Jump to content

What would you like for AoS 3


Enoby

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JonnyTheKing said:

For AOS 3 honestly just a bit of a pull back on the power creep, it’s becoming a serious issue right now with the games enjoyment sadly. We have seen just how abusive shooting is right now, at least a tidy up to the shooting phase would be nice (More disadvantages for shooting units, for example a unit CANNOT shoot if they are in engagement range in combat) even then some of the warscrolls the way they are is still going to be an issue but that is the big one for me really 

battleshock is also a phase I’d like to be tweaked right now, the way 40K handles battleshock right now is pretty solid so I’d be totally fine if they just implemented that way of doing it into Age of Sigmar  

I agree - and not necessarily even powercreep, just sorting out different design philosophies between designers. Obviously some designers think it's okay for a potentially battleline unit to do MW on a 5+ without full LoS from 30" away, whereas others think it's a bit much for Slaangors to do 2 damage. Both design philosophies can be valid, but not in the same game. 

Personally, I'd prefer them to tone things down. I've only managed one game with the new Slaanesh book (against Squigs from White Dwarf) and I enjoyed it far more than any game I've had against or playing very killy factions because it was much slower so there was more time to counterplay. This isn't even necessarily a power creep issue, but more so an issue that damage has well overtaken defensiveness so it feels like playing rocket tag. It's still tactical with screening, positioning, and buff allocation, but it does leave games and armies feeling samey when the strategy in a casual game is "find best unit, buff best unit, attack with best unit, wipe out opponent's unit". It feels less like a war with struggling in the centre for dominance, but more like a game of cat and mouse. I also really dislike the narrative implications; when you read about these units having trained for 1000s of years or conquered hundreds of cities for their god, but they die to one charge all the same. Don't get me wrong, some units are very survivable, but they're built to be so and are an exception to the norm.

I say it's not a Powercreep issue because even the Legions of Azghor have ways to buff their bull centaurs to get better hits and rerolls with their attacks doing 2 and d3 damage. They won't win a tournament, but in a casual game the formula is the same and the result is units being deleted left and right. 

I'd really like to see damage be scaled down somehow, but can't imagine it'd be an easy thing to do. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

What do you think flamers are not good against? Because they seem pretty universally good due to bonuses to hit min squads, -1 rend and d3 dmg.

I don't think it, I know it. ;)

Smaller elite units with multiple wounds and decent armor saves are not impressed at all by flamers in my experience. That rend  is also not on the warscroll.... so the problem is the cult...

Those units (Ironjawz, troggoths, etc.) are actually more afraid of Kairic Acolytes in a game where you don't run eternal conflagration...

Same thing with the Gaunt's or Sorc Lord's on Manticore spell... sure, they're absolutely insane vs horde units but entirely unproblematic against some others.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I think there aren't many (maybe only two?) teams or people who write the warscrolls and battletomes, which ends up with a wide range of power variation. I understand why one person couldn't write all of them, but it does leave some very questionable warscrolls and battletomes.

Vince Venturella frequently makes the point on Warhammer Weekly that the GW design team needs to introduce an editor role into their process.  I really believe that's completely right. It seems like currently GW's rules designers also do the balancing. But it would probably be much better to take that burden off their shoulders. Just let them be creative and come up with interesting rules and ideas. Have someone else whose job it is to worry about the math and put a damper on things if the designers get carried away.

A lot of those rules that people have pegged as problematic day one of a battletome's release could have probably been caught that way. I'm talking about Petrifex, Kroak, Sentinels, the old Slaanesh locus... That kind of thing. I don't think GWs rules designers are incompetent. If you watch interviews with them, it's clear that they put a lot of thought into their rules. But it's good to have someone with a little distance to your work look over it sometimes. Frequently, as an author, you don't catch problems that are obvious too outsiders because you are just too close.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm going crazy, but after talking with a friend and reading/writting  with our Hedonites, is there any possibility that we would see the same "attacking" process of 40k? Let me explain:

Age of Sigmar uses three diferent timings for the whole process:

  1. Making an attack (hitting, wounding, saving and determining the damage).
  2. Allocate wounds (after all attacks are resolved) to enemy models.
  3. Remove enemy models.

40k uses a one per one attack, and every attack must finish the whole process (that means: hit, wound, save and doing damage until it is destroyed too).

