• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Celestant-Prime

About Aginor

  • Rank
  1. Yeah, don't move close than you have to. It might be a disadvantage. Don't touch the base if you don't have to. The above picture looks OK.
  2. Yeah it is really hard to judge that. There are of course categories of armies (or at least there were. We'll see how it works after the GHB2017. I assume there will always be stronger and weaker armies). But there is also Some kind of Rock,Paper,Scissors in place. Example (not the best one probably but bear with me): Some Seraphon lists can demolish Ironjawz. The same lists however will be absolutely demolished by Flesh Eater Courts while the Ironjawz list they beat can actually run over that FEC list. So with a bit of luck you can get into the top 10 of a tournament with your Ironjawz while getting absolutely destroyed by your local gaming group who plays Seraphon, Wanderers, and Moonclan, which in most cases don't even make it near the top of tournaments. Another point are synergies. If a tactic is very strong, but relies on a single hero to keep it up, it might be beaten by a list that can just snipe well, even though that list is so bad they cannot win against any other army. A sniping list will demolish Seraphon, but Ironjawz can shrug it off. That kind of thing. Then of course an unusual list (such as the Squig list or Darren Watson's Kroak list) might catch people flat-footed or be a hard counter to some often-played lists and actually achieve a lot. So the lack of presence up there in the top ten is not a sign of an army being weak. ....the other way round it works better though. If half of the top ten of major tournaments consists of the same two or three armies it is safe to say that this is probably a strong army. Some armies are either easier to play (or at least have lists that are easy to play), or their models are just a tad too cheap, stuff like that. But you can only effectively judge the very good ones. Being on top once or twice may be luck. But do you know a SCE player who wins less than half of his games against any army if they just try to kill each other? In a game with objectives that looks different though. An army with good move and defense that is otherwise ****** might win by points. They will never kill the other army and they would lose if they tried to. So they don't try. Oh and also keep in mind, there is something radically different about a local meta: When you play the same guys all the time you get to know them, and their lists. I can beat my Ironjawz-playing friend pretty reliably with my Seraphon because I know what he will bring. If I had to build my list not knowing whether he will bring SCE, Ironjawz, or Bonesplitterz I would probably lose against all three.
  3. No, Wanderers as well.
  4. Ok, here's my opinion on that: Before GHB2017 there were some armies that had bataillons, and those were cheap, required a low amount of units, and were even required. Sylvaneth or Bonesplitterz for example. Since all bataillons not only give their bonus abilities but also allow you to drop faster and add another artefact to a hero that meant that Sylvaneth players could easily play with three artefacts, one drop, and that at a low cost. So some armies basically got free loot, while for others it was utterly impossible to play that way because their bataillons were too expensive. I like the change. I think bataillons should be expensive if they grant those bonuses. They are now. Also look at it this way: The bataillons became more expensive, but I think all armies have stuff that actually got cheaper. I did the math on some of my lists for Sylvaneth, Seraphon, Ironjawz, and Deathrattle and it seems that overall the points costs didn't grow that much, in some cases they actually dropped quite a bit. My Gnarlroot list - despite point increase for its six Kurnoth Hunters and the two bataillons just increased by twenty points or so. So no, I don't think GW is killing bataillons. They will be fine I guess. Thanks for reading.
  5. Coming from a Seraphon background and having built Sylvaneth as my second army I always thought Sylvaneth bataillons were basically free, much too cheap. Same for the Stormcast bataillons and some others. Compared to the Seraphon for example they were rewards without risk, getting abilities and artefacts. Now GW obviously thought the same way. The expensive Seraphon bataillons increased a bit, too, most by 50 points, and bataillons for other armies increased more strongly. I think all in all it will make balance better. Sylvaneth, SCE, and other top tier armies will become a bit weaker, and the mid-tier and low-tier armies become a bit stronger. You gotta admit, Kurnoth Hunters were very cheap. Compared with the cheap bataillons that tipped balance quite a bit. My own Gnarlroot list (not too competitive) went up only 20 points because I used less Hunters I guess. Not too severe. Sylvaneth will be fine I think.
  6. I am not sure if there is a good way to deal with this at all. It is just badly designed. Anyway, here are my possible solutions - play different armies that don't cause mortal wounds so often. Ok I understand that's not what anyone wants, but Ironjawz vs. Brayherd (and other armies that aren't top tier) don't have that problem for example. - Houserule: give everyone a 5+ or 6+ save against mortal wounds. Mystic shield could improve that save like it improves the normal save. It would make wizard heavy armies even worse though. I would love to see how that houserule would impact the game.
