Lets Chat: Idoneth Deepkin

[Circus of Paint]

7 minutes ago, Soulsmith said:

@Circus of Paint Totally agree with you, I believe the unnamed deepmare rider hero will give battleline eels, as it's probably an Akhelian King. Also agree on the Thralls, I think even going pure Idoneth they're going to be near mandatory, as they will be solid bubblewrap for characters and sound like they get synergy with all the wizards. I'll get some, purely because the soulrender is my favourite miniature from them and sounds like a sweet duo.

I'm far more of a collector than a gamer, but I like to mainly collect the models I like that could theoretically be used together (mixed Order).

I know I'm going to dive in (hurr!) with some Deepkin, but I'm also slowly working through painting some Scourge Privateers and Daughters of Khaine. I mean, really slowly...

[BillyOcean]

Unless there are some very tasty rules on the rest of the warscroll, these are going to need to be 120 (or less) for 10  in order to be competitive. The real killer is range 1" weapons, with a 32mm base. Its going to make it very hard to get enough of these into range to unload significant damage. To compare to models with the same attack statline: White lions (140pts) and Swordmasters (180pts) are on 25mm bases, meaning 2 rows of them can get in attack range. Black guard (160pts) are on 25s and have 2" range, meaning three rows of them can attack and you can often get 20+ in range. With the thralls, only 1 row will ever attack so it will be difficult to even get 10 striking, unless fighting in a wide open space. Not to mention, all three that I compared to have a 4+ save rather than 5+ save, and either some extra defensive or offensive rules. I'm not saying thralls are bad - just that they will either need some cool abilities or a low points cost to be competitive.

[Soulsmith]

37 minutes ago, Circus of Paint said:

I'm far more of a collector than a gamer, but I like to mainly collect the models I like that could theoretically be used together (mixed Order).

I know I'm going to dive in (hurr!) with some Deepkin, but I'm also slowly working through painting some Scourge Privateers and Daughters of Khaine. I mean, really slowly...

I am the same, but I do like to know they wont be rubbish. Like I wont be grabbing Beasts of Nurgle anytime soon, as coo as they look/

[Circus of Paint]

I’ve already decided at the very least to get the Battletome and the dice - anything else would depend on how far I get with painting my other AoS bits and how much willpower I have to not keep spending! 

Even if the Namarti turn out naff, I’d still get some just to paint.

[J.J]

I do love the idea of having a fully mounted up army full of sea monsters, but I'll probably pick some of these up just to 'complete the set'. Don't see them being much more than 120 with them being the only (standard) battleline choice.

I think they'll do quite well if you have something to soak any ranged threats, otherwise it looks like they'll fall over to a stiff breeze.

 

[mhsellwood]

Difficult to make judgements at this point without seeing the rest of the warscroll - for example we can see a model with a back banner, but no idea what that banner does (most banners are +tive  bravery, but not inevitably), and we have no evidence on whether there is a unit champion or not and if there is what they do (big difference between +1 to hit for the champion and going up to a damage 2 attack, both of which have precedent), we also don't know what other abilities they may have on their warscroll.

My gut feeling is that they are more are less what we see in this preview - a 5+ save unit with an elite infantry attack profile (although for me the jury is still out around alternative weapon builds - I keep seeing mention of alternative weapon options for them, and there is a massive visual difference between the massive axe weapons and the much smaller sword style weapons), decent move and bravery. For me this would put them in the range of 120/300 for 10/30. For comparison:

• Witch Aelves are 100/270 - compared to the two daggers build, the Thralls are slightly tougher, do slightly more damage but are slightly lower bravery (move is the same but it is worth noting that Witch Aelves can always run and charge while Thralls can do this on turn 2). With support Witch Aelves will quickly deal more damage but at that point their effective cost is a lot higher
• Tree-Revenants are 80/420 for 5/30 (note I think Tree-revenants are over costed and should be 70/360) - Thralls do more damage and are as tough as Tree-Revenants but Tree-Revenants have a hugely potent teleport move
• White Lions are 140/360 for 10/30. White Lions do the same damage as Thralls, but have a 4+ save with a re-roll in the shooting phase, better basic bravery, and innate protection versus battle shock.

