Examining The Stormcast in Light of New and Pending Releases

[Black Blade]

6 hours ago, ledha said:

Liberators are a bad unit, and they would be average even at 80.

Nerfing evocators and sequitors won't make the liberators, paladins or prosecutors more viable. They will be as mediocre as before. They are NOT a viable choice in tournament (if you want to be in the first half of the classment). Even the Skyborne Slayers, the only vanilla battalion that received countless buffs with the new BT (even the nerf of the lord celestant made him better in the skyborne), is average at best because the units inside it are simply subpar and loose against new battletome simply because new things (including simple goblins) hit too hard and resist well. What the hell are you supposed to do when 15 liberators are the same price or more expensive as 30 bestigors or 6 enlightened ? (who will roflstomp them)

The problem with stormcast tournament lists are Gavriel, not the sequitors (who get shat on by the first decent shooting units they come across, because they don't reroll all saves in shooting saves) or evocators (which the problem is making mortal wounds after they attacks, and not at the end of the combat phase like units such as the Kurnoth Hunters).

The ballista can make incredible damages, but the average output for them, while better than  most of the stormcast shooting units (except vanguard hurricane) is fine. Plus having lot of ballista give problems to the stormcast players than appear on practice but not on paper : the fact that 25% of your army is put inside 5 models who need to stay together and don't move a lot, making the list much weaker in keeping objectives.

Keep the sequitors as they are (but make them 460 the 20, not 400, this point reduction is stupid), put Gavriel at 160, the balistas at 110, change the way the evocator mortal wounds work, and you will make the units much more balanced with a few tweaks and without penalizing players fielding them outside of a gavbomb (which is the main problem)

I don't think I have a single gripe about any of this. Excellent changes, and yes Gav is the problem!

 

Appreciate you Vakarian... this was my one of my big points. You also explained it better I think

1 hour ago, Vakarian said:

The problem with "mathhammer" is that it only gives you a comparison point. It can't say a unit is "perfect." What's the standard? 

If Liberators are your standard, then Sequitors are OP. If Sequitors/Wyches/Grimghast/etc. are your standard, then Liberators are subpar. 

GW gets to choose and set that standard. I'm willing to give them some trust after the most recent changes to AoS (I wouldn't have touched first edition with a ten foot pole). 

Nerfing Sequitors, Evocators, and Ballistae in a vacuum only hurts Stormcast, it doesn't help the game. If GW decides to do a general nerf of all the more capable units, then all is well and good. That doesn't seem likely, though - AoS is built on a more dynamic and deadly baseline that WHFB was. Your stuff will die. So will your opponent's. That's fine - so long as the new baseline reflects it. 

If the new baseline really is meant to be more deadly, then Liberators need a fix, not Sequitors.

[Nos]

27 minutes ago, Black Blade said:

You are missing my point. You have latched onto me claiming not enough of our units are OP. I'm talking about GW power-creeping the game in general and I don't really care if they power creep old Stormcast units. Skaven, GG, and FEC are going to have ways of matching a lot of the most powerful units in the game or coming close to it. I'm making the point that what is considered baseline power level is going up and thats good for the game as a whole. 

I don't know why every time I make a SC post talking about underperforming units people love to come in and say Liberators should suck "cause starter army" and that the game is not at a static power level. Liberators and a lot of those 90% units you are talking about were made in a time when GW wasn't making a competitive game. Things are changing, powers are rising across all the armies they have been updating, the game is getting more dynamic and yes the old units made for a non competitive game need to be power-crept.

Liberators don’t suck though. Most Stormcast units at present are situational. That dosent make them underpowered it just means they require thought to use well which personally I find to be part of the fun.

Sequitors are a go to pick because they’re over-powered. If Sequitors wern’y an option  it SC had literally everything else st the same points the army  would still do well. They have all the tools for it. They just require synergy. Thematically and game wise they’re an army of specialists who excel at individual tasks but their expense means you need to orchestrate all those aspects properly to really make the most of them. Ideal beginners easy to learn difficult to master stuff. 

Sequiturs are antithetical to this because they do everything and cost not very much for it. They’re such an obvious anomaly to pretty much every other unit in the game which is very Rock Paper Scissors. Sequitors are all three and can be made so before they even have to fight whoever it is they’re up against. 

 

[Black Blade]

1 hour ago, prochuvi said:

This post seems lack any logic and math and it is only stormcast fanboys ignoring facts.

