Xasz Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Did hexwraiths gain summonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarmofseals Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 hours ago, smucreo said: What is your formula for WDR? I ask because you may be looking at things in a void. How often will both units get a charge off when faced with enemy fire? Will they arrive at full force? Will they make up for their cost in points? After all a unit with similar offensive efficiency but which costs way less points will have an easier time paying back their price. Specially if they remain at full force for a longer time like CK should be able to do. How do you factor in abilities, possible synergies, etc? I'm just curious as to how you obtain the number. ((ER0)+1.33(ER1)+1.66(ER2)+2.16(EM))/P ER0 = expected value of rend 0 damage ER1 = expected value of rend 1 damage ER2 = expected value of rend 2 damage EM = expected value of mortal wounds P = points cost The way I arrived at the weights of 1.33, 1.66, and 2.16 is slightly complicated but suffice to says it's based on math that is intended to capture the relative performance of each type of damage against the full range of armor saves with more common armor saves weighted more heavily. It's possible that the weights are off, but I doubt they are off by much. This tool will help a person compare warscrolls against each-other in terms of offensive efficiency across a wide variety of scenarios. All of the questions you are asking are basically qualitative in nature. "Will they arrive at full force" isn't a question you can answer clearly with math. It depends on the rest of your army composition, the table, the scenario, your opponent's composition and the choices both you and your opponent make. That said, stats like defensive efficiency, effective wounds and so forth will give you some idea. In terms of absolute defense, Blood Knights are better than Chaos Knights except against mortal wounds. So in that sense Blood Knights are more likely to get to the enemy intact. However, you might suppose that the enemy is more likely to concentrate fire on the Blood Knights because they are more of a threat. In that sense they are less likely to reach the enemy intact. But by that logic bad units are better than good ones because your enemy will ignore them -- logic that obviously doesn't pass the smell test. Let's imagine the following scenario: you have a big block of infantry on an objective and a unit of either Chaos Knights or Blood Knights bearing down on the enemy. In one situation the enemy just decides he can ignore the Chaos Knights and focuses fire on destroying your infantry. His logic is that the Chaos Knights don't hit that hard and are pretty defensively efficient so firing on them is a waste. In the other situation he focuses on the Blood Knights because they are scary and would do major damage if they reached his lines. In one scenario your infantry gets destroyed, in the other scenario your cavalry gets destroyed. Tactically the Blood Knights failed and the Chaos Knights succeeded, but you could argue that strategically the opposite is true. I just want to be absolutely clear: WDR and DER (defensive efficiency) are useful for evaluating your options, not for building your army. If you build your army using only WDR and DER, your army is likely not going to be very good. You have to combine these stats with a good plan and a good sense of what you expect to be facing. You have to use common sense and adjust the numbers based on your opponents. The reason why I trot out these stats so often is that people keep making arguments based on objectively incorrect calculus. When you say that Blood Knights don't hit hard enough to justify their cost compared to Chaos Knights, you are objectively wrong. 1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said: I'm not a math guy.. @swarmofseals BK are obviously better, but 70% point hike better? no. If BK are 20% better on offence then id happily pay 20% more for them, which would be 192 points. Quite a bit off from 260. I think you are missing the point of my calculations. WDR is a measure of offensive efficiency not absolute output. It factors in the points cost completely. If you want to talk about offensive power, then I can provide that math as well (although I'm only going to do it for Legion of Blood knights for the moment): Charging Chaos Knights with Glaives do an average of 7.11 rend 1 damage and 2.67 rend 0 damage. Charging Blood Knights do an average of 18.67 rend 1 damage and 4 rend 0 damage. So in absolute terms legion Blood Knights do an average of over 2.5 times as much rend 1 damage and about 50% more rend 0 damage. Because I promised math on Black Knights, here it is. I'm assuming 2 lance attacks at 3+/4+ as that's my understanding of the new warscroll. If that's wrong please let me know so that I can correct my numbers! Charging WDR: .095 Non-charging WDR: .044 DER (r0/r1/r2/mw): 6/10/12/12 DER with 6+ ward: 5/8.33/10/10 So basically their offensive efficiency is better than