To sum up my reasoning then - slightly better absent any buffs than the Witch Aelves so should be more expensive (again I know that Witch Aelves quickly get to mad levels of damage output when actually in game, but that is not relevant to my mind when figuring out what a unit SHOULD be pointed at), they do not have the inherent movement tricks of the Tree-Revenants so should be less than them, and would be out-performed by White Lions so need to be cheaper than them.

Although the article talked about using them as character protection / shieldwall... eh, I am not sure that will be the best option. Obviously losing 5 Thralls rather than say a Tidecaster is objectively better, but I would think there would be other, better options. I.e. as simple as a unit of Liberators with shields - 5 are only 100 points and have a better save than Thralls so likely less points per wound, and more protection per wound. Alternatively, the Leviadon or the tanky eel riders may provide better resilience per point.

One caveat to all this however: we don't know the full story, and this could change everything. As an example if there is a sword and board option in the kit that takes Thralls to a 4+ save, and a battalion, or an Enclave, or an Artefact, or a spell, or a ritual, or a General Trait, or a Command Trait (or some combination of the previous) that further enhances their toughness then they may be well placed to serve as a shieldwall.

Finally, the Nightmares rule appears to be a weapon by weapon check, so a single unit may be forced to split their attacks if multiple units are the closest unit for different models in the unit. Also, attacks can be split, but this is done before resolving any attacks, so no resolving one shot out of your 180 shots to try and kill that last Thrall.

[BillyOcean]

10 minutes ago, mhsellwood said:

Witch Aelves are 100/270 - compared to the two daggers build, the Thralls are slightly tougher, do slightly more damage but are slightly lower bravery (move is the same but it is worth noting that Witch Aelves can always run and charge while Thralls can do this on turn 2). With support Witch Aelves will quickly deal more damage but at that point their effective cost is a lot higher

Don't want to sound like a broken record, but I seriously think that the base size issue is a huge consideration when making any kind of comparison like this. Due to the smaller base, the witch elves can fit more models around an enemy unit, and more importantly two rows of witches can attack. The thralls will therefore never be useful in large blobs like the witch elves are - in fact it will be tricky to even get a whole unit of 10 striking in many situations. Again, that doesn't mean they are bad. Just that they can't be fielded in the same role that other elite elf infantry is, and that they need to be well costed. 

[Thalassic Monstrosity]

2 hours ago, BillyOcean said:

with a 32mm base

Are we certain it's 32mm?  That may be bad news for me...

[BillyOcean]

2 minutes ago, Thalassic Monstrosity said:

Are we certain it's 32mm?  That may be bad news for me...

It certainly looks like with how wide the stances are. If not, I will retract my previous comments!

[Thalassic Monstrosity]

11 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

It certainly looks like with how wide the stances are. If not, I will retract my previous comments!

In retrospect, after looking at the pictures again I can see they are definitely 32mm (or extremely tiny).  Unfortunate news for me; I have 170 resin Dragonforge bases and exactly 0 32mm ones.

[mmimzie]

Yeah 32mm is the biggest hold back for the unit. 

 

However, they have decent durability thanks to the tide mechanic getting them a standing 4+ save turn 1 against shooting. At 100pts for 1p that would be on par with liberators durability.  That weapon though is very powerful. If image they'd be 120 or 140 base. Probably pretty good at 120. Okay, at 140. 

 

They can't attack in two ranks which is a pretty major draw back to there damage out put. However, the larger base size gives them more screening surface area. So I hope they get the discount on thier pts for having a 32mm base and get a 120pts price tag. 

[Acid_Nine]

35 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Yeah 32mm is the biggest hold back for the unit. 

 

However, they have decent durability thanks to the tide mechanic getting them a standing 4+ save turn 1 against shooting. At 100pts for 1p that would be on par with liberators durability.  That weapon though is very powerful. If image they'd be 120 or 140 base. Probably pretty good at 120. Okay, at 140. 

 

They can't attack in two ranks which is a pretty major draw back to there damage out put. However, the larger base size gives them more screening surface area. So I hope they get the discount on thier pts for having a 32mm base and get a 120pts price tag. 

