Cayseymax Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Hi... I have made two attempts at fixing the Bretonnian King. I would very much like some constructive criticism. One version is on a griffon one on hippogryph. Both models have had minor tweeks done to them, and an altered command ability. I would very much like some feedback on how many points you think they should cost. My personal take on it is that they should cost around 300 for the hippogryph version and about 350 for the griffon version. What is your take on it?? Thank you in advance Cheers bretonnian-king-on-griffon.pdf bretonnian-king-on-hippogryph.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cayseymax Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 I have found a mistake... The Command Ability functions from hero phase to hero phase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cayseymax Posted October 29, 2017 Author Share Posted October 29, 2017 Here are updated versions... after a bit of reviewing! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aezeal Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 I'll just say it have be done with it: I think you are making your own models OP. It's the reason I generally dislike these things and will never allow it on the table. I could live with you just using the freeguild general warscroll in your army (and change the keywords to bretonnia ofc) if you really think your own king is much weaker.. but that is about it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cayseymax Posted October 29, 2017 Author Share Posted October 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Aezeal said: I'll just say it have be done with it: I think you are making your own models OP. It's the reason I generally dislike these things and will never allow it on the table. I could live with you just using the freeguild general warscroll in your army (and change the keywords to bretonnia ofc) if you really think your own king is much weaker.. but that is about it for me. I understand... SO generally you don't allow any form of homebrew fixing? What I mean is, are you adamant on using ONLY rules as written or do you make any tweaks? In D&D, we have done tons of house-rule tweaks. So far we have had no problems tweaking AOS rules either... Granted, I might not have hit the spot in terms of the above models, but i dont think the idea is inherently flawed. For me, its all about have the most fun for the most people. Would you not agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aezeal Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Cayseymax said: I understand... SO generally you don't allow any form of homebrew fixing? What I mean is, are you adamant on using ONLY rules as written or do you make any tweaks? In D&D, we have done tons of house-rule tweaks. So far we have had no problems tweaking AOS rules either... Granted, I might not have hit the spot in terms of the above models, but i dont think the idea is inherently flawed. For me, its all about have the most fun for the most people. Would you not agree? Well I can only speak for myself (and some of the rather small group I play with) and we never tweak warscrolls. As I said I'd sooner accept you using a similar warscroll with points by GW (it would still break the presumably well thought out balance of the army (cough cough) if you get extra options.. but it being a similar warscroll for a similar army it's easier to accept. (using a chaos lord on manticore with abiulities less fitting for order would probably be less to my liking. We do use some houserules (not really my choice, I'd not mind just playing the GHB rules) that affect both players equally. 1. some players prefer not to roll for turns but just go in sequence - and I'm ok with that 2. Not much if any mysterious terrain Having said that.. I'm sure you've seen whole attempts at armybooks for some armies on here.. so there are people who accept and embrace it.. but I personally don't find it fitting for matched play (which is the game type I always play). I guess that if I played a thematic battle I'd be less of a problem for me.. but I don't play that way for a reason. Anyway aside of me not really liking this.. I do think your scrolls are quite (tons) a bit too strong which is why I reacted before.. since I'd not otherwise just force my opinion on selfmade rule on you.. but I do wanted to say I think these warscroll are not in the realm of fairness anymore. My reasaoning: Comparing griffon with griffon - You give him twice the attacks of the most similar weapon the freeguild general has (the greathammer - or + 1 to wound AND 2x time attacks in comparison to the lance). - You give him a new ability (crown) which is VERY strong and VERY large area. - option to unbind (means you can save points on a mage) AND reroll 1's (and yes.. the +1 save the freeguild guy gets there which itself is a good option.. but you already have THAT build in the scroll.. so both these things are added.. so you have a 3+ RR 1's.. without mystic shields or artefacts.. which is VERY strong since it easily becomes 2+ RR 1's. - Auto heal D3 wounds. - 1 extra wound - 3 extra bravery - RR hits on the sword.. which the greathammer does not have. - the command ability is very strong (the freeguild one is too) BUT you also give it like 3x the area coverage.. and all these bonus things for only 90 points extra.. In comparison to the King on Hippogryp: 4 extra wounds (nearly 50% more survivability.. on a character with healing... this is STRONG and probably worth like 50 or more points on it's own) an extra D6 damage attack And of course all the strong abilities the hippogryph already has... but.. for 100 points less??? I'm not even sure the King on hippo is very much overpriced with all these abilities.. if it is.. MAYBE the bonus stuff you give it would balance it.. but ALSO lowering it 100 points... That is the problem... all these selfmade scroll tend to caution on the side of OP-ness in comparison to similar GW scrolls.. NOONE seems to think: Well I'm giving myself EXTRA options so lets just be conseravtive about it. In addition to this: in the bretonnia points value topic.. it's said characters are already reasonably