 

Mathhammer show how ballista evocators and sequitors are undercosted and liberators are the perfect balanced unit.

 

But here people prefer ignore it and compare it to others more undercosted units as dok or lon.

 

The fact is that if gw want balance the game must nerf those 3 stormcast units as wycthes and lon sumon and liberators are 100% fine

Not all of these come out like you say. For reference see @Lemon Knuckles excellent thread/post on his points project...

Also don't forget the main thrust of my initial post to start the thread, these units were under-costed at release but with each update the median power level is rising and if they still are OP it's not as much of a gulf between them and other units as there once was/will be.

[Vakarian]

@Black Blade thanks! This is a good topic to explore. 

I think there's a happy medium where Sequitors and Liberators are both appealing for different reasons. I don't think that medium is the current status of the faction, but I don't think it would take much to get to it, especially after @Nos's thoughts on the Liberators. 

I don't think Sequitors are OP, as they seem to represent the AoS 2.0 standard. I think Liberators could use a more defining trait for their role as the anvil of Stormcast lists, where Sequitors are true jack-of-all-trades. 

A points drop to 80 for 5 Liberators feels lazy to me. Something to help focus their role as a solid, immovable core would be better, but I don't think I know the game well enough yet to offer suggestions as to what that should be. 

As a new player, Stormcast seem to be in a decent but not overwhelming place. I win about 50% of my games in my group (4 of us who started together recently, one plays Nighthaunt, another Beasts or Gitz, all monstrous creatures all the time, and the last Darkling Covens). Evocators and Sequitors are scary but my opponents have tools to deal with them, especially if I overextend them. 

Edited to add: all 4 of us are longtime gamers and old WHFB players. We're learning that AoS is different (in a very fun and good way) but we're not new to the hobby. 

[Black Blade]

10 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

@Black Blade thanks! This is a good topic to explore. 

I think there's a happy medium where Sequitors and Liberators are both appealing for different reasons. I don't think that medium is the current status of the faction, but I don't think it would take much to get to it, especially after @Nos's thoughts on the Liberators. 

I don't think Sequitors are OP, as they seem to represent the AoS 2.0 standard. I think Liberators could use a more defining trait for their role as the anvil of Stormcast lists, where Sequitors are true jack-of-all-trades. 

A points drop to 80 for 5 Liberators feels lazy to me. Something to help focus their role as a solid, immovable core would be better, but I don't think I know the game well enough yet to offer suggestions as to what that should be. 

As a new player, Stormcast seem to be in a decent but not overwhelming place. I win about 50% of my games in my group (4 of us who started together recently, one plays Nighthaunt, another Beasts or Gitz, all monstrous creatures all the time, and the last Darkling Covens). Evocators and Sequitors are scary but my opponents have tools to deal with them, especially if I overextend them. 

Yes very good points. A common refrain from me is that most of the very first Stormcast units are underpowered or ill-designed because they were not designed for a game with power ratings (points). Most of our units that are still good from the first release are probably just happy accidents or have been buffed by the new books (see the Relictor and Castellant). Decent but not overwhelming is how I would describe them that is a good way to say it. However at my local being decent against my opponents usually means clever tactical play (which is good) with a small selection of units that can compete out of our giant roster (not good).

I think Liberators could be just fine with a copy paste of the Sequitors weapon profiles and a more useful ability (many people don't even realize Liberators have a small buff against units with 5 or more wounds). So Hammers become 2/3+/3+ and Blades 3/3+/4+. Sequitors still beat them with a better ability and more great weapons while being more expensive and more conditional.

Also want to react to your posts but I'm at my limit for the day!

[Jetengine]

4 hours ago, Nos said:

Usual issue with AOS, people limiting themselves to only ever playing what’s “best” competitively  in a game in which is in no way balanced for competitive play.

Its a self fulfilling prophecy.  Because of the inherent imbalance which will take literally years to fix even if they do fix it, there’s always going to be a handful of units flat out better than the rest. Because certain people are more bothered about winning then they become the “only” viable option because people want to play maths rather than Warhammer.  They complain about the game being one dimensional and same unit spam while being one  dimensional and spamming units. 

Meanwhile you have people who have the skill at the actual game to place high with with KO at the biggest AOS tournament in the world by thinking about how the game works and how to win using tactical nous rather than following  Netlists.