Wonder how much gw puts base size into game design compared to model design. Like, it's important to the game defiantly, but I wonder What they value more, models looking good on their bases or gameplay.

 

but, I do think we can work around ranks with the sheer mobility turn 2 gives with run and charging. We have a chance to spread out and cast a large net as it were, and with the speed our Calvary (hopefully) has we can still flank and get enough people in, right?

[DantePQ]

Easy comparison are Tree Revs similar profile, same base size and they cost 80 for 5, anything less then 140 for Thralls will be serious powercreep and I hope GW won't do it. 140 is fair. 

[BillyOcean]

22 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Easy comparison are Tree Revs similar profile, same base size and they cost 80 for 5, anything less then 140 for Thralls will be serious powercreep and I hope GW won't do it. 140 is fair. 

Tree revs can teleport across the table and pile in 6" (which helps the base size issue), and they get to reroll a dice each phase. I agree, if Thralls pack a bunch of rules like that then a price up to 160 per 10 might be justified. If not, they are  just worse white lions and you'd want a price of 120 or so.  Will have to wait and see what the rest of the scroll looks like before deciding whats fair. 

2 hours ago, Acid_Nine said:

Wonder how much gw puts base size into game design compared to model design. Like, it's important to the game defiantly, but I wonder What they value more, models looking good on their bases or gameplay.

I think they exclusively consider model design when deciding base size. The playtesters may chime in about how it affects gameplay after the fact, but by then its too late to change the model, and the shortfalls of a large base need to be compensated by points cost instead. 

[DantePQ]

@BillyOcean comparing them to White Lions isn't good as White Lions don't have allegiance abilities/traits and cant be buffed. Also he have seen that both foot hero and Avatar buff them with abilities (so only condition is to be in range) and more buffs from heroes was mentioned in article + they got their abilities as well. 140 is still cheaper then Revenants

 

[BillyOcean]

Hmmm, I'll maintain that we need to see the scroll and the full range of buffs available before deciding. Compared to white lions, I don't think any amount of rerolling 1s  or whatever would make up for the loss of damage output that the 32mm base imposes (based on my experience of how combats end up looking). Plus white lions are tankier. But, maybe Thralls will have some cool movement shenanigans or other abilities to make up for it, will have to wait and see. 

[BillyOcean]

11 hours ago, Cookiez said:

Ok, Thralls are not the screening unit for sure (because, you know, screening unit costs 60 points for 10, not 120 probably). But turtles maybe? If the -1 to hit will be confirmed and with natural save 3+, 2+ in the first turn... like rhino in 40k can soak up some damage in overwatch for example.

Remember that in matched play the +1 save in the first turn won't apply to turtles (I assume they will have the Monster keyword). They will count as being in cover, but the save modifier for being in cover does apply to Monsters. 

I'm wondering if the best screening options will be in allies. Just anything cheap and reasonably durable, e.g. a couple of units of 10 Corsairs for 80pts each - assuming Scourge Privateers are allies. 5+ save and reroll 1s against shooting, seems like a reasonable front line to absorb a hit.

[Trayanee]

5 hours ago, BillyOcean said:

Don't want to sound like a broken record, but I seriously think that the base size issue is a huge consideration when making any kind of comparison like this. Due to the smaller base, the witch elves can fit more models around an enemy unit, and more importantly two rows of witches can attack. The thralls will therefore never be useful in large blobs like the witch elves are - in fact it will be tricky to even get a whole unit of 10 striking in many situations. Again, that doesn't mean they are bad. Just that they can't be fielded in the same role that other elite elf infantry is, and that they need to be well costed. 

6

Arent Bloodreavers 1" range on 32mm bases too? Those are used in large blobs quite often.

[mhsellwood]

48 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

@BillyOcean comparing them to White Lions isn't good as White Lions don't have allegiance abilities/traits and cant be buffed. Also he have seen that both foot hero and Avatar buff them with abilities (so only condition is to be in range) and more buffs from heroes was mentioned in article + they got their abilities as well. 140 is still cheaper then Revenants

 

Kind of agree that in actual play the White Lions are not an attractive choice for the reasons you mention. However my view would be that the costing approach should be that the cost for these buffs should be allocated to the characters - it is not reasonable to place a cost on a unit that may or may not perform better. Instead the cost should be on the unit that buffs, and you pay for their potential improvement of other elements of your army. This also aligns with most other armies and characters - you pay for a liberators stat line, you don't pay for a unit with a 2+ save restoring wounds on 5+ even though this is relatively trivial to achieve. So, on this basis Thralls at 120 would be about right, but you would expect other characters to be relatively expensive as their buffs are much more useful / useable.