priced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aezeal Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 BTW it also has the free peoples keyword and a regal crownthat works on free people.. I assume he's meant for a bretonian army and should not have free people keywords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cayseymax Posted October 29, 2017 Author Share Posted October 29, 2017 Thank you for your insightful comments. I have been testing and re-tweaking my versions and here's what I've found. I think it should be OK, for it to be mounted on a griffon even though its still a bit stronger than hippogryph. BUT, I have actually undone/removed anything else. So now its "just" the normal king, but on a Griffon (without the Piercing Roar, which I ended up not liking the feeling of, on a chivalric knight king). Being on a griffon gives the King 13 wounds instead of 10, but that is it. I was thinking of having the Griffon version at 400 points the hippogryph at 360. The testing showed, that although heavily depended on rolls (as always), my king was probably somewhat too strong. Especially after I was told that his command ability functioned on himself. 2+ to attack was too much. I have therefor returned to his original command ability. I picked up some stuff from my local Games Workshop store. They advised me to re-add free peoples keyword. They also advised me to take it very slow in changing things... Just like you, but I usually take their words seriously. So... I added the Free Peoples keyword and removed practically all changes to the model. They did say that Bretonnia generally was a bit overpriced, so they also suggested reducing the cost of all units by 10%. So that's going to be the next test when we play! In summery. I really appreciated your very in-depth response. I did exactly what I wanted! Thank you! In my mind the "fix" is done on that model. I have change suggestion for the Enchantress. I would love to get your thoughts on them, if you'd let me? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davariel Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I'm kind of curious as to why you feel the King on Hippogryph needs fixing? As far as Bretonnian warscrolls go he's in a pretty good place. Yes, his damage/wound stats are a bit lower than other big guy heroes - but his real strength is in his abilities, making him more of a synergy/support piece than a straight up damage dealer. He's not a monster/behemoth either, which is a subtle (but powerful) strength. Trying to make him more like a Dragonlord or Freeguild General on Griffon misses the point of the king IMO. Even though his abilities were nerfed a bit with the GHB2017 - albeit justifiably so - I think that still holds true. 2 hours ago, Cayseymax said: I have change suggestion for the Enchantress. I would love to get your thoughts on them, if you'd let me? What on earth would you want to change about the Enchantress?!? She's already crazy good (and perhaps the one Bretonnian warscroll you could argue is underpriced ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone2040 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, Davariel said: I'm kind of curious as to why you feel the King on Hippogryph needs fixing? As far as Bretonnian warscrolls go he's in a pretty good place. If I had to judge, probably he wants to have more wounds on the King because it is potentially a little fragile at 10. Personally, I don't think it's warranted as the model is not exactly huge by monster standards these days. Personally I think the Bretonnian issue more lies in the fact that the points didn't get a look at. Most point changes in GHB2017 were against units, not heroes. So Bretonnians don't get the benefits of the adjustments (Which largely bought Cavalry down a smidge) but also massive regiments (Which I think would've applied to Knights as well). If the 'army' is overcosted, it doesn't matter what state the heroes are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cayseymax Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 7 hours ago, Davariel said: I'm kind of curious as to why you feel the King on Hippogryph needs fixing? As far as Bretonnian warscrolls go he's in a pretty good place. Yes, his damage/wound stats are a bit lower than other big guy heroes - but his real strength is in his abilities, making him more of a synergy/support piece than a straight up damage dealer. He's not a monster/behemoth either, which is a subtle (but powerful) strength. Trying to make him more like a Dragonlord or Freeguild General on Griffon misses the point of the king IMO. Even though his abilities were nerfed a bit with the GHB2017 - albeit justifiably so - I think that still holds true. What on earth would you want to change about the Enchantress?!? She's already crazy good (and perhaps the one Bretonnian warscroll you could argue is underpriced ) There are two reasons for me wanting to change mounts for the king. 1) I think he is a little fragile. Granted more than one King could be brought into the game, but I still think that he is a bit low on wounds - therefore putting him on a Griffon, albeit making him a monster that way, would give him a few more. Namely 13. 2) I would like to be able to use the Free Guild Model as I think its easier to get hold off and it looks cool. So looks and a few more wounds. Well my thought for the Enchantress was making her personal spell range 18 instead of 16 and make it so the spell could affect either melee or ranged weapons, chosen at the time of casting. 7 hours ago, someone2040 said: If I had to judge, probably he wants to have more wounds on the King because it is potentially a little fragile at 10. Personally, I don't think it's warranted as the model is not exactly huge by monster standards these days. Personally I think the Bretonnian issue more lies in the fact that the points didn't get a look at. Most point changes in GHB2017 were against units, not heroes. So Bretonnians don't get the benefits of the adjustments (Which largely bought Cavalry down a smidge) but also massive regiments (Which I think would've applied to Knights as well). If the 'army' is overcosted, it doesn't matter what state the heroes are in. Indeed... you are hitting the nail here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.