non legion Blood Knights but a lot worse than legion Blood Knights. Defensive efficiency is a mixed bag but Black Knights are generally better. Blood Knights are better against rend 0 but Black Knights are better against r1 (albeit the difference is small if you factor in a ward save) and more noticeably better against r2 and mortal wounds. So yeah, Black Knights clearly have a role. They are quite efficient on offense when charging, although they don't hit very hard in an absolute sense (particularly against armor). Their defensive efficiency is bad but not enough to make them a real liability unless you take a ton of them. I'd say that they are probably better than Blood Knights except in Legion of Blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undeadly Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said: Black Knights in contrast now have 2 attacks, on the charge are 3+/3+ w/ 2 damage. Its no rend but they are coming back a XD3, easily restoring several models every turn. Black Knights also have a 12" move, and can get the double pile in from the Necromancer, which would give them the same number of attacks as BK with the +1. Black knights are only 120 points, so you could literally take 15 for the price of 5 BK. If there is a good movement spell in this book, I think that 15 Black Knights is a much better investment for your points, but we will have to see how the points look in the new book. Rending tends to be hard to come by in Death, so we might be forced to use BK, regardless of how overcosted they are. Heck, if you really want to get into it, look at Dire Wolves. 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound on the Charge, same wounds as Black Knights, same Bravery, Same damage, same base save, gets +1 to its save from Corpse Cart, and only a wee bit slower. The only thing they really lack in comparison is a Banner and Horn. Oh, and they only cost 60 for 5, or 120 for 10, and they just got buffed thanks to the healing rule as well. To put it this way, for the same price of 10 Black Knights or 5 Blood Knights, you can get around 20 Dire Wolves. Bump that up to 30 wolves and you get a discount; 320 for 30. Not to mention that Dire Wolves are Battleline in any army you choose, and to just rub salt in the wound, come in boxes of 10 for 25$ versus 5 Black Knights for 33$. I just don't see a situation in which Black Knights beat out over Direwolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashtyn Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Yip The review mentioned hexwraiths as summonable. It may be a mistake, but if it isn't whoop whoop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarmofseals Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Undeadly said: Heck, if you really want to get into it, look at Dire Wolves. 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound on the Charge, same wounds as Black Knights, same Bravery, Same damage, same base save, gets +1 to its save from Corpse Cart, and only a wee bit slower. The only thing they really lack in comparison is a Banner and Horn. Oh, and they only cost 60 for 5, or 120 for 10, and they just got buffed thanks to the healing rule as well. To put it this way, for the same price of 10 Black Knights or 5 Blood Knights, you can get around 20 Dire Wolves. Bump that up to 30 wolves and you get a discount; 320 for 30. Not to mention that Dire Wolves are Battleline in any army you choose, and to just rub salt in the wound, come in boxes of 10 for 25$ versus 5 Black Knights for 33$. I just don't see a situation in which Black Knights beat out over Direwolves. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Dire Wolves but they are in a different role than Black Knights. Black Knights now hit a lot harder than Dire Wolves when charging. 5 Dire Wolves do an average of 3.67 rend 0 damage on the charge. 5 Black Knights do an average of 9 rend 0 damage on the charge. So yeah, 10 Dire Wolves do less damage than 5 Black Knights. But 10 Dire Wolves are much more defensively efficient. Black Knights are offensive cavalry that are especially good against light armor. Dire Wolves are a mobile tar pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undeadly Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, swarmofseals said: Don't get me wrong, I love me some Dire Wolves but they are in a different role than Black Knights. Black Knights now hit a lot harder than Dire Wolves when charging. 5 Dire Wolves do an average of 3.67 rend 0 damage on the charge. 