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

AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

Even an admission of how vast of a difference between the handful of "good builds" and "normal builds" is farther than I usually get with this conversation. So thanks for that.

I think one thing that plays to our advantage and little seem to talk about is the command point changes. And to add onto the Desolators conversation, we can now reroll 1s to hit for a whole unit of dracothian guard. If you take 4 units you can reroll 1s for 8 models shooting a d3 mortal wound attack, not to mention we can do that on 1s in melee as well. A lot of armies have baked in scrolls that allow for rerolls but Sce eally don't, I think it's a small change along with the point changes that is really going to benefit us. That being said I totally agree.... I hate playing gimmicky Lists and I hate being forced to play one to be competitive. That being said I was playing a list prior to these updates that had a stardrake shooting and spells and it was by far my most successful of 2018 and that's playing 2-3 nights a week and tournaments. Play around with different things and don't always pay attention to what everyone else takes. This army is a lot of turn based decisions and awaiting the perfect opportunities to make your moves and not playing hyper aggressive; which I like. Wins come harder, but feel satisfying when you win games you feel like were difficult on paper 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Slaanesh match-up is pretty futile right now for SCE.

Share this post


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

@JaffaBones

None if your statements directly refutes my assertion that Stormcast in a “common” setting is a poor army, with a very few notable exceptional lists.

It’s true that people can always play better or bring a better list, and do something internally to get better results. However, if I must play a “perfect” game, with a “perfect” list in order to get better results, while others are not held to the same standard in order to get better results, I’m sorry but to me that is the very definition of a base-weak army.

I just played a game against Slaanesh last night against a person who played their first game with them and watched my army crumple like paper. I had to explain to them how basic game rules worked, and remind them to use their abilities. I wasn’t fighting Napoleon. Yeah, there’s things I could have done better, but I basically got tabled before the game was over and he ended the game with more models than he started with. I’m sorry but this isn’t just a player issue, and I don’t agree with your point of view. Some armies just have a better base set of rules to work with, and I shouldn’t have my competence questioned in order to make such an obvious statement.

Very disagree with this. I could easily make a Slaanesh army from their book that a beginner might make and lose 9/10 games with it.

Are the overall Allegiance Abilities for some armies just stronger? Perhaps, though I believe it would be more correct to think that certain Allegiance Abilities are more conducive to the obvious or popular playstyle. More streamlined, for lack of a better word, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "better". I don't think it's bad for some armies to be easier to pick up and play than others, though of course it would be preferable if all armies had Allegiance Abilities that were designed to work together as nicely.

Every army in the game is going to have "good builds" and "bad builds". That's why list building (or for many, netlisting) is an important part of the game that separates players as much as in game decision making. For some armies, this is very straightforward - it's easy to look at Gristlegore's command ability, then look at the AGoTG, and then look at Feeding Frenzy, and put two and two together. For something like Anvilstrike or Astral Templars, the idea of mixing and matching chambers with Heroes that aren't necessarily "intuitive" to put together might require a few more steps of logic. 

27 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

It’s true that people can always play better or bring a better list, and do something internally to get better results. However, if I must play a “perfect” game, with a “perfect” list in order to get better results, while others are not held to the same standard in order to get better results, I’m sorry but to me that is the very definition of a base-weak army.

This statement in particular I'm not fond of. While it can be frustrating to see someone who is not thinking their game through as much as you perform better, due to an army that is easier to pilot or perhaps one that they just intuit a bit easier, that does not to me indicate a weak army. As I said above, I don't think there's anything wrong with certain armies being easier to pick up and play, and by the same logic there's nothing wrong with armies being more difficult to achieve victory with.

It's a bit crude to say "git gud" when talking about this point, but it's not far off base. The thing with these conversations is that it's very easy to conflate "regular AoS" with "competitive AoS". If you're Timmy, buying Stormcast because they're cool and you don't pilot them well and lose, that's one thing. But that's not a good argument when it comes to someone who buys the army with the intent to compete - if one is playing with that mindset, they should do some research and playtesting to see if they like the army or mesh well enough with the playstyle, rather than wanting it to change to suit their own desires. Though that is mostly my opinion, as I've seen people buy and sell many armies for that very reason, and have done so myself more than once.

