Community sourced Tomb Kings point updates for AoS 2.

[TristanGray]

Hey gang,

I’ve been working on an updated set of points for Tomb Kings and I’m looking for some feed back.

There was a back and forth on the AoS Facebook group that was the impetus for it - The Facebook team said if you submit a points update to the Rules Team, we might use them.

I know this is probably a fool’s errand, but it’s at least a fun discussion. I’ve enjoyed trying to understand points adjustments and what a unit should be worth. 

I’ve really enjoyed playing Tomb Kings in AoS and would love it if the options available could be more balanced with one another. I’ve tried not to do unessesary “wish listing style” points drops and have included increases where I saw fit. 

What do you think? Anything a bit much? Do the explinations make sense? What would you change?

Thanks for taking a look!

Ps. Please try to resist the urge to post “lol Tomb Kings, why bother” or “let it go”.  That’s not helping anything! 

[grungolah]

Makes sense to me, though if you upgrade the Exalted Tomb King's warscroll, he might be worth his points.  Also, I recommend keeping the skeleton horsemen and skeleton archer horsemen the same.  They bring back 2-6 wounds a turn, which is nothing to sneeze at.

[Jaxler]

3 hours ago, grungolah said:

Makes sense to me, though if you upgrade the Exalted Tomb King's warscroll, he might be worth his points.  Also, I recommend keeping the skeleton horsemen and skeleton archer horsemen the same.  They bring back 2-6 wounds a turn, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Those wounds are on a 6+ save model though. Honestly, I think horse archers being a 120 would be a good change. I honestly would argue they should be 100 points so they can compete with foot archers. 

I think that the liche priest really aught be 120 or even 110. He is less survivable than a necromancer, whilst having a worse spell and no access to the cheese in LON. The liche priest also is forced to use the recently nerfed arcane bolt and mystic shield of you bring more than one. As such, I believe they really need a points drop. At 140 he’s trash compared to a vampire lord. 

 

I would make the necrotect 80-60 points. They feel like they do far too little for 100 points.

 

I also hear that great bow ushabti would benefit from a point change, and that the tomb scorpions aren’t perfect. I’ve not had the pleasure of using those models though. 

[jjb070707]

Why are the current points inadequate? They give you an appropriate feel of the general effectiveness of the unit, and will be more than sufficient for trying to balance narrative or open play (where tomb kings are legal). 

Does tweaking up and down 20 points on a handful of units really change that? In my opinion not really. Since as of now they are not going to be a supported match play army, fine tuning their points values feels a lot like bailing a sinking ship. 

If in a future expansion or edition the TK are brought back, than maybe there is a place for specific point values, but I for one would never have a problem playing a narrative game with you in which you had a few more points than me if it is shown tomb kings are really weak. I would however, be quite annoyed that you came up with your own points values, and tried to play them in matched play.

I do understand what you are trying to do I guess, but I guess I don't see a glaring problem in what currently exists, it seems to serve its purpose quite well. We don't really want TK taking over death in the Age of Sigmar....

Good Luck,

Joe

[Jaxler]

19 minutes ago, jjb070707 said:

Why are the current points inadequate? They give you an appropriate feel of the general effectiveness of the unit, and will be more than sufficient for trying to balance narrative or open play (where tomb kings are legal). 

Does tweaking up and down 20 points on a handful of units really change that? In my opinion not really. Since as of now they are not going to be a supported match play army, fine tuning their points values feels a lot like bailing a sinking ship. 

If in a future expansion or edition the TK are brought back, than maybe there is a place for specific point values, but I for one would never have a problem playing a narrative game with you in which you had a few more points than me if it is shown tomb kings are really weak. I would however, be quite annoyed that you came up with your own points values, and tried to play them in matched play.

I do understand what you are trying to do I guess, but I guess I don't see a glaring problem in what currently exists, it seems to serve its purpose quite well. We don't really want TK taking over death in the Age of Sigmar....

Good Luck,

Joe

Tweaking 20 points does make a huge difference for smaller units, and for things like the king on exalted chariot and the necrosphinx, those changes make them actually playable. 

 

I dont want tomb kings in tournaments, I would just like a sorta official updated points so I don’t feel handicapped when I pull out my old models.