5 Black Knights do an average of 9 rend 0 damage on the charge. So yeah, 10 Dire Wolves do less damage than 5 Black Knights. But 10 Dire Wolves are much more defensively efficient. Black Knights are offensive cavalry that are especially good against light armor. Dire Wolves are a mobile tar pit. How in the world are you getting 9 wounds on the enemy using Black Knights? Assuming they get 2 attacks, they'd only get 11 attacks at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 In addition the smaller frame is very benifical for Death altogether. Because I see Black Knights as an efficient flank/rear hunting party. Dire Wolves can become cool but this also requires a Corpse Cart making them the more expensive unit of the two. As before, with the Legions all is subjective to personal preforances of units, largely visually, which is a final example of good balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarmofseals Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Undeadly said: How in the world are you getting 9 wounds on the enemy using Black Knights? Assuming they get 2 attacks, they'd only get 11 attacks at all. My understanding is that the lance profile is 2/3/4/-/1 now. The lances get +1 to wound and do double damage when charging. I actually forgot the +1 to wound. So they actually do an average of 11.44 rend 0 when charging. If their profile is actually 2/4/4/-/1 then it's 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I guess some missed this: http://runebrush.pa-sy.com/2018/01/legions-of-nagash-warscroll-leaks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undeadly Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, swarmofseals said: My understanding is that the lance profile is 2/3/4/-/1 now. The lances get +1 to wound and do double damage when charging. I actually forgot the +1 to wound. So they actually do an average of 11.44 rend 0 when charging. If their profile is actually 2/4/4/-/1 then it's 9. Ah, gotcha. I knew they had gotten an extra attack, but not the bump to D2 and 3+ to hit. That actually makes them relatively offensive now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarmofseals Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Quick reactions to the Mengel Miniatures article: spell lores sound fantastic I think people are overreacting to the "mortarchs must be the general" thing. Nothing is forcing you to take a mortarch at all, and it sounds like you could even take a mortarch outside of it's own legion and not have to make it the general. VLoZD isn't the only viable alternative general either. If the Soulblight package is just reprinted from the GHB then Soulblight is pretty much dead as a competitive army. It'll be better to just run Legion of Blood. I was building toward a Soulblight army but even so I'm not too bothered by this. I actually strongly prefer Blood Knights to have a defined role that they excel at rather than having to try and fail to fill every role. GA: Death package not changing is interesting. I suspect that few people will run it but I can think of some interesting builds that might actually make it worthwhile. You should still get access to the new spell lores. Loss of gravesites is a big deal, but there are still some strong command traits and artefacts to choose from. Death now has the ability to stack a huge number of bravery debuffs, and adding 2 from the screaming skull catapult. In the right metagame combining this with Tomb Banshees and Mortis Engines could be really strong. Ushabti are still an incredible warscroll and a big draw for a generic army. Skeleton archers and bow Ushabti add an additional ranged component if you want to go that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Killax said: AoS understands its narrative. Absolutely false. FEC lore is completely centered around the fact that a Ghoul King leads everybody. Rules-wise and you would be a fool not to have a Ghoul King in your army at all times, yet there are a ton of reasons not to make the GK your general. The same is true all over the place. Nagash is a lot more interesting when you make Arkhan the general...Making the Glottkin your general is foolish compared to protecting him with a tiny Harbinger general. Overall - the entirety of the named char limitations makes it a lot better to NOT make the named char your general, meaning in most cases when an all powerful lord-of-lords named general is on the field, you make some nameless side char your general instead. This new rule simply forces the named chars down our throats and the result will most certainly be (assuming the command traits are good) that all competitive games will be played without the hosts named leader in place of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon. If the command traits are key, mine as well toss your mortarchs in the trash and shine up your VL, because that will be the state of things. Nurgle did a good job making them useless, regardless there are a ton of non-named generals that are amazing so it doesn't even matter. In all of death we still have one solid non-named general, with maybe the Coven Throne making a decent second now. GH2016 really screwed up with the 5++ tied to non-named, we can only hope that this new book doesn't repeat past mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrankar Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 How do you perceive the situation Mournghoul found himself in? It can't be taken as a part of any of the Legions, but normally, afaik, he wasn't used in anything else other than pure NH, so it's not that big of a loss - unless something escapes me lol But it's still