Balancing the Stormcast

[ledha]

keep the paladins at 200/220 and give them a 4th wound to take in account that they have a HUGE armor than make them move 4"

[AaronWilson]

Also - 

Rework Gavriel or at the very least stop him stacking his CA. Even then dropping half a army anywhere you want then needing 6s to charge is still obnoxiousz

Sequitors could probably be a little less Uber tank or very good on the offense (let’s not talk about empower)

Personally I think Ballistas are undercosted as well.

[JackStreicher]

I honestly don‘t mind not having access to named characters - they‘re just abused for their powerlevel and we banned all of them in our tournaments anyway (suddenly listbuilding has way more variation)??‍♂️

[GeneralZero]

I don't think that we can expect some warscroll modifications by GW. But we can still make them some points adjustments if they see them fit.

6 minutes ago, ledha said:

keep the paladins at 200/220 and give them a 4th wound to take in account that they have a HUGE armor than make them move 4"

paladins are still playable but their problem is that evocator are way better for the same price. Points adjusments needed here.

Paladors are simply unplayable because thay are way too much expensive for what they do. And there is NO alternative for this so specific unit. this is really UNFORTUNATE for the miniature, for the game and for the SCE

 

 

 

[GeneralZero]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

I honestly don‘t mind not having access to named characters - they‘re just abused for their powerlevel and we banned all of them in our tournaments anyway (suddenly listbuilding has way more variation)

I hope this is only for SCE because in other armies (like death or NH) it becomes a real problem!! (imagine death without neferata, arkhan, nagash or NH without reik, oly etc....)

[JackStreicher]

2 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

I hope this is only for SCE because in other armies (like death or NH) it becomes a real problem!! (imagine death without neferata, arkhan, nagash or NH without reik, oly etc....)

It’s balanced without even.

Actually that works pretty well. People are just to stuck in picking named characters 24/7

(death is in the top 3 at our local club)

[ledha]

4 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

I don't think that we can expect some warscroll modifications by GW. But we can still make them some points adjustments if they see them fit.

paladins are still playable but their problem is that evocator are way better for the same price. Points adjusments needed here.

Paladors are simply unplayable because thay are way too much expensive for what they do. And there is NO alternative for this so specific unit. this is really UNFORTUNATE for the miniature, for the game and for the SCE

 

 

 

yes, they are still playable, but evocators being more resilient and faster for the same cost depite having a tinier armor is nonsense. The 4th wound would give a little good bonus for the paladins, making them more sturdy to compensante the biggest offensive/utility of the evocators

[XReN]

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I honestly don‘t mind not having access to named characters - they‘re just abused for their powerlevel and we banned all of them in our tournaments anyway (suddenly listbuilding has way more variation)??‍♂️

I can hardly see any good reasoning for such radical solution. Tournaments are about competition and for those who enjoy challenges.
I suggest that you instead of banning something just run casual events for everybody to enjoy and have a relaxing day of throwing dice.

[Rekmeister]

Banning named characters? Seems a bit over the top.  If someone is getting roflstomped by a good list the answer isn't to blanket ban legal profiles.

Back on topic. I'm seeing some blind rage towards SCE, and I want to frame that argument with a little more polite discourse. I don't play Stormcast, but I have read lots of first-hand accounts that, even in their current state, they can be a bit too much. Visit the discussion threads for unsupported factions like Gutbusters or High Elves, see what they have to say about how balanced Stormcast are. I think the three strengths Stormcast are designed around are:

• Durability: 4+ save is commonplace, and all models have 2 wounds minimum. Lots of players would like access to this as their battleline and will always be bitter that the golden boys have it (even if this profile wouldn't actually be very good in a given army).
• Damage: Stormcasts tend to have decent attacks, and even basic units contain multiple models with heavy weapons that can deal 2 or more damage, sometimes even mortal wounds. Heroes tend to have guaranteed damage abilities like the flasks the Incantor can break, and the banner that the Relictor can shoot. Once again, most other factions have to roll a lot of dice to determine whether or not their mortal wounds even happen. The fact that the faction has any models who can dish them out with zero rolls is a huge boon.
• Deep Strike: Not all of them can do it, but you have multiple ways to zap troops in wherever you want. In second edition - where most battleplans are about getting to a specific spot on the map - the fact that Stormcast (who have the above strengths not typically associated with movement) can deep strike so liberally is insane. I personally don't mind it as I like the challenge, but having durable damage dealers teleport in as though they are skirmishers can be very overwhelming, especially against armies that don't have any battle traits.