What it's making me crazy is Gluttos Orscollion and his Command Ability, Gorge on Excess:

Spoiler

Until your next hero phase, if an enemy unit is destroyed by an attack made by that HEDONITE unit and there are wounds that remain to be allocated to that enemy unit from that attack, healup to the same number of wounds allocated to that HEDONITE unit.

The point is that in AoS, attacks don't kill the enemy, it's the pool of wounds after all attacks are being made. 

Wait, I need to find my tinfoil hat, that's the point of this post when I'm looking for aliens, illuminati and Half Life 3.
Unless... we are going to see something like 40k attacks in AoS. That could end the spilled dmg over other models (1 attack kill 1 model).

What do you think? Is that even possible? Hordes are going to be wild with how many attacks they have with jsut 1 dmg but it couls shake 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I agree - and not necessarily even powercreep, just sorting out different design philosophies between designers. Obviously some designers think it's okay for a potentially battleline unit to do MW on a 5+ without full LoS from 30" away, whereas others think it's a bit much for Slaangors to do 2 damage. Both design philosophies can be valid, but not in the same game. 

Personally, I'd prefer them to tone things down. I've only managed one game with the new Slaanesh book (against Squigs from White Dwarf) and I enjoyed it far more than any game I've had against or playing very killy factions because it was much slower so there was more time to counterplay. This isn't even necessarily a power creep issue, but more so an issue that damage has well overtaken defensiveness so it feels like playing rocket tag. It's still tactical with screening, positioning, and buff allocation, but it does leave games and armies feeling samey when the strategy in a casual game is "find best unit, buff best unit, attack with best unit, wipe out opponent's unit". It feels less like a war with struggling in the centre for dominance, but more like a game of cat and mouse. I also really dislike the narrative implications; when you read about these units having trained for 1000s of years or conquered hundreds of cities for their god, but they die to one charge all the same. Don't get me wrong, some units are very survivable, but they're built to be so and are an exception to the norm.

I say it's not a Powercreep issue because even the Legions of Azghor have ways to buff their bull centaurs to get better hits and rerolls with their attacks doing 2 and d3 damage. They won't win a tournament, but in a casual game the formula is the same and the result is units being deleted left and right. 

I'd really like to see damage be scaled down somehow, but can't imagine it'd be an easy thing to do. 

Very good points, 100% agree that it’s very evident there needs to be more communication between the rules team because there’s clearly different approaches to the game’s rules being taken 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I don't think it, I know it. ;)

Smaller elite units with multiple wounds and decent armor saves are not impressed at all by flamers in my experience. That rend  is also not on the warscroll.... so the problem is the cult...

Those units (Ironjawz, troggoths, etc.) are actually more afraid of Kairic Acolytes in a game where you don't run eternal conflagration...

Same thing with the Gaunt's or Sorc Lord's on Manticore spell... sure, they're absolutely insane vs horde units but entirely unproblematic against some others.

Are you talking about 5 model units with 10 or so wounds? Flamers are great at wiping units like that as well, just less efficient than they are against single wound units, and if they are 10 models units the efficiency jumps wildly.. 

Against 5 Brutes 10 Kairics do 2 wounds, for 40 points flamers have about a 65% chance of doing 2d3 dmg, but do at least d3 dmg. That's a difference of killing a brute and a battleshock test, and just giving the brute d6 movement. Nothing is afraid of Kairics because they don't do any damage ultimately, which is why you don't see them. Funny enough in the mirror that player that took flamers is better positioned as well.

That's just the warscroll, then you layer on the rest of the allegiance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Maybe I'm going crazy, but after talking with a friend and reading/writting  with our Hedonites, is there any possibility that we would see the same "attacking" process of 40k? Let me explain:

Age of Sigmar uses three diferent timings for the whole process:

  1. Making an attack (hitting, wounding, saving and determining the damage).
  2. Allocate wounds (after all attacks are resolved) to enemy models.
  3. Remove enemy models.

40k uses a one per one attack, and every attack must finish the whole process (that means: hit, wound, save and doing damage until it is destroyed too).

What it's making me crazy is Gluttos Orscollion and his Command Ability, Gorge on Excess:

  Reveal hidden contents

Until your next hero phase, if an enemy unit is destroyed by an attack made by that HEDONITE unit and there are wounds that remain to be allocated to that enemy unit from that attack, healup to the same number of wounds allocated to that HEDONITE unit.

The point is that in AoS, attacks don't kill the enemy, it's the pool of wounds after all attacks are being made. 