weird to hurt NH even more like this - not only were the spoooky ghosts not given any love in the LoN, but also their biggest toy was taken away from them - does it mean a NH battletome this summer or so? I'd be happy if this was the case provided they actually did some background research and realised that, l don't know, all NH lists revolve around Spirit Hosts and 2 Mournghouls - aka add more models to the faction to make it more interesting and viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drofnum Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, Sharrankar said: How do you perceive the situation Mournghoul found himself in? It can't be taken as a part of any of the Legions, but normally, afaik, he wasn't used in anything else other than pure NH, so it's not that big of a loss - unless something escapes me lol But it's still weird to hurt NH even more like this - not only were the spoooky ghosts not given any love in the LoN, but also their biggest toy was taken away from them - does it mean a NH battletome this summer or so? I'd be happy if this was the case provided they actually did some background research and realised that, l don't know, all NH lists revolve around Spirit Hosts and 2 Mournghouls - aka add more models to the faction to make it more interesting and viable. You could still take him as an ally in other lists as well. It feels like they wanted to exclude Tomb Kings and forgot it would affect the Mourngul honestly. Edit: I expect a FAQ on it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smavo Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I think we need to wait to see the Mournguls update from Forge world. As they could easily say that it benefits from legion stuff. They never print FW stuff in GW books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 21 minutes ago, Drofnum said: You could still take him as an ally in other lists as well. It feels like they wanted to exclude Tomb Kings and forgot it would affect the Mourngul honestly. Edit: I expect a FAQ on it personally. Are nighthaunt even a legal ally option for legion lists? Also excluded: mounted necromancer, any future releases thst dont come with an explicit exemption. Unlike chaos alignment books, which work via keyword, LoN works based on inclusion within that one book, making it neither backwards nor forwards compatible. At the same time, the summonable stuff seems designed with the assumption of those gravesites, making LoN units work poorly with generic death alliance rules, which as far as i understand dont get gravesites. A lot of people talk about LoN bringing Death together, but from where Im sitting the book drives deeper wedges between different death factions than ever before. Undead Legion style mixed TK/VC armies are less functional under this book than they have been at any point since the first end times release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drofnum Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Sception said: Are nighthaunt even a legal ally option for legion lists? Also excluded: mounted necromancer, any future releases thst dont come with an explicit exemption. Unlike chaos alignment books, which work via keyword, LoN works based on inclusion within that one book, making it neither backwards nor forwards compatible. At the same time, the summonable stuff seems designed with the assumption of those gravesites, making LoN units work poorly with generic death alliance rules, which as far as i understand dont get gravesites. A lot of people talk about LoN bringing Death together, but from where Im sitting the book drives deeper wedges between different death factions than ever before. Undead Legion style mixed TK/VC armies are less functional under this book than they have been at any point since the first end times release. Tomb Kings are dead, the sooner people accept that the better. Without the book though I dont know what exactly is legal in which Legion, I assume it wont be as bad as you are making out. The last line paragraph i also really dont get, I can see this battletome bringing a lot of disparate parts together personally. From what i have read of your posts you are convinced the book is garbage before even seeing it, I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise but maybe you should consider taking a step back and waiting for the book to come out and look at it with fresh eyes rather than an extremely jaded look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageBoss Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, Drofnum said: Tomb Kings are dead, the sooner people accept that the better. Without the book though I dont know what exactly is legal in which Legion, I assume it wont be as bad as you are making out. The last line paragraph i also really dont get, I can see this battletome bringing a lot of disparate parts together personally. From what i have read of your posts you are convinced the book is garbage before even seeing it, I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise but maybe you should consider taking