooting from something like Aetherstrike Force. It was also much more resilient against a Gaunt Summoner than skeleton blobs. Basically, the way I see it most Legions lists are going to have a couple of key units that the opponent is really going to want to kill for tactical reasons -- stuff like Arkhan, the general, etc. as well as things that the opponent will need to clear in order to have a good shot at taking objectives from us (basically all of our big units). All of these targets require the opponent to concentrate their firepower, as spreading that firepower out plays right into our healing. A unit of dogs that huge can cover so much space and requires so much attention in order to take out that it can really dictate your opponent's early turns. If they ignore it then you get board control and rack up VPs, and if they focus it it ensures your other key units survive much longer than they otherwise would. And if you actually can fit such a unit into a gravesite to resummon it... well that's just demoralizing. The main problem of course is that it totally lacks punch and is thus not very useful when your opponent is faster, playing first, or playing some sort of null deployment list that allows them to set up on top of objectives. Whether or not such a unit will be useful depends a lot on the metagame, I think.
  11. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    That's really helpful to know! Do you ever run 30 Dire Wolves?
  12. swarmofseals

    AoS 2 - Grand Host of Nagash Discussion

    @ianob one of the things that's really been on my mind since 2.0 dropped is the tension around unit size. In 1.0 we were definitely encouraged to take larger units for a bunch of reasons. I did a lot of math in one of the old threads about how much concentrated damage it would take to destroy various Death units in one go, and it was pretty clear that either minimum or maximum sized units were optimal to either maximize efficiency or maximize resilience and likelihood that a unit will stick around to be healed during your next hero phase. Now with Inspiring Presence big units are even tougher to bust, but we have an additional major consideration: gravesite resurrection. With horde bonus units it's still clearly a good idea to go big, but what has your experience been like with other types of units? Do you have problems finding enough space in your gravesites to bring back a large unit of Grimghast Reapers or Dire Wolves?
  13. swarmofseals

    Grimghast reapers vs blade ghiest

    15 blades charging averages 20 rend 1 damage, while 15 blades not charging (which will be about half the time they are in combat) averages 13.33 rend 1 damage. Assuming I ignore the death knell for the sake of simplicity, 20 ghasts averages 20 rend 1 damage against targets with 5+ models and 13.33 rend 1 damage against units with fewer than 5 models. So they aren't really all that different on offense, but the ghasts have 5 more wounds and don't take ally points. Of course if you take some Chainghasts the blades get a lot better, but then the comparison isn't really quite fair as you are comparing 350 points of models against 280 points of models. If you instead compare against 30 gheists, then the numbers are: blades: 26.7 rend 1 charging, 17.8 rend 1 not charging grimghasts: 30 rend 1 vs 5+ models, 20 rend 1 vs. <5 models Once you factor in the damage from the Chainghasts themselves it once again evens out reasonably well, particularly considering that it's tougher to get all 30 grimghasts in combat. In both scenarios the blades are a bit sleeker and have the added flexibility of retreat and charge while the grimghasts are bulkier and have more defense. Go with whatever you prefer. Personally I'd take the grimghasts, but that's mostly because I really like taking a unit of 12 myrmourns as allies and taking blades + Chainghasts would prevent that.
  14. The core rulebook, not the general's handbook. EDIT: IIRC the ones in the core rulebook are the same as the "Grand Alliance: Death" abilities in the Legions of Nagash battletome.
  15. Yes. The FAQ is referring to the old Grand Alliance: Death book which is now outdated. The rules for Death allegiance abilities can be found in the core rulebook now. I think you could field a casual-competitive list using Tomb Kings units, but it wouldn't be tournament level competitive when compared with Legions of Nagash. The legion abilities and spells are just too strong compared to the minor efficiency gains you get from a couple of the TK units.
×