An army needing to play well to achieve similar results doesn't mean that army is bad. That's simply the way some armies are. I know there's some shaky ground when comparing to video games, but there are plenty of instances in games like LoL, DOTA, Starcraft, etc, where things that are more difficult to play are still utilized because people enjoy the playstyle or challenge, even if the results are similar to less mechanically difficult alternatives. I don't think we should have to hold Warhammer to a different standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

@JaffaBones

None if your statements directly refutes my assertion that Stormcast in a “common” setting is a poor army, with a very few notable exceptional lists.

It’s true that people can always play better or bring a better list, and do something internally to get better results. However, if I must play a “perfect” game, with a “perfect” list in order to get better results, while others are not held to the same standard in order to get better results, I’m sorry but to me that is the very definition of a base-weak army.

I just played a game against Slaanesh last night against a person who played their first game with them and watched my army crumple like paper. I had to explain to them how basic game rules worked, and remind them to use their abilities. I wasn’t fighting Napoleon. Yeah, there’s things I could have done better, but I basically got tabled before the game was over and he ended the game with more models than he started with. I’m sorry but this isn’t just a player issue, and I don’t agree with your point of view. Some armies just have a better base set of rules to work with, and I shouldn’t have my competence questioned in order to make such an obvious statement.

I'm sorry for your experiences, I wish you could've had some of mine. I just happen to find Stormcast very useful in a lot of different lists and I have yet to be proven wrong. Tzeentch Changehost and Skaven did lately, but not on "the road", with Skaven I have made so many improvements, I paid my dues. It's not a threat as it was and I'm sure I can beat it consistently at some point, guessing few weeks out. Which only means I've beaten the player behind it.

 

On Tzeentch I need more opponents and takes on it, I'm very confused about the unit swap thing into 3" and how to position myself against that mechanic. I come to fall in love with the celestial vortex.seems to be made against Tzeentch. I never ever ever did think I would ever ever use that stupid to transport goofy looking badly painted spell.

Edited by JaffaBones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh apologies not mention that of course you're right. You have to work more to make it work with Stormcast, as to say fec, who demolish almost anybody. I'd call fec a break-check, when thinking  it. That's a new term I like and learned today.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

All this to say that you can do well with Stormcast.  You just might have to work harder to get there.  Which is more rewarding in the end.

<says the guitarist with short fingers>

Edit: And the faceroll armies like Gristlegore are going to have to work hard to keep up when the next round of balance comes around.

Edited by crkhobbit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument resurfaces every few pages and it seems pretty futile. Surely we would be better to focus our efforts on coming up with new ideas for stormcast lists and bouncing ideas around generally. Negativity will get us no where I feel. 

There are plenty of other armies to play if you don’t think stormcast are any good 😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being realistic about where the army is at, and enjoying playing it, are two separate things to me. I don't view it as negativity if it's true - I just view it as being pragmatic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Being realistic about where the army is at, and enjoying playing it, are two separate things to me. I don't view it as negativity if it's true - I just view it as being pragmatic.

SCE are actually really good at most things, we just don't do particularly well at any one thing, (except shooting I would say) but we're pretty decent at everything so it's hard to say this army is bad on paper. This statement took me a long time to figure out; and I felt the same way you do now for a very long time. We have units that are mobile, we have units that are tanky, we have shooting units, we have magic units that are okay. The problem is the current meta is very mortal wound heavy, and we fold like paper to mortal wounds.....which can make us feel weak (looking at you gristlegore). The thing I've noticed though; is that we can dish out some serious mortal ourselves to combat other army's mortals. Between the comet, stardrake and vanguard raptors you can snipe most heroes while they're far enough away to not have them be an immediate threat to your army. Then in later turns when those threats are gone we make are move and take board control. The guard units coming down as well as vanguard just upped our mobility and mortal output even more imo.

I don't think there's much that GW could do to make us even stronger  than we already are; the variety we have already is pretty crazy.... Look at lord relictor, he's 100 points, he can heal d3, or he can deal d3 and -1 to hit. You can have him bless weapons to give 2 hits on 6s or translocate to teleport somebody 24"; he costs 100 pts and can legit do soo much for his price tag.

