Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Malakithe

Points Changes

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Deathmaster Snikch said:

which if that’s the case is bad because DoK are currently the strongest army in the game IMO. 

I would strongly disagree with this statement

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cambot1231 said:

Poor wanderers got kicked in the acorns too... only one unit allowed to teleport along table edge per movement phase now. Looks like rangers, sisters of watch, and wild riders got a needed point decrease at least. 

Haha, I’m so sad with the new nerfs, but kicked in the acorns made my day:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Deathmaster Snikch said:

Nothing changed apparently 

 

which if that’s the case is bad because DoK are currently the strongest army in the game IMO. Hag queens and witch aelves are waaaaaay too cheap haha 

 

From what I can see stormcast have had the biggest change for the better with all of their formations generally coming down and their new stuff being severely unfercosted for how good they are 

I don't think any of the new Stormcast stuff is undercosted. 

Castigators are worse than Judicators at ranged attacking but have superior wounds and melee for the same price. 

Evocators are definitely strong, but as paladins have proven, without the ability to get them where they need to be they will likely be left out in favor of Fulminators.  

Sequitors are solid but not great at 120.

Knight Incantor would have been great at 120 but is questionable at 140.

Lord Arcanum on Gryph Charger has some amazing abilities, but 7 wounds for 240 points is risky.

Even celestar ballista isn't amazing at 100 points.  Its damage output is rather low unless fired at short range.  Do the math.  3 ballistas with a Lord Ordinator will do a whopping 4 wounds to a 5+ save character in cover getting LoS.  That's a pretty ****** return on a 440 point investment.

I'm not saying the new SC stuff is bad, heck I'm excited, but I think you're off base saying it's underpriced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aginor said:

I was surprised to see that except Skinks losing their horde bonus my Seraphon received (small) point drops it seems.

Guard and Knights -10
Stega and Troggy -20
Oldblood on Carno -20

And some bataillons dropped a bit. All sensible changes on first glance since those all were overcosted units.

Unfortunately one of the units that would have needed them most (Kroxigor) didn't get cheaper.
Compared to the similarly skilled Core Gruntas they are still quite expensive.

Speaking of those... I seriously hope Ironjawz and Destruction in general receive something very nice very soon. My friend plays them (IJ and Bonesplitterz ) and they never win against my Seraphon or Skellies. Not even agajnst the weaker lists.

So he never plays those beautiful and cool models and instead plays only boring and annoying SCE. :(

As an army that can summon like 500 more points to a battle in three turns, Seraphon did NOT need points decreases.

 

28 minutes ago, Deathmaster Snikch said:

Nothing changed apparently 

 

which if that’s the case is bad because DoK are currently the strongest army in the game IMO. Hag queens and witch aelves are waaaaaay too cheap haha 

 

From what I can see stormcast have had the biggest change for the better with all of their formations generally coming down and their new stuff being severely unfercosted for how good they are 

DoK can't add hundreds of points for trivial cost like the new top armies will. They were, and likely will remain, a solid army, but not one that will dominate the likes of Nurgle, Seraphon, or LoN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I would strongly disagree with this statement

For some reason a witch horde  in Hagg Nar with a 5+ rerolling Ward save is going under the radar but if you play it then you’ll definately know what I’m talking about. 60 points is way too cheap for a hag queen 

Anyway getting off topic, keen to see the Skaven stuff, hoping Stormvermin come down 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deathmaster Snikch said:

For some reason a witch horde  in Hagg Nar with a 5+ rerolling Ward save is going under the radar but if you play it then you’ll definately know what I’m talking about. 60 points is way too cheap for a hag queen 

Anyway getting off topic, keen to see the Skaven stuff, hoping Stormvermin come down 

There's a lot more filth than that in this game my dude

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PJetski said:

There's a lot more filth than that in this game my dude

Seriously big blocks of buffed witch aelves are right up there and the hag queen is ridiculously good for 60 points

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

DoK going huge on the recent tournament scene, yea. Hags are dirtcheap and WE w/ witchbrew and all the shenanigans ist way too underpriced.

Looking forward how DoK will presumably become even better with the new shooting restrictions, plays right into their hands.

Nonetheless, I guess after a few months and dominated events we will see an eventual point raise....patience.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think LoN is going to be summoning "500 free points"?

LoN cannot add new units, only return ones that are completely wiped out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Why do people think LoN is going to be summoning "500 free points"?

LoN cannot add new units, only return ones that are completely wiped out.

I thought those were referring to Seraphon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stratigo said:

As an army that can summon like 500 more points to a battle in three turns, Seraphon did NOT need points decreases.

 

Only Slann can summon. I want to be able to to play games without Slann and still not suck. And the point change was necessary for that.

What I like about Seraphon is their versatility. And that is improved by the changes. All units should be good for something. There should be different play styles.

And that's what is a bit sad about the summoning. Magic heavy? Slann. Deep strike? Slann. Summoning? Slann.

Slann was good before, but now he is a must take, and that is sad, regardless of how strong he is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Keeper of Secrets went down to 260 points, which is nice. Nothing else changed, which I guess could be considered a buff as we get free summoning. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a returning competitive player I'm looking at Seraphon and DoK as being obviously powerful. Curious to read the thoughts of others though, I hope they keep pumping out books, there seem to be such a big divide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gauche said:

As a returning competitive player I'm looking at Seraphon and DoK as being obviously powerful. Curious to read the thoughts of others though, I hope they keep pumping out books, there seem to be such a big divide.

Seraphon certainly aren't bad now.

The big weaknesses I see is the lack of mortal wounds output, which makes fighting some elite armies hard, and that we rely heavily on our heroes, especially the Slann. If they die the game is over.