I am not certain Stormcasts need a buff.  The strengths of the Stormcasts lead to them having very solid warscrolls, because a lot of their value is in how tough they are and how solid they are at fighting without any buffs. If I understand correctly, the suggested change in this thread is to make their battalions better (or at least less narrow and easier to include in an actual army), and perhaps to scale their points cost with other competitive factions. My argument against this is that, taking into account how powerful deep striking really is, better battalions means that you reduce your drops, which means you are even better positioned to deep strike because you have a higher possibility of deciding who goes first. It's sort of a snowball effect where your army of durable, consistent soldiers has a tempo advantage, a deployment advantage, and the possibility to deep strike.

I suppose that wraps it up, as an addendum I will point out that, even if the units aren't optimal, the sheer quantity and regularity of new releases for Stormcasts leads to a lot of people seeing nothing but support for the faction.

[GeneralZero]

WOW WOW WOW, this topic is NOT and shouldn't be a buff topic. It is more about a balance move across the units.  Some units are too strong for their points, others are useless. That's it. I think that SCE is actually OK as an army. It just can be better with some really tiny adjustments in points. 

[XReN]

22 minutes ago, Rekmeister said:

I suppose that wraps it up, as an addendum I will point out that, even if the units aren't optimal, the sheer quantity and regularity of new releases for Stormcasts leads to a lot of people seeing nothing but support for the faction.

Since the release of new Chamber there is no more talking about units that are not optimal in SCE, it's about the fact that many people like me who collected and painted models they liked, spending time and money now sitting with a bunch of useless models that will never see the sunshine. Like, what the hell am I supposed to do with 40 liberators, 30 paladins, 18 prosecutors 15 vanguard hunters etc etc....
Because there is literally no internal balance I basically have to collect a whole new army to stay somewhat competetive.
For an army with grand alliance worth of units and battalions we have very limited choices to actually play with.

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, XReN said:

Since the release of new Chamber there is no more talking about units that are not optimal in SCE, it's about the fact that many people like me who collected and painted models they liked, spending time and money now sitting with a bunch of useless models that will never see the sunshine. Like, what the hell am I supposed to do with 40 liberators, 30 paladins, 18 prosecutors 15 vanguard hunters etc etc....
Because there is literally no internal balance I basically have to collect a whole new army to stay somewhat competetive.
For an army with grand alliance worth of units and battalions we have very limited choices to actually play with.

True. Also it only affects competetive players.

[XReN]

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

True. Also it only affects competetive players.

So what? 
The fact that we have a lot of armies without books is true, while also only affecting people who choose to play those armies.

[Rekmeister]

@XReN Thanks for the response. I think I understand now. While I hope that the old SCE are made relevant again; I doubt GW will do anything. Sancrosancts are the new golden poster boys and girls; and they're powerful enough for lots of SCE players to pick them up regardless of whether or not they are being bent over a barrel from an optimisation standpoint.

[GeneralZero]

From the SCE V1, we still ahve several competitive choice: raptors, judis, fulmi, drake, celestant prime, heraldor, castelan etc... Not that bad.

I understant the business point of view of GW, pushing the new ones for sales, but it is a bit lack of respect for those players (like myself) who already invested in SCE.

[Black Blade]

9 hours ago, ledha said:

keep the paladins at 200/220 and give them a 4th wound to take in account that they have a HUGE armor than make them move 4"

I actually like this idea but I would take it a step further and give each version an additional attack on their weapon profile. This would roughly even their base damage output between Evocators and Retributors then if you include their additional wound on the Paladins you've got something that's a trade off for the Evocators casting/unbinding/dispelling utility. It doesnt have to be an additional wound either it could be their reliquary on their back provides a save vs mortals or a save after the save. Many options.