I went months thinking that using bless weapons was the way to go and have since used translocate. I've probably won over a dozen games off that small change alone. You can really pigeonhole yourself into one specific type of play; if you havent yet, just make sure you try everything out. Our army is not straight forward unfortunately and that type of playstyle doesn't suit everyone.

My point is, with the amount of variety these units have; it's hard to balance one specific type of play. You can make an SCE list to pretty much counter anything you want it to, fighting gristlegore? Go full shooting. Fighting Dok? Roll with a higher block of sequitors, staunch defender, azerite Halo and castellant and you'll reflect more mortal wounds then wounds you take. The problem for us  is "all comers list" tend to be more of a dime a dozen because we are going to fall short in one facet of the game. Other armies can't make a list to combat whatever they would like; they face hard counters and that's that. We can adapt pretty easily list wise to what we're fighting against most in the meta and imo that's what makes me happy when I think of my army of golden Bois. We're versatile. Adaptable. And obviously..... Badass. 😎

  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, crkhobbit said:

<says the guitarist with short fingers>

Now I can’t get a picture of T-Rex “playing” the guitar out of my head 🙃👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dayman85 said:

SCE are actually really good at most things, we just don't do particularly well at any one thing, (except shooting I would say) but we're pretty decent at everything so it's hard to say this army is bad on paper. This statement took me a long time to figure out; and I felt the same way you do now for a very long time. We have units that are mobile, we have units that are tanky, we have shooting units, we have magic units that are okay. The problem is the current meta is very mortal wound heavy, and we fold like paper to mortal wounds.....which can make us feel weak (looking at you gristlegore). The thing I've noticed though; is that we can dish out some serious mortal ourselves to combat other army's mortals. Between the comet, stardrake and vanguard raptors you can snipe most heroes while they're far enough away to not have them be an immediate threat to your army. Then in later turns when those threats are gone we make are move and take board control. The guard units coming down as well as vanguard just upped our mobility and mortal output even more imo.

I don't think there's much that GW could do to make us even stronger  than we already are; the variety we have already is pretty crazy.... Look at lord relictor, he's 100 points, he can heal d3, or he can deal d3 and -1 to hit. You can have him bless weapons to give 2 hits on 6s or translocate to teleport somebody 24"; he costs 100 pts and can legit do soo much for his price tag.

I went months thinking that using bless weapons was the way to go and have since used translocate. I've probably won over a dozen games off that small change alone. You can really pigeonhole yourself into one specific type of play; if you havent yet, just make sure you try everything out. Our army is not straight forward unfortunately and that type of playstyle doesn't suit everyone.

My point is, with the amount of variety these units have; it's hard to balance one specific type of play. You can make an SCE list to pretty much counter anything you want it to, fighting gristlegore? Go full shooting. Fighting Dok? Roll with a higher block of sequitors, staunch defender, azerite Halo and castellant and you'll reflect more mortal wounds then wounds you take. The problem for us  is "all comers list" tend to be more of a dime a dozen because we are going to fall short in one facet of the game. Other armies can't make a list to combat whatever they would like; they face hard counters and that's that. We can adapt pretty easily list wise to what we're fighting against most in the meta and imo that's what makes me happy when I think of my army of golden Bois. We're versatile. Adaptable. And obviously..... Badass. 😎

Completely on board with this!

Yes tournament statistics on the whole may look like we are struggling but it’s going to be skewed by how many people play stormcast and, assuming they might be newer tournament gamers, won’t be winning all their games.  

Im no tournament player and would not class myself as a good player but I see a lot of tournament lists are still taking the same stuff and tactics that haven’t  been working for a while now in the current meta, and it’s only the ones who have innovated (Pjetski for example) who seem to be able to pick up consistent wins against the current “big bois” of the scene. There’s probably a lesson in that somewhere for a lot of us 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

So 6 Desolators vs 6 Dracoline Evocators. Which is best now?

If you go back a few pages there’s a good debate on that very subject. Basically it depends on which Stormhost and play style you prefer. 

Feels like both are viable choices depending on how you support them - personally I’m in the desolators camp due to better defence and chip damage potential 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Damage is close, 24,7 for the Dracolines vs 22, 7 for the Desolators, assuming charge and MW by shooting and jazzhands against 4+ sv. Desolators get a better save and apply MW by shooting (which can be good against strike first or bad via LOS). Desolators degrade faster to losses. Evocators can cast and unbind. Imo Evocators are easier and/or more effective to buff, on their own Desolators are easier to manage.