In the other corner People who say x unit can only ever do x beside that’s what the meta says. People who don’t experiment or try stuff for themselves. People who complain about viability of this or that in spite of not even owning it, but they’ve seen it written down that it dosent work or something is always better so that’s an end to it. People who can’t understand that Sequitors being quite overpowered doesn’t make Liberators or Hunters utterly worthless. People who have by far the biggest roster in the game complaining that 18 units aren’t viable when most factions have about 7 units of which 2 are etc. Notably I’ve never once heard this from anyone who has won a tournament of any repute either. It tends to be amateur powergamers.

Honestly don’t even know why they play. Just write lists between you, break out a calculator and crunch the numbers. Would be far cheaper and quicker.

To put it bluntly GW have no reason to create balance because the Tournament scene pays silly money for bragging rights.  I mean GW themselves admitted that they didnt intend this (WFB or AOS) to be a competetive game because their not hugely interested in that.  They added matched play back simply because people were rioting without it and it was killing the game.

[Nos]

2 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

To put it bluntly GW have no reason to create balance because the Tournament scene pays silly money for bragging rights.  I mean GW themselves admitted that they didnt intend this (WFB or AOS) to be a competetive game because their not hugely interested in that.  They added matched play back simply because people were rioting without it and it was killing the game.

Oh yeah I completley agree. The breadth and depth of the game, the toolset it gives for tabletop battles if you will, you lose about three fifths of that when you go towards the must win mentality to playing.

[schwabbele]

3 hours ago, chord said:

 

Wow, this thread went downhill fast

 

Hahaha so true , but what I like about that is that it actually shows how passionate we all are aboute the game/Sce . Sure we are not agreeing on everything but I think thats awesome , else it would be some general boring soup

[hughwyeth]

5 hours ago, Jetengine said:

To put it bluntly GW have no reason to create balance because the Tournament scene pays silly money for bragging rights.  I mean GW themselves admitted that they didnt intend this (WFB or AOS) to be a competetive game because their not hugely interested in that.  They added matched play back simply because people were rioting without it and it was killing the game.

It's always worth remembering this. Though I'd say AoS right now is the most balanced version of warhammer (40k, fantasy or otherwise) there has ever been, it's still never going to be near perfectly balanced. We all want new interesting units, which will naturally be more powerful in some way- sometimes because they cost too little or because they do something nothing else does and they challenge the meta.

[Wraith01]

I have 2k points of Warrior Chamber, Vanguard Chamber and Sacrosanct Chamber each. I don't usually win but I always have fun playing  games with all of them. I guess all these problems you guys mention are from tournament players. I usually play for fun, but we use the matched play point to have fair forces. 

[Gorthor21]

This forum is starting to really remind me of Warseer with some of the arguments I read on here.  When it first started it was like every one was supportive of each other but I don’t get that much any more.

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, Wraith01 said:

I have 2k points of Warrior Chamber, Vanguard Chamber and Sacrosanct Chamber each. I don't usually win but I always have fun playing  games with all of them. I guess all these problems you guys mention are from tournament players. I usually play for fun, but we use the matched play point to have fair forces. 

Tournaments, specifically a large collection of tournaments and various data points tend to be a good place to look at for overall game balance. High end tournaments are where the game is stressed and pushed to its limits. And if one particular army is running away with 70% plus of total wins, or if another can't break into the double digits consistently, there are probably problems.

[Vakarian]

9 hours ago, Gorthor21 said:

This forum is starting to really remind me of Warseer with some of the arguments I read on here.  When it first started it was like every one was supportive of each other but I don’t get that much any more.

 

As someone who comments on multiple gaming forums, this is far and away the most supportive and polite example. There have been some disagreements between myself and other posters, for example, and we had some good conversation. My opinion on Liberators has been tempered a bit thanks to this thread! 

 

8 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

Tournaments, specifically a large collection of tournaments and various data points tend to be a good place to look at for overall game balance. High end tournaments are where the game is stressed and pushed to its limits. And if one particular army is running away with 70% plus of total wins, or if another can't break into the double digits consistently, there are probably problems.

Given that Stormcast seem to be sitting at around a 50% winrate at the events you mention from what other posters who know the tournament scene are saying,  this supports the idea that current Stormcast units are not OP and seem to be within the general AoS 2.0 power curve. 

[Black Blade]

14 hours ago, Gorthor21 said:

This forum is starting to really remind me of Warseer with some of the arguments I read on here.  When it first started it was like every one was supportive of each other but I don’t get that much any more.