a step back and waiting for the book to come out and look at it with fresh eyes rather than an extremely jaded look? The rules page posted on the GW website states that models chosen from the battletome may take a legion keyword. As written, we will not even be able to take the Knight of Shrouds in a legion list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xasz Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 This will most likely be changed in some way, with the post-release FAQ. At least this would be a prime candidate for an errata entry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Is the Vampire Lord On Abyssal Terror in the new book ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requizen Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 So I'm thinking Morghast Harbingers in a Legion of Night army. 3d6" Charge with a free 9" away outflank seems fairly solid and having Skellies and Wizards to hold down your DZ compliments them beautifully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone2040 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 My initial thoughts based on the information on the web are as follows: It's the Death of the old sub-faction allegiances. It's super strange that Nighthaunt isn't in the Legions book just to save them re-printing it in GHB2018. But Soulblight kinda feels like a more restricted version of Legion of Blood if Vargheists aren't Battleline if Soulblight anymore. It's like there if you're really into your Vampires and want to run a Bloodline list. We also know that Black Knights aren't Deathrattle battleline anymore, so you're never going to run a Deathrattle army over a Legion either. To me this is basically saying "The Legion armies are how we want you to play Death". So forget about your Soulblight or Nighthaunt or Deathrattle, for Death basically boils down to Legions and Flesh-Eater Courts for now. I would've sworn we would've got a Firestorm-esque style "You can use these keywords in these factions" or maybe models with this keyword can add this faction keyword in. Instead, we get told only models with warscrolls in the book can be in the legions. To me, this actually implies something even worse. That we're super unlikely to see updates to any of the sub-factions in the Legions book in the future. We're not likely to see a Deathrattle release, because they won't be able to be included in the Legions army or they'll have to put additional text on every warscroll that they want to include in one or more of the particular legions. And now you've got these odd things like the Mourngul, Knight of Shrouds, Sepulchral Guard which aren't being included in the Legions of Nagash book. You can't use the Knight of Shrouds... in a Legions of Nagash... even though they've offered their services to Nagash to lead his armies... HMMMMMM.... Those are the negatives in my opinion. In some ways, Legions is admitting that the allegiances system the game has at the moment doesn't work well enough for Death (Wizards in auxillary factions, Mortarchs/Nagash unable to lead anything other than Grand alliance lists, Death in general stereotypically being a caster heavy raising minions) and that they don't really want to focus on any of those old factions in the future. For the good parts. I like the changes to the banners and how regenerating units works. To me this hearkens back to how Undead were before Age of Sigmar. If you chopped off the heads, the body would soon crumble as the magics holding the army together start to unravel. While we don't have the old 'crumble' mechanic for slaying the General, we do have the thematic idea that the Undead army is unable to continue regenerating itself. It's probably a good thing that the Legion lists are pretty flexible as to what they can take from within the book. I think the 'common' units Mortarchs favour and stuff are wrapped into gaining bonuses through the allegiance abilities, which is a good call. At the end of the day, the ones raising armies probably aren't super picky as to whether they're zombies, dire wolves or skeletons, they need to use whatever is around to get the job done. I also like the idea that if you take the Legions Mortarch it has to be the General. I like thematic nods to things that makes sense, these guys are the leaders, they should be in charge. Nothing worse than the FEC when the Ghoul Kings aren't the General just because they don't unlock battleline and don't have a compelling command ability to make them a better choice. I'm just hoping that they're competitive choices and don't get pushed out by Vampire Lords on various beasts. Possibly they'll be included just on the fact that they can cast multiple spells anyway. And basically the allegiance abilities seem pretty cool and interesting for the most part. Nothing super ground breaking, but I won't be surprised if we find out that they all have some form of competitive build. Night seems to be overlooked a bit, but ambushing units sounds like it could have some interesting potential (Morghast Harbringers?). Really keen to see the full spell lores as well. So I think the tome is overally going to be a good thing for Death. But it does mean that the entire alliance boils down to 2 battletomes. The new releases going forwards will likely be unrelated to the two existing tomes we now have (Although I still hope for a FEC expansion with Ushoran), which I think will be cool due to that but a bit of a shame they didn't invest any effort into expanding the existing range (Plastic Blood Knights would've been a great start). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarmofseals Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 I'm not seeing VLoZD as becoming the dominant/only general choice. Here's a rundown of all of the possible General choices: Nagash - probably not going to be the most competitive option but could be playable now Vhordrai - depending on points cost could be very good in a double dragon list Mannfred - I'm not sure why anyone would ever bring Mannfred except for aesthetic/fluff reasons Neferata - probably not a competitive choice now with her spell being nerfed. Her command ability is still powerful though, so I suppose one never knows. Arkhan - good general option in a magic heavy build Vampire Lord - cheap (presumably), good mobility, small enough to hide from enemy shooting, good command ability Wight King - gets dominated by the Vampire Lord. If this guy doesn't drop in points I'm not sure why anyone would use him. Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon - hits hard but very expensive and impossible to hide. There are more efficient options for a hammer that aren't as huge a liability. His command ability is fine but he pretty much needs to use it on himself. If powerful buff command traits are available then it's hard to justify taking him as the general as it will be very hard to both use him in his role and keep him alive. Coven Throne - I haven't been able to see the new warscroll yet but it sounds like the new command ability is very good. It's much cheaper than the VLoZD and isn't a combat beatstick so keeping it in the backfield isn't a huge waste. Unit champion - You sacrifice a command ability (aside from Inspiring Presence) in order to protect your command trait. If there is anything even approaching the level of Ruler of the Night this will be a very good option. Personally I have a hard time imagining using a VLoZD as my general. I think I'm much more likely to use Vhordrai, a regular Vampire Lord, a Coven Throne, Arkhan or a unit champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageBoss Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Keith said: Is the Vampire Lord On Abyssal Terror in the new book ? No. And unless GW makes a new model, he wont ever be coming back as they don't put stuff in books they don't make anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burf Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 19 hours ago, smucreo said: The thing about synergy between slow and fast units is that you have to keep in mind that the faster units will be "tied up" sort to speak to the slower ones if you want to reliably have the buff applied. Of course how much this matters depends on the type of units, the difference of move speed and the type of buff applied, but in the case of the wolves I feel the synergy with the corpse cart is situational at best, since they want to be moving fast anyways and the buff it provides, while nice, is not a super huge deal. With this I'm not saying the unit is bad, it is quite good for its cost, but maybe not worth spending so many points for a 30 man unit (or wolf in this case ). The corpse cart buff is so easy to keep between advancing and congalining that if it falls off before you don't need it anymore it's because you're playing badly. Even then, the most effective it will be is turn 1 anyway, with a big enough terrain piece you could be looking at a 3+ save on a 30 unit of dire wolves. The point of dire wolves is so that you DON'T take the OTHER slow units. 2 units of 10 skeletons for objective camping and then focusing on either using the legion of blood's outflanking and already quick units, possibly behemouths, morghasts, even potentially vargheists or hexwraiths to be able to actually DO something instead of just standing around menacingly. People always tout skeletons but if you look at it they're more fragile than dire wolves, slower than dire wolves, more expensive than dire wolves per wound, the only things they ever had was regen and doing marginally more damage when buffed. For regen, that's still better than Dwolvez regen, it's not as big of an advantage as it used to be and for damage, the amount of damage skeletons do is largely irrelevant anyway. All buffing them ever really accomplishes is either bouncing off of good saves or having a moderately scary brick of dudes...that are so slow you can ignore them for 2-3 turns and be fine. For 40 more points, I think the extra 20 wounds the dire wolves have ALONE is enough to make them at least on par with skeletons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.