  7. If you play against the same opponent often then balancing can be done by just tracking who lost the last games. Each lost game gives you ten percent bonus points. My friend and I do that and it works great. If I lost a 2000pt game next time I bring 2200pt while he stays at 2000. If I lose again it is 2400 next time. When I win I lose the bonus again. That way even very weak armies can win against very strong ones. Pure Deathrattle against Kunnin Rukk? Probably balanced at 20% or 30% bonus. If not bring more. Epic games.
  8. As others have said: in matched play he can only cast Celestial Deliverance once per round. Also since you mentioned rerolls: you can only reroll a dice once. Kroak is pretty weak for his point cost IMO. The combo with Balewind Vortex and an Astrolith Bearer makes him viable, but then that combo is 800 points. EDIT: also I wouldn't play that in a friendly game. IMO that is a pure cheese tactic akin to Skyfire spam, Kurnoth spam, or Kunnin Rukk.
  9. Some more nice ideas there! I just hope that the guys and gals at GW come up with at least as many ideas as we do (or read threads like this one) and add/change rules to something more fun and still balanced.
  10. Healing is kinda pointless if most of your models have just one wound. Otherwise so would agree. Also I think it would just not be the same. For Seraphon I wouldn't care that much. But for Death the summoning of undead hordes is just so iconic.
  11. I agree with a lot what was said here, and yes, while free summoning with only a low casting roll is still my wet dream (I play Seraphon) it is horribly imbalanced and I am glad it is gone for matched play. And I do believe that some sort of summoning pool is the right approach, but I also think what we have now is meh. It becomes very visible with Nagash and Kroak. Those are overcosted because the points were defined having summoning in mind I think. Now, if the rule of one didn't apply for summoning it would make those multi-spell models better for summoning because you could actually try more than once. The way it now is (risk of failure AND point costs) is what IMO makes summoning bad. It has its uses, but it isn't a viable tactic in itself. Perhaps a spell or meditation that creates reinforcement points would be interesting. So you use a spell to create some points and them can use them in a later round for summoning. Nagash, Arkhan, Kemmler, Kroak, or a Slann could use more than one spell each round for that. But they paid for it with their high point cost. Maybe you can add another disadvantage to it, like they cannot move when they do it or some unit may receive a wound, or they lose one point of their save that round, something like that. And/or perhaps the needed summoning rolls should be increased. If you compare it with other spells: Foot of Gork is insanely powerful if you are lucky. I would say it easily worth more than 10 Skeletons if it succeeds. But it's high casting roll makes it risky. I think casting should be that way. And very strong units should need very high rolls. A Bastiladon or Zombie Dragon should not be easy to summon, not even for Arkhan. Maybe easier for Kroak and Nagash but that's ok because they are expensive as hell, because one is the most powerful wizard of the universe and the other one is the frikkin' God of the undead! The only easy summons should be crappy chaff units. As for other ways of reinforcement: I think the units should pay with their point cost. For example Pink/Blue Horrors. IMO it is bad that they can't split if you don't have points. Make them more expensive and factor that in.
  12. I had hoped for spells to use for my Seraphon making Slann and Kroak finally worth their points. No new spells it seems. The teleport bataillon.... if it is cheap and doesnt demand a lot of units it might be good. Otherwise...meh. But I hope the allegiance abilities are better than that (they cant possibly be worse for Seraphon than the Order ones can they?) and a good amount of point reduction, half of our units is so overcosted it isn't funny anymore. Our synergies work, that's what keeps us in the game. No need to change those much. It is just the other numbers. I am still mildly hopeful for that book. But I wanted a real Battletome and it seems we now won't get one, otherwise there wouldn't be so much stuff (still less than I hoped for) in the GHB2017.
  13. Hmmmm..... I tend to optimize more than I like to admit most of the time. I still have fun losing games if it at least looks like a win could have been possible at some point. I feel bad when winning too quickly or too often. Choosing an army I like (visually, by reading lore, or by play style) is more important to me than choosing a strong one. I am angry about it being bad though. I like balance. Choice should not be between weak and strong but between styles. ...sooo... I think that's number two or three in your list. I chose three because if I can have fun losing I don't mind losing.
  14. Even though I agree with quite some points of yours, don't you think we should just wait for the book and see what changes there are for other armies before judging the direction the game is going to? That being said: I sure hope they finally balance the game a bit better because from how it looks right now it just isn't.
  15. The way I understood it this doesn't generally apply to hordes. To me it sounded like it was more of a Skeleton and Zombie specific thing. We'll see I guess. I think getting angry or sad or frightened for balance is too early, we don't even have the book yet!