 

Also, going up to someone with your Oop models and saying  “hey can I bring 100-200 extra points?” Does come off as rude, WAAC and for less experienced players it’s hard to tell what level of handicap is acceptable. How should I know if my army comp of all horse archers is bad, or the points are the problem? What if it’s both? At what point am I using a handicap for my competency or my army’s bad point costs? A universally agreed upon list of updated point values makes it so tomb king players aren’t screwed from the get go, and don’t have to take the art of balence on their own shoulders. 

 

I guess I just do not see the problem with trying to get the team to updating the points values in a way that doesn’t make TKs legal for tournies. If anything, it seems like the optimal solution. 

[jjb070707]

5 minutes ago, Jaxler said:

Tweaking 20 points does make a huge difference for smaller units, and for things like the king on exalted chariot and the necrosphinx, those changes make them actually playable. 

 

I dont want tomb kings in tournaments, I would just like a sorta official updated points so I don’t feel handicapped when I pull out my old models.

 

Also, going up to someone with your Oop models and saying  “hey can I bring 100-200 extra points?” Does come off as rude, WAAC and for less experienced players it’s hard to tell what level of handicap is acceptable. How should I know if my army comp of all horse archers is bad, or the points are the problem? What if it’s both? At what point am I using a handicap for my competency or my army’s bad point costs? A universally agreed upon list of updated point values makes it so tomb king players aren’t screwed from the get go, and don’t have to take the art of balence on their own shoulders. 

 

I guess I just do not see the problem with trying to get the team to updating the points values in a way that doesn’t make TKs legal for tournies. If anything, it seems like the optimal solution. 

The problem is that no matter what tomb kings do not belong in matched play. So all these points changes would do is give you a slightly different number at the end of tallying up what you want to bring in a narrative game. The outlook, planning, and attitude of narrative players is generally a lot more tolerant of you playing a "bad" army, and will compensate as such to improve the game. 

You aren't handicapped playing tomb kings in the slightest. You are choosing to use an army that is not for a specific type of game. If you then decide to go ahead and attempt to use them in a matched play game anyway, you should very much feel weaker than your opponent. That army never has, and never will be designed for Age of Sigmar, but instead of going the Bretonnia route or the squats from 40k and just saying, sorry no more using this army, they attempted to give you rough points to make it easier to arrange narrative games with the tomb kings. 

So if I were to take an average, non spammed, narrative tomb kings army, and play against another army in a storied battle we designed, your points changes would do very little to help either side balance the scenario or objectives or anything. A small army would be approximately the same number of units as before, as you haven't done anything crazy like halving costs or whatnot. Medium armies would still be about the same size as well, and if you are running into problems feeling "handicapped" you would just adjust the game to account for that, its what narrative gaming is ALL ABOUT.

 

[Jaxler]

1 hour ago, jjb070707 said:

The problem is that no matter what tomb kings do not belong in matched play. So all these points changes would do is give you a slightly different number at the end of tallying up what you want to bring in a narrative game. The outlook, planning, and attitude of narrative players is generally a lot more tolerant of you playing a "bad" army, and will compensate as such to improve the game. 

You aren't handicapped playing tomb kings in the slightest. You are choosing to use an army that is not for a specific type of game. If you then decide to go ahead and attempt to use them in a matched play game anyway, you should very much feel weaker than your opponent. That army never has, and never will be designed for Age of Sigmar, but instead of going the Bretonnia route or the squats from 40k and just saying, sorry no more using this army, they attempted to give you rough points to make it easier to arrange narrative games with the tomb kings. 

So if I were to take an average, non spammed, narrative tomb kings army, and play against another army in a storied battle we designed, your points changes would do very little to help either side balance the scenario or objectives or anything. A small army would be approximately the same number of units as before, as you haven't done anything crazy like halving costs or whatnot. Medium armies would still be about the same size as well, and if you are running into problems feeling "handicapped" you would just adjust the game to account for that, its what narrative gaming is ALL ABOUT.

 

There is no reason for them to be barred from matched play, assuming they still can’t be used in tournaments. There is a difference between tournament play and casual matched play. You’ve not given a real compelling reason why I shouldn’t desire my tomb kings to be played casually in matched play. The “they’re not designed for it” argument doesn’t really hold up when there is no evidence for this. If anything, the fact that the army used to be excilent in matched play is evidence against that. GW has clearly tried to move them out of working well with the rest of death, via key word changes, but that is keeping in lone with the changes done to make most armies function better as an individual army than as a GA. 