Overall it's a close call and probably a question of taste more than one of efficiency.

Edited by Lucur
maths
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I played a small 2 day tournament a few weeks ago and went 0-5 with my Stormcast and it wasnt because Stormcast are terrible, so shove that in your stats 🤣

Im loving building, painting and playing  my stormcast.  Ive played 3 1-day events, 1 2-day event, and a doubles event this year (plus more entered for this month) with a whole variety of lists and models and done well and done badly, but very rarely has a game been over before that last turn.  I love how many options we have, and thats even with my 'handicap' of only playing Tempest Lords (or no host) because mine are painted as Tempest Lords and im proud of that.

The game is so full of extremes with missions and match ups statistics only work if you take the whole of them, trying to look at why we cant beat Slanesh or certain other builds is not what the stats (that we have) will tell us.

 

 

 

Edited by stato
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So 6 Desolators vs 6 Dracoline Evocators. Which is best now?

Whichever ones youve got painted 😁

Got to finish my Dracoline Pride* for tournaments these next 2 weekends, looking forward to seeing what they can do. I dont have any shooting support in my current list so not sure ill be able to get the most out of the list.

*6 Dracoline Evocators and a Lord Arcanum on Dracoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stato said:

Whichever ones youve got painted 😁

Got to finish my Dracoline Pride* for tournaments these next 2 weekends, looking forward to seeing what they can do. I dont have any shooting support in my current list so not sure ill be able to get the most out of the list.

*6 Dracoline Evocators and a Lord Arcanum on Dracoline

I have neither.

I do have 4 Ballista and enough Sequitors and liberators to fill out battleline. I also have 10 Evocators on foot and a Heraldor who I’m weighing up replacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty!  So got two games in tonight with 2 very different lists. Here we go!

Thundercats Ho!

LAoD

Ordinator

Incantor

3x5 Sequitors

6x Evocators on Dracolines

3x Ballistas

Geminds 

Everblaze

Staunch Goat

LAoT

Incantor

Ordinator

Lord-castellent

20x Sqeuitors

2x5 Sequitors

3x Ballistas

Comet

Geminids

Cogs (No idea why I chose this nothing ever charged it needed the spell).

 

My opponent played the same list twice. We first played relocation orb in Aqushy and then we played Knife in the Dark in chamon.

 

I wanted to try two vastly different lists and boy we're they the polar opposite of each other. Another note is that Ive seen people playing the Stardrake a lot in the Staunch Defender lists but I don't own it plus it was an excuse to run a cool model that had a built in save vs mortal wounds (I know I know the scales are better but I wanted gryph feather as well because I'm greedy and want all the defensive tech).   

I'm going to summarize quickly here. My opponent was playing Gutbusters and while learning the game he beat me up pretty bad. But these two games tonight we're insane for me. Both lists dropped bows on him in different ways and it was a fight. But I really want to just talk about some things I've learned.

- In a world of light mortal wounds Staunch Defender and the Castellent ask an insanely hard question of your opponent. 

- the Dracolines are a ton of fun and can just crush things. 

- Celestial Vindicators seemed like the Dracoline stormhost but I think I would want to investigate some other ones or go neutral. 

- Everblaze comet is insanely strong and does so much for 100pts. If you go second and drop it then it feels like a mini Kroaknado since you get to trigger it again the next battle round. 

-On that note, the Geminids may still be too cheap. They have such utility and in an army like Staunch Defender SCE it really gets oppressive. 

- Dracolines having the wizard tag provides so many good little sysnergies with the game itself. 

Over all was very pleased and can't wait to field them again. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, is the Hailstorm Battery worth the tax in points and Castigors to take do we think? Or would a second Baillista/something else be more worth it in your opinion. I am not sure whether the reduction in 2 drops is worth it either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Nubgan said:

Hey guys, is the Hailstorm Battery worth the tax in points and Castigors to take do we think? Or would a second Baillista/something else be more worth it in your opinion. I am not sure whether the reduction in 2 drops is worth it either?

My limited SCE experience says no as I think if your at the Ordinator stage you should just get at least 3 ballistas. Someone has the math here in these 240 pages that says "No Ordinator until the 3rd Ballista". Then you have a 200pt tax just for the hope of an additional +1 for one Ballista. 