9 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

I honestly don‘t mind not having access to named characters - they‘re just abused for their powerlevel and we banned all of them in our tournaments anyway (suddenly listbuilding has way more variation)??‍♂️

I approve of this, I don't think it makes for good competitive play environments and not every tournament has to be this way but people should consider not every faction has access to them and they are often crutches for players who don't engage the game tactically but like you say, abusively.

7 hours ago, Rekmeister said:

Banning named characters? Seems a bit over the top.  If someone is getting roflstomped by a good list the answer isn't to blanket ban legal profiles.

Back on topic. I'm seeing some blind rage towards SCE, and I want to frame that argument with a little more polite discourse. I don't play Stormcast, but I have read lots of first-hand accounts that, even in their current state, they can be a bit too much. Visit the discussion threads for unsupported factions like Gutbusters or High Elves, see what they have to say about how balanced Stormcast are. I think the three strengths Stormcast are designed around are:

• Durability: 4+ save is commonplace, and all models have 2 wounds minimum. Lots of players would like access to this as their battleline and will always be bitter that the golden boys have it (even if this profile wouldn't actually be very good in a given army).
• Damage: Stormcasts tend to have decent attacks, and even basic units contain multiple models with heavy weapons that can deal 2 or more damage, sometimes even mortal wounds. Heroes tend to have guaranteed damage abilities like the flasks the Incantor can break, and the banner that the Relictor can shoot. Once again, most other factions have to roll a lot of dice to determine whether or not their mortal wounds even happen. The fact that the faction has any models who can dish them out with zero rolls is a huge boon.
• Deep Strike: Not all of them can do it, but you have multiple ways to zap troops in wherever you want. In second edition - where most battleplans are about getting to a specific spot on the map - the fact that Stormcast (who have the above strengths not typically associated with movement) can deep strike so liberally is insane. I personally don't mind it as I like the challenge, but having durable damage dealers teleport in as though they are skirmishers can be very overwhelming, especially against armies that don't have any battle traits.

I am not certain Stormcasts need a buff.  The strengths of the Stormcasts lead to them having very solid warscrolls, because a lot of their value is in how tough they are and how solid they are at fighting without any buffs. If I understand correctly, the suggested change in this thread is to make their battalions better (or at least less narrow and easier to include in an actual army), and perhaps to scale their points cost with other competitive factions. My argument against this is that, taking into account how powerful deep striking really is, better battalions means that you reduce your drops, which means you are even better positioned to deep strike because you have a higher possibility of deciding who goes first. It's sort of a snowball effect where your army of durable, consistent soldiers has a tempo advantage, a deployment advantage, and the possibility to deep strike.

I suppose that wraps it up, as an addendum I will point out that, even if the units aren't optimal, the sheer quantity and regularity of new releases for Stormcasts leads to a lot of people seeing nothing but support for the faction.

Thank you for trying to drive it away from hate and  back towards constructive criticism. My intent starting the topic wasn't about flat buffs even though it might have appeared that way. It dealt with a lot of buffs but only in the sense that there are auto-takes in many Stormcast lists which may not seem unusual for an army but when you consider large selection in the SC range I considered this a problem because I want to increase army diversity both across the game and within factions. My argument: Stormcast are not weak they have powerful units/combos but due to *mostly* mispointed units the ways in which they can compete with Legions/Nighthaunt/Deepkin/Daughters is by taking very specific units out of their vast range.

[Mark Williams]

As a Stormcast player, I completely understand where you are coming from. It’s been mentioned, but the problem isn’t that we can’t build good lists with the new book, but rather than there are so many units in the book that, when taken, result in bad lists. The new tome to me was a chance to revisit all the units, rebalance things, and give sce players lots of good choices. Instead they just made the new stuff good and nerfed the old stuff that was previously good. It felt underwhelming compared to what it could have been. I’m happy we got a new book, I just think it could have been so much more.

[GeneralZero]

1 hour ago, Mark Williams said:

The new tome to me was a chance to revisit all the units, rebalance things, and give sce players lots of good choices. Instead they just made the new stuff good and nerfed the old stuff that was previously good. It felt underwhelming compared to what it could have been. I’m happy we got a new book, I just think it could have been so much more.

that is exactly what happens when business dictate the game.