I don't know about your other experiences but this happens to me anytime I make a post suggesting "buffing" an underperforming Stormcast unit. Some people really don't like them.

 

15 hours ago, Wraith01 said:

I have 2k points of Warrior Chamber, Vanguard Chamber and Sacrosanct Chamber each. I don't usually win but I always have fun playing  games with all of them. I guess all these problems you guys mention are from tournament players. I usually play for fun, but we use the matched play point to have fair forces. 

I never play in a tournament but we have friendly leagues at my local. We all like playing for fun, but fun to us is being somewhat competitive. It doesn't come close to the tournament scene but some of us far outstripe the abilites of others because of faction rules. Plus I think things that can swing the gane by being powerful are fun and im glad they are making those changes. 

[Gorthor21]

It’s more the cyclical arguments that you get elsewhere on the internet have seemed to find their way here.  Perhaps I just have been reading more than I used to but bouts like this argument about sequitors or the other thread about the unbeatable 1250 stormcast army remind me of hundreds of different arguments I have read about Warhammer over the last ten years.  It always either boils down to someone doing the math and saying this is statistically better than that or opinion based arguments based on one individuals experience.  

The way I see it is sequitors we’re designed to be better than liberators to both sell the boxes and peoples’ support of the new chamber.  This is nothing new and happened with the vanguard and extremis chambers.  I’m of the school that this is a game of chance that involves both skill and timing.  No two games of Warhammer should go the same as even taking a slightly different sized unit or a different hero type can radically change the outcome.  I just don’t trust statistics as my professor in college put it that 100% of statistics are made up.  It should have a part in the army selection sure, but it shouldn’t be what everything is based around.  Given I have rolled 60 dice for a horde of Mors stormvermin thinking the strength 5 should kill these dwarfs but they utterly failed due to me rolling over 30 1’s and 2’s then subsequently failed over twenty Wound rolls just goes to show that bad luck can be the most crippling part of a game.  

[Aezeal]

On 2/7/2019 at 11:16 AM, ledha said:

Well, we can compare liberators with bloodwarriors (same price, nearly as resilient, attack WAY harder and acess to many more synergies) or the ardboys (160 pts vs 200 pts, better bravery, much better offensive output because 32 mm base, nearly as resilient) or chaos warriors (worse offensive output, but cheaper and the invulnerable save making them a better roadblock), who are in the same category. And no one will argue those units are among the best.

Your skellie example is not really good because skellies are taken in big units and are one of the most well known example of undercosted madness. Liberators are not, either in units 5,10,15,20,25 or 30. Nerfing sequitors won't make the mediocre liberators better.  People took them for 2 purpose before : having cheap battleline, or a big unit of 30 because LOLVANGUARDWING. That's all.

Mediocre would in this context mean average right? Everything mediocre means balance.... His point that you keep ignoring is that 90% of units is that that same powerlevel already, . You can keep bringing up 10% of this or that army that is stronger and all he (and I) will say is that those units need to be increased in points. Sure.. even if those 10% are nerfed to balanced points then liberators might still be a tad weaker than other things but overall balance WILL be better. 

[Black Blade]

This thread has veered wildly off course. I started this thread to express excitement about the direction GW was taking the game by injecting more mechanics and creeping the power level which will make the game more dynamic and I did it to share with other Stormcast players primarily. Like always it has devolved because some people always feel the need to tell you you are wrong about Stormcast being any degree of underpowered despite that not being the actual point of the post. 

It has become depressing.

[Joseph Mackay]

just a note on the Ballista that no one takes into consideration. it needs a points increase because its way undercosted compared to other war machines
- +2 save in cover
- counts as one model meaning you cant weaken its output by killing the weaker crew models (no other war machine has this rule and that alone is the reason its undercosted)
-24 potential damage

[Gorthor21]

5 hours ago, Black Blade said:

This thread has veered wildly off course. I started this thread to express excitement about the direction GW was taking the game by injecting more mechanics and creeping the power level which will make the game more dynamic and I did it to share with other Stormcast players primarily. Like always it has devolved because some people always feel the need to tell you you are wrong about Stormcast being any degree of underpowered despite that not being the actual point of the post. 

It has become depressing.

I apologize for commenting about something other than your original post.  I am sure with either the upcoming grand alliance books or a new stormcast Battletome that is sure to come out with the new expansion they teased surely there will be a few adjustments.  If it wasn’t for discussions like are had in this thread they wouldn’t know what the community thinks and wouldn’t know what point values to increase or what warscrolls to alter.