[TristanGray]

10 hours ago, grungolah said:

Makes sense to me, though if you upgrade the Exalted Tomb King's warscroll, he might be worth his points.  Also, I recommend keeping the skeleton horsemen and skeleton archer horsemen the same.  They bring back 2-6 wounds a turn, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Hey thanks for the direct feedback! 

I’ve found from playing with the ETK, and comparing him to similar scrolls he’s just a bit too costly. With only 8 wounds he's doesn’t last long on the table. The points hike from GHB17 was a little too big of a jump, in my opinion. 

The horse archers are almost perfect, but the things they bring to the table(mobility, light shooting) are covered by the sepulchral stalkers for the same amount of points. The stalkers also have a better save, more reliable shooting and are better in combat. I also feel like the stalkers are pointed properly. 

With a 6+ save, they do evaporate when hit by a stiff breeze so I think 140 might be a dash high. At 120 I think it slots into a good space for the army, and isn’t undercosted. Makes them a nice flexible choice.  

[TristanGray]

7 hours ago, Jaxler said:

Those wounds are on a 6+ save model though. Honestly, I think horse archers being a 120 would be a good change. I honestly would argue they should be 100 points so they can compete with foot archers. 

I think that the liche priest really aught be 120 or even 110. He is less survivable than a necromancer, whilst having a worse spell and no access to the cheese in LON. The liche priest also is forced to use the recently nerfed arcane bolt and mystic shield of you bring more than one. As such, I believe they really need a points drop. At 140 he’s trash compared to a vampire lord. 

 

I would make the necrotect 80-60 points. They feel like they do far too little for 100 points.

 

I also hear that great bow ushabti would benefit from a point change, and that the tomb scorpions aren’t perfect. I’ve not had the pleasure of using those models though. 

Hey these are some good points! 

I think the liche priest’s spell is solid. Exploding 6’s on anything is pretty nice and on Legionnaires with the usual bonuses to hit it’s even better! While you have to centre your army around it to truly maximize the effectiveness of Righteous Smiting I think it’s a very valuable spell. 

Main reasoning for the hike is the Auto-Dispell Scroll. I think with that being such a game changing ability in this edition the LP probably needs to have its scroll adjusted up. 

But your point on the Vampire Lord is quite good... I’ll have to think about that for sure. 

[TristanGray]

7 hours ago, Jaxler said:

I would make the necrotect 80-60 points. They feel like they do far too little for 100 points.

I hadn’t thought about the necrotect! I’ll have to look at other 80 point models. 

I’ve used one in almost every game that I’ve played. The jump in points for the Screaming Skull Catapult really did a number on the poor guys usefulness. Now almost all the units that he synergizes with are either kinda bad - Bone Giants - or are overcosted (SSC).

I do think the Necrotect needs a small scroll rewrite. His ability used to be for Reainimate units and now it’s only for Desert Legions! If that happens a Necrotect with decent sized unit of Ushabti is a hard nut to crack. Against damage 1 they’re on a 3+ rerolling 1s! I think a big unit of Blade Ushabti is really good.

Bow Ushabti suffer from the dreaded 4+ to hit. So very swingy. When they do hit, a unit of six can completely destroy, but that’s a pretty big if. I think at 120 the blade Ushabti are a steal and the Bow ones are probably a bit too high. So 120 is about perfect for me  

 

[Jaxler]

7 hours ago, TristanGray said:

Hey these are some good points! 

I think the liche priest’s spell is solid. Exploding 6’s on anything is pretty nice and on Legionnaires with the usual bonuses to hit it’s even better! While you have to centre your army around it to truly maximize the effectiveness of Righteous Smiting I think it’s a very valuable spell. 

Main reasoning for the hike is the Auto-Dispell Scroll. I think with that being such a game changing ability in this edition the LP probably needs to have its scroll adjusted up. 

But your point on the Vampire Lord is quite good... I’ll have to think about that for sure. 

The problem with the priest is that 1 priest is reasonably priced, once you get two your over paying, and if you bring three your stupid. You can only cast his spell once, and it is a worse version of Danse Macabre in a lot of cases. He also lacks a 4+ Unrendable when close to chaff. 

 

His auto unbind is powerful, but keep in mind that with spell portal fixed and with mystic shield nerfed, his utility might have just become less ground breaking.  

[swarmofseals]

I think in order to really do this project justice you need to do a lot of the underlying math and use that as a baseline. While repointing might be interesting, at this point I think TK need a complete overhaul to really work well in the new system. I think this would be a project worth pursuing, although it's very unlikely that it'd get any kind of official sanction.