But I can't bear this point of view as a company director: improving the existing, making it upto date,  is always a winner in the long term. There is still some room to do it by slightly balance some points (I'm thinking about you, prosecutors). I hope that a faq could do, but I'm afraid that we'll have to wait the next GHB.

[JackStreicher]

All that‘s needed to balance this out is raising some of the points of the Sacrisanct Chamber (Sequitors, Evocators, Ballista) - Tve reasons are either obvious or have been discussed throroughly 

while lowering points of others (Prosecutors, Exorcist, Castigators).

 

the main issue is that the new units steal the role of the old units while being better in every way. Others are just incorrectly costed and therefor overall too good or too bad.

 

 

[Mark Williams]

6 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

All that‘s needed to balance this out is raising some of the points of the Sacrisanct Chamber (Sequitors, Evocators, Ballista) - Tve reasons are either obvious or have been discussed throroughly 

while lowering points of others (Prosecutors, Exorcist, Castigators).

 

the main issue is that the new units steal the role of the old units while being better in every way. Others are just incorrectly costed and therefor overall too good or too bad.

 

 

I would argue rather, that some of the new units are correctly costed, rather than being too good, while many of the old units are bad, and have been incorrectly costed for a while. The issue to me is that, honestly, the SCE battle tome has historically had a lot of red herrings and a very small handful of really good units. People playing against them get this weird opinion that the entire tome is good, but if you cut out all the bad stuff, the tome would be like a quarter of the size that it is.

[Black Blade]

2 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

I would argue rather, that some of the new units are correctly costed, rather than being too good, while many of the old units are bad, and have been incorrectly costed for a while. The issue to me is that, honestly, the SCE battle tome has historically had a lot of red herrings and a very small handful of really good units. People playing against them get this weird opinion that the entire tome is good, but if you cut out all the bad stuff, the tome would be like a quarter of the size that it is.

I think you're right on the money here, can you elaborate on who is rightly (or wrongly) costed in your view? Which units do you think people feel incorrectly about?

[Mark Williams]

2 hours ago, Black Blade said:

I think you're right on the money here, can you elaborate on who is rightly (or wrongly) costed in your view? Which units do you think people feel incorrectly about?

I don't know if I can give you a "great answer", but I can sort of "flail around a bit" and hope that talking about it for a while helps reveal some insight.

The meta of the (competitive) game, as I see it revolves around getting to an objective fairly quickly and then knocking an opponent off of that objective, or holding onto it and keeping yourself from getting knocked off of it. There's a corollary to this, which is essentially something like having either the offensive power to  knock your opponent off, or having the defensive power to keep your opponent from knocking you off.

Units in the book, thusly, fit into one of these two categories to me - either they serve as part of a team that helps to block out and defend an objective, or they serve as part of a team that helps to attack and knock an opponent off an objective.

SCE units, by and large, mostly fit into the defensive category, as they are very hard pressed for units that dish out much damage or can help in knocking opponents off an objective. This is also, in my opinion, the thing that hampers them from being a "tier 1" army. As their #1 issue is that they simply have an incredible problem forcing their opponent to roll dice (ie saving throws), which is generally what is required to move someone off an objective.

This has been the most difficult learning curve for me as an SCE player - I can create a defensive force that is difficult to break, but I can't dish out enough damage in a short amount of time to create a good offensive "line breaking force".

In addition to the above issue, my defensive units seem to crumble when slammed into by opposing line-breaker units. This is fine and balanced - in the sense that if your line couldn't be broken at all, you'd probably be considered overpowered.

This is why I say that SCE's problem to me directly stems from it's offensive capabilities and finding units that make opponents roll dice. Our Achilles heel is going up against some kind of horde-based army that can deal a bunch of damage in a short period of time - Nighthaunt, Death, Daughters of Khaine, etc... basically any army that has a very strong body ratio paired with good offensive capability is doing very well in the meta right now, and is difficult for SCE to deal with. I don't think that this is a problem that is unique to SCE... but I digress.

My main focus when looking at "balance" in the battletome is finding units that fit into one of those key roles, and trying to build small teams around them (ie. a unit doesn't have to be great by itself, but it needs to be able to combo in some way with other units so that it can do that job). I am looking primarily at doing this is in a competitive scenario, as  any unit can effectively defend or break a line if put up against a weak opponent.