[Lucur]

10 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Mediocre would in this context mean average right? Everything mediocre means balance.... His point that you keep ignoring is that 90% of units is that that same powerlevel already, . You can keep bringing up 10% of this or that army that is stronger and all he (and I) will say is that those units need to be increased in points. Sure.. even if those 10% are nerfed to balanced points then liberators might still be a tad weaker than other things but overall balance WILL be better. 

In this context mediocre would mean standard for 1.0 which is considerably weaker than anything in 2.0 because they added several layers of new, powerful mechanics. They won't nerf the 10%, they will push more armies into the area those 10% represent, because it adds to gameplay.

The reason everyone and their cat are experts on what's fair for SCE is their prevalence. If everyone faced as many DoK lists, eel armies or whatnot, maybe that would add perspective. As it stands we're the punching bag, because everyone lost a unit to a lucky ballista roll or that perfect charge of Evocators that went unmolested before. Clearly a balance issue. Not to mention the countless times, the ballista whiffed and the Evocators got shot up, because that was down to player skill... /s i guess?

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Lucur said:

In this context mediocre would mean standard for 1.0 which is considerably weaker than anything in 2.0 because they added several layers of new, powerful mechanics. They won't nerf the 10%, they will push more armies into the area those 10% represent, because it adds to gameplay.

The reason everyone and their cat are experts on what's fair for SCE is their prevalence. If everyone faced as many DoK lists, eel armies or whatnot, maybe that would add perspective. As it stands we're the punching bag, because everyone lost a unit to a lucky ballista roll or that perfect charge of Evocators that went unmolested before. Clearly a balance issue. Not to mention the countless times, the ballista whiffed and the Evocators got shot up, because that was down to player skill... /s i guess?

He doesn't say the other OP stuff doesn't have to get increases in points.. I think he actually said the OP stuff needs to be fixed... but this IS a stormcast topic.

[Nos]

6 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

just a note on the Ballista that no one takes into consideration. it needs a points increase because its way undercosted compared to other war machines
- +2 save in cover
- counts as one model meaning you cant weaken its output by killing the weaker crew models (no other war machine has this rule and that alone is the reason its undercosted)
-24 potential damage

I think as individual units they are justifiable at 100 points, they very rarely do much as a lone unit. One miracle turn of say 8-14 wounds versus repeated turns of missing entirely is usually the best case scenario.

The problem is that as batteries they quickly transcend their median damage and become stupid even with the cost of a LO added on. If there was a rule whereby they count as 1.5 warmachines or something to limit their spam potential that would probably do the trick.

[Black Blade]

9 hours ago, Gorthor21 said:

I apologize for commenting about something other than your original post.  I am sure with either the upcoming grand alliance books or a new stormcast Battletome that is sure to come out with the new expansion they teased surely there will be a few adjustments.  If it wasn’t for discussions like are had in this thread they wouldn’t know what the community thinks and wouldn’t know what point values to increase or what warscrolls to alter.

Don't apologize, but I very much appreciate the sentiment. I hope there is some value that comes from all this. I just resent the shift from people who share a hobby being mutually excited or even respectful disagreement... and then that shifting to fairly hostile and condescending back and forth. 

You did not contribute to that but I appreciate your kindness.

[AverageBoss]

15 hours ago, Nos said:

I think as individual units they are justifiable at 100 points, they very rarely do much as a lone unit. One miracle turn of say 8-14 wounds versus repeated turns of missing entirely is usually the best case scenario.

The problem is that as batteries they quickly transcend their median damage and become stupid even with the cost of a LO added on. If there was a rule whereby they count as 1.5 warmachines or something to limit their spam potential that would probably do the trick.

Also worth mentioning that it is not only the first warmachine to get a warscroll with 2.0 in mind, it is also the first warmachine that has been made for AoS. As new warmachines are made and old ones get new rules, they could very well end up in line with it, at least mechanically (counting as one model, extra cover benefit, etc).

[Future]

11 hours ago, Black Blade said:

Don't apologize, but I very much appreciate the sentiment. I hope there is some value that comes from all this. I just resent the shift from people who share a hobby being mutually excited or even respectful disagreement... and then that shifting to fairly hostile and condescending back and forth. 

You did not contribute to that but I appreciate your kindness.

Honestly I feel like that’s every thread on this forum in recent time and not just this thread.