If you care about math then no. If you love your castigators and want to make a single Ballista feel special then yes. 

Edited by luthhero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Coolwood said:

And obviously..... Badass.

How badass is it if you have a unit of immortal soldiers wiped out to MW through fight first 🤣

I guess my issue with being a new player is...price tag that comes with a wide unit range. Yes SCE are versatile, but I just heard that GW prices are going up again. I don't have the money to buy enough units to mix and match, especially when it feels like we need basically ALL of the Stormcast heroes. Maybe that means I should be playing casually anyway! Doesn't feel too great though. This is why I like the Meeting Engagements; 1k lists, easy to swap around, seems like they will be more tactical than relying on certain 'gimmicks' armies need 2000 points for.

2 hours ago, stato said:

Im loving building, painting and playing  my stormcast.

I'll keep this in mind, sometimes it can be easy to forget forums skew competitive. It's definitely nice to get advice on which units to look at/purchase first, though the hobby part is what I enjoy most (even when the dang stormcast torsos slip around!)

Edited by CommissarRotke
words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

How badass is it if you have a unit of immortal soldiers wiped out to MW through fight first 🤣

I guess my issue with being a new player is...price tag that comes with a wide unit range. Yes SCE are versatile, but I just heard that GW prices are going up again. I don't have the money to buy enough units to mix and match, especially when it feels like we need basically ALL of the Stormcast heroes. Maybe that means I should be playing casually anyway! Doesn't feel too great though. This is why I like the Meeting Engagements; 1k lists, easy to swap around, seems like they will be more tactical than relying on certain 'gimmicks' armies need 2000 points for.

I'll keep this in mind, sometimes it can be easy to forget forums skew competitive. It's definitely nice to get advice on which units to look at/purchase first, though the hobby part is what I enjoy most (even when the dang stormcast torsos slip around!)

From that leaked list, I don't see any SCE stuff.

  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

I guess my issue with being a new player is...price tag that comes with a wide unit range. Yes SCE are versatile, but I just heard that GW prices are going up again. I don't have the money to buy enough units to mix and match, especially when it feels like we need basically ALL of the Stormcast heroes. Maybe that means I should be playing casually anyway! Doesn't feel too great though. This is why I like the Meeting Engagements; 1k lists, easy to swap around, seems like they will be more tactical than relying on certain 'gimmicks' armies need 2000 points for.

I can understand that to some degree, have been starting SCE back in December 2016, everything seemed overwhelming, but right now it feels great sitting with over 12 000 points of SCE having every unit in the range, most being at 3 times min size at least, lacking just a few sculpts. Most of it was collected via huge boxes offering better deal that are mostly unavailable now.

Good luck collecting your army, some day you may become one of players who just pulls unit of the shelf when meta changes, rather than buing something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

I guess my issue with being a new player is...price tag that comes with a wide unit range. Yes SCE are versatile, but I just heard that GW prices are going up again. I don't have the money to buy enough units to mix and match, especially when it feels like we need basically ALL of the Stormcast heroes. Maybe that means I should be playing casually anyway! Doesn't feel too great though. This is why I like the Meeting Engagements; 1k lists, easy to swap around, seems like they will be more tactical than relying on certain 'gimmicks' armies need 2000 points for.

Its certainly tough to collect a 2000 point list, for any army, and SC with all their options can feel daunting.  But remember some armies dont have options at all so having a single SC list isnt a problem if thats all you can afford or want to invest.  Dont feel pressured by the options available, just think of them as a different army, still lots of flex in the Stormhosts or command abilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next list I want to test:

100 Azyros, Soulthief
140 Incantor, General
140 Incantor
140 Ordinator
100 Relictor

440 Ballista x3
300 Liberators, min, x3

150 Aetherwings, x3
510 Longstrikes x9

 60 Geminids
1970 points

Should be enough control to sufficiently slowdown melee based armies with birds, Geminids, and Liberators.  And enough ranged output to really take huge chunks out of the enemy army.

This is basically PJetski's list with Evocators swapped out for Ballistas.  Evocators are disgusting of course.  But the Ballistas are technically easier to get to your desired target.

What do you think?

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...