The main units that stick out to me when I look at the tome, is units that don't seem to fit into any of the above categories - ie, they seem very bad at either holding or breaking a line, and thus do not have any practical battlefield role other than sacrificial dying or running away.

The main units that really stick out to me are most of the vanguard units, as their ability to "ride the wind" or shoot after running does not allow them to assault afterwards, meaning their primary move does absolutely nothing to help them either hold an objective or break a line. And another unit that sticks out to me is the angelos units (prosecutors), as they don't seem particular good at anything other than just harassment or capitalizing on mistakes that your opponent makes (ie abandoning an objective or not protecting it).

A lot of what has been said in this thread goes when talking about paladins and dracoths, and evocators and dracolines.

paladins are by and large completely worse than evocators. dracolines by and large are completely worse than fulminator dracoths. This creates a strange situation where choice and variety are a bit of an illusion, and large sections of the battletome could be removed with no effect on the strength or tactical flexibility of the army.

I think there's an issue here where a lot of units are essentially doubling up on roles, having a similar points cost and a similar battlefield role. This ends up creating a situation where one unit just completely beats the other and renders the other obsolete. I'm not sure what to do about this, but the fact that it exists makes the battletome look a lot bigger than it really is.

I think castigators and bow judicators are in the same sort of situation, where you have a similar points cost unit doing almost the exact same thing, and at the end of the day you can just sort of compare the two units directly and pick out one to leave behind. (In this case, the bow judicators seem like they have a clear advantage due to the fact that they are battle-line, have a longer range, and can use a special weapon.

Liberators and Sequitors are another good comparison.

I think that's sort of the crux of my view point, is that you have this massive tome that sort of gives the illusion of variety, but there's a lot of units it in that are sort of redundant or just kind of bad at their job compared to other units in the same book. And some other units just kind of seem like they aren't particularly good at anything at all. It just seems like a problem to me, and I think that's what threads like these are trying to address.

[Superninja]

my 2 cents, the Celestar Ballistas are definitely OP for the cost. 

36" range for the comet seems crazy.  6" out of unbind?

[Black Blade]

@Mark Williams Firstly let me say thank you. Your response above encapsulates the issues and viewpoints I share that caused me to begin this thread in the first place. Its about having this huge selection of units that is not really a large selection but a collection of non-viable choices, viable choices and optimal choices. I'd like to see variety on the tabletop as much as possible, one of the reasons I support special character restrictions is that it usually causes people to get creative and think outside the box while not being handicapped because they won't come up against someone with a special character either; I believe many are made with narrative games in mind and competitive play becomes very binary in many cases.

To address your point of making the opponent role dice i'd like to cite an anecdote here. Everyone points to Evocators being unbalanced for their points and I agree, but they wont stand up to much despite their wound profile so I don't support nerfing them or jacking up their cost excessively but in my most recent game they won me the match in the second round of turn one so much so my opponent had forfeit immediately. As a matter of fact they have won me my last three games almost single-handedly. In this most recent game though I had a unit of 10 Evocators with 5 man front. On their right was a building and closing off their left was my general who was also hugging terrain effectively forcing the enemy charging blood-letters to engage with limited numbers in a choke-point. He struck first killing 3 Evocators with his buffed bloodletters. My Evo's were buffed with blessed weapons and the Warding Lantern. Hitting back I killed 28 of them before even rolling their mortal wound ability. SO. The point being we have things that make people roll dice and move things off objectives its just they are called Evocators and charging Fulminators and thats about it.

Im a bit taken aback that I have been accused here by others of claiming Stormcast need buffed across the board, plenty in the book is decent and worth its cost I just want costs adjusted where it doesnt have to so clearly be one option above all others. The Vanguard releases were a big issue as you said, having those things either run and charge or run and shoot standard doesn't seem that ridiculous to me when you consider how some other armies are able to do that.

 

Edit: even if they go up in points I think Liberators should have the same weapon profiles as Sequitors, it doesnt make sense the warrior chamber isnt all that good at being warriors. I actually think many of the first run armies and units need re-evaluated from a statline and ability perspective. The game has changed so much and those units were made for a different game in a way.

[schwabbele]

The latest NOVA results show how t1 we are , crazy overpowered ?