On the subject of base sizes, it is actually possible to get a second rank of models in. To do this first get your front rank models in base to base. Then with the second rank move into the area between your own models, rather than directly behind.

E.g. models like this (x representing centre points)

X  _X  X  _X  X  _X  X  _XX  _X

Rather than like this

X  X  X  X  X

X  X  X  X  X

Also, I think local meta makes this more or less of an issue. If your opponents mainly play new-ish armies then they are likely to be on 32mm, so no issues there.

[GammaMage]

6 hours ago, mhsellwood said:

Difficult to make judgements at this point without seeing the rest of the warscroll - for example we can see a model with a back banner, but no idea what that banner does (most banners are +tive  bravery, but not inevitably), and we have no evidence on whether there is a unit champion or not and if there is what they do (big difference between +1 to hit for the champion and going up to a damage 2 attack, both of which have precedent), we also don't know what other abilities they may have on their warscroll.

I suspect the model with the back banner is the unit champion.

[ledha]

I don't understand people pointing 32 mm as an issue while khorne players do quite fine with it while using bloodwarriors, bloodreavers or bloodletters.

[J.J]

There are many examples of 32mm being fine for big units, even big Fyreslayer blobs do just fine with it.

Very keen to see how they perform in the Warhammer TV battle today!

[BillyOcean]

7 hours ago, Trayanee said:

Arent Bloodreavers 1" range on 32mm bases too? Those are used in large blobs quite often.

Yes but Bloodreavers are absolutely dirt cheap - if thralls turned out to be the same points cost, you won't hear a peep of concern out of me! Which is the point I'm trying to make. Its not that 32mm bases are the end of the world, or even a big deal in their own right. Its just a pertinent factor to take into account when deciding their "worth", or comparing to other similar units.

Assuming (and its a big assumption, but this is just hypotheticals) that they don't have any crazy movement shenanigans a-la Tree-revs, then given the weapon stat-line the closest comparison would be white lions. Compared to the white lions they are less tanky and the 32mm base will usually be detrimental to their damage output, so they need to cost less. Thats all I'm saying. Nothing is "good" or "bad" based on warscroll alone, as any shortfall can be compensated by appropriate costing. 

I also agree with @mhsellwood that potential buffs from characters shouldn't be factored into a units points cost. Otherwise we'd have to remember that the white lions are often found in a mixed order list alongside a Frostheart phoenix, which can make them even more defensive. Is the Frostheart buff factored into the white lions points cost? Of course not, otherwise it would have to be factored into every single Order unit. It has to be factored into the Frostheart cost instead (even tho its currently not because the Frostheart is the most undercosted unit in the game  ).

Anyway, thats about all I have to say on the unit until rest of the rules and cost are known. I'm also super excited for the batrep to see what we can glean.

[Themoocher]

What time and zone is the Warhammer tv supposed to be? Says 4:00 but doesn't give a time zone....

[annarborhawk]

7 hours ago, mhsellwood said:

 

On the subject of base sizes, it is actually possible to get a second rank of models in. To do this first get your front rank models in base to base. Then with the second rank move into the area between your own models, rather than directly behind.

 

Came here to echos this.  You absolutely can get a second (staggered) rank into combat.  I do it with blood warriors / reavers all the time.  You do have to be careful how you end your charge move and the order you pile things in.  Your first rank has to be base-to-base with each other and enemy model - and your second rank "honeycombs" in.   It ends up looking like a hexagonal grid.  

Somewhere in some long ago thread someone did the geometry, and if everything is base-to-base, it's something like .80ish inches from second rank to enemy model with that set-up.

Caveat - Knowing this, a savvy player can align his target unit's models in such a way (by spacing them out just so) to  make it difficult to get that second rank all in.