But summoning adds some options to the army, I see Seraphon in the top quarter of armies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aginor said:

Seraphon certainly aren't bad now.

The big weaknesses I see is the lack of mortal wounds output, which makes fighting some elite armies hard, and that we rely heavily on our heroes, especially the Slann. If they die the game is over.

But summoning adds some options to the army, I see Seraphon in the top quarter of armies.

They just seem like they can do pretty much everything depending on composition while DoK are just super under-priced and ignore a lot of game rules. Still getting my sea legs back with AoS though, been doing nothing but 40K for almost a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bellfree said:

They absolutely were dominating the scene. Don't revisionist history Tzeentch.

Name me the major tournaments Tzeentch dominated in. I think heat 3 is the only major they won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tip4Tap said:

Name me the major tournaments Tzeentch dominated in. I think heat 3 is the only major they won.

Winning tournaments is more or less random. Constantly doing well is the real indicator. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tip4Tap said:

Name me the major tournaments Tzeentch dominated in. I think heat 3 is the only major they won.

Las Vegas Open 2018.  5 of the top 10 were Tzeentch of one flavour or another.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tip4Tap said:

Name me the major tournaments Tzeentch dominated in. I think heat 3 is the only major they won.

This is completely a guess but I reckon it's quicker to name tournaments where there is no top 10 tzeentch list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aginor said:

Only Slann can summon. I want to be able to to play games without Slann and still not suck. And the point change was necessary for that.

What I like about Seraphon is their versatility. And that is improved by the changes. All units should be good for something. There should be different play styles.

And that's what is a bit sad about the summoning. Magic heavy? Slann. Deep strike? Slann. Summoning? Slann.

Slann was good before, but now he is a must take, and that is sad, regardless of how strong he is.

I agree, when GW revamp the cosmic seraphon I would be ok to buy the super cool new slann. But now, nope. And so strange to limit the army builds because of the fluff you invent... And it's not even that fluffy, especially on small battle to always have a slann, wandering around with 20 skinks in front of some Bloodthirster or hordes of squellies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Winning tournaments is more or less random. Constantly doing well is the real indicator. 

 

29 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Las Vegas Open 2018.  5 of the top 10 were Tzeentch of one flavour or another.

 

23 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

This is completely a guess but I reckon it's quicker to name tournaments where there is no top 10 tzeentch list!

Ok let me clear something up. I 100% think Tzeentch needed a change. 

However, while yes they were extremely powerful. I still felt like every time I played a Tzeentch army I had a good chance of winning. That's why I don't think Tzeentch won many major events, they weren't unbeatable.

I like the idea of increasing points on certain things so other models get a chance to be used. I'm big into variety and think it's better for the game if we see different models on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Imperial said:

I added info about IJ changes 

Capture.PNG.63e2d7e4d5898d98d744f7c003d7ffb1.PNG

 

The image is perfect lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tip4Tap said:

 

 

Ok let me clear something up. I 100% think Tzeentch needed a change. 

However, while yes they were extremely powerful. I still felt like every time I played a Tzeentch army I had a good chance of winning. That's why I don't think Tzeentch won many major events, they weren't unbeatable.

I like the idea of increasing points on certain things so other models get a chance to be used. I'm big into variety and think it's better for the game if we see different models on the table. 

Tzeentch has won a ton of major events over the past year and a half, and the ones they don't win they tend to end up second place to whatever Stormcast battalion has a serious loophole in the wording. They weren't unbeatable, no, but they were the best army in the game. They've consistently had at least 2(usually 3+) lists in the top 10 at major events since the original battletome dropped.

I think the issue is that people tend to think 'best army in the game' means 'absolutely doesn't lose ever' and that's not what it is. Tzeentch are the best army in the game because of their consistent high level performance and the ability to go into just about any matchup confident of a 50% or better chance of victory(assuming equal skill).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bellfree said:

Tzeentch has won a ton of major events over the past year and a half, and the ones they don't win they tend to end up second place to whatever Stormcast battalion has a serious loophole in the wording. They weren't unbeatable, no, but they were the best army in the game. They've consistently had at least 2(usually 3+) lists in the top 10 at major events since the original battletome dropped.

I think the issue is that people tend to think 'best army in the game' means 'absolutely doesn't lose ever' and that's not what it is. Tzeentch are the best army in the game because of their consistent high level performance and the ability to go into just about any matchup confident of a 50% or better chance of victory(assuming equal skill).

Generally, stronger players gravitate towards consistent 50/50 matches so they can leverage their skill over a weaker opponent.  A slightly above average player isn't doing themselves any favors by showing up against an obviously weaker opponent with an army that only has a 25% win rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Generally, stronger players gravitate towards consistent 50/50 matches so they can leverage their skill over a weaker opponent.  A slightly above average player isn't doing themselves any favors by showing up against an obviously weaker opponent with an army that only has a 25% win rate. 

I would disagree here. A stronger opponent that values player skill in winning should be challenging themselves to be better players constantly which they are not doing by playing against a weaker opponent with a stronger army. As the weaker opponent will not be capitalising on their mistakes making the stronger opponent become lazy when playing an opponent of equal or greater skill. Taking a 'handicapped' army will ensure that they are not relying on any crutches that they may be dependent opening their understanding of the game so more list building building options will be open to them and they will be more likely to be able to find the list that drives the meta going forward.

Therefore, crushing weaker opponents helps nobody but someone who needs their ego stroked as the weaker player is more likely to quit the game in frustration instead of growing their skill over time and 'getting good' and the stronger player wastes their time and effort because they were not able to match wits with their opponent on an easy win that was not in doubt before the game began.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...