Wait, I need to find my tinfoil hat, that's the point of this post when I'm looking for aliens, illuminati and Half Life 3.
Unless... we are going to see something like 40k attacks in AoS. That could end the spilled dmg over other models (1 attack kill 1 model).

What do you think? Is that even possible? Hordes are going to be wild with how many attacks they have with jsut 1 dmg but it couls shake 

 

The entire phase it called attacking sequence.

 

The attacksequence of 40k would slow down AoS extremly.

For example 20 Attacks with fast rolling.

AoS:

  1. roll to-hit together,
  2. roll to-wound together,
  3. roll saves together,
  4. roll damage,
  5. allocate every wound 1 by 1.

40k (if they didn't kill of fast rolling entirely):

  1. roll to-hit together,
  2. roll to-wound together,
  3. allocate 1 attack,
  4. roll save for that attack,
  5. roll damage
  6. go back to 3.

And yeah, the attacking system of 40k would cripple Elite units and monsters completely.

In case of the ability:

Maybe the an Attack doesn't means "a single dice roll" and instead means that it has to be during a shooting or melee attack of that unit. So a Shardspeaker can't heal because of an Arcane Bolt or a Lord of Pain because of the "Share the Pain" rule

1 hour ago, JonnyTheKing said:

For AOS 3 honestly just a bit of a pull back on the power creep, it’s becoming a serious issue right now with the games enjoyment sadly. We have seen just how abusive shooting is right now, at least a tidy up to the shooting phase would be nice (More disadvantages for shooting units, for example a unit CANNOT shoot if they are in engagement range in combat) even then some of the warscrolls the way they are is still going to be an issue but that is the big one for me really 

battleshock is also a phase I’d like to be tweaked right now, the way 40K handles battleshock right now is pretty solid so I’d be totally fine if they just implemented that way of doing it into Age of Sigmar 

Can you maybe make long range shooting weaker without killing short range shooting?

Throwing Axes, Javelins and all sorts of Pistols (maybe even Flamethrowers) are meant to shoot while the unit is in combat. Takting this away would criple such units completly because they basicly would shoot zero to one time in the entire game.

If you want to give shooting units with long range shooting a disadventage give them a minimum range of 4" or maybe 6" and those can't shoot in close combat anymore

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The entire phase it called attacking sequence.

 

The attacksequence of 40k would slow down AoS extremly.

For example 20 Attacks with fast rolling.

AoS:

  1. roll to-hit together,
  2. roll to-wound together,
  3. roll saves together,
  4. roll damage,
  5. allocate every wound 1 by 1.

40k (if they didn't kill of fast rolling entirely):

  1. roll to-hit together,
  2. roll to-wound together,
  3. allocate 1 attack,
  4. roll save for that attack,
  5. roll damage
  6. go back to 3.

And yeah, the attacking system of 40k would cripple Elite units and monsters completely.

Completely, but I'm not sure how to feel about that. And of course, that's just a little part of the whole jigsaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Are you talking about 5 model units with 10 or so wounds? Flamers are great at wiping units like that as well, just less efficient than they are against single wound units, and if they are 10 models units the efficiency jumps wildly.. 

Against 5 Brutes 10 Kairics do 2 wounds, for 40 points flamers have about a 65% chance of doing 2d3 dmg, but do at least d3 dmg. That's a difference of killing a brute and a battleshock test, and just giving the brute d6 movement. Nothing is afraid of Kairics because they don't do any damage ultimately, which is why you don't see them. Funny enough in the mirror that player that took flamers is better positioned as well.

That's just the warscroll, then you layer on the rest of the allegiance.

I'm not talking about 5 models with 10 hp. If you take such a unit, rely on them and don't shield them from being shot to pieces, you deserve to lose instantly and go back to the drawing board and learn the game. I've given examples such as troggoths or brutes. So I of course expect a certain toughness to stomach those flames - units with no decent save and few hitpoints are fodder. But then you need to work around it...

Your theory hammer is simply different to real life results. Brutes with 3 wounds a pop aren't instantly crippled by flamers, unless you invest so many points into the flamers that you lack said points elsewhere - the 140 points flamers, unsupported & without rend will not do 2d3 dmg (which are also often enough just 2 wounds) - and so what, even if they did, they cost 140 points! If those ardboys get you, your flamers will be gone in a single round most likely.

Neither Ardboys are terribly afraid. Yes, if you roll really well and put everything into flamers (like cult and getting an exalted flamer), you can do a lot of damage but how often do you think you roll really well? Trust me, it's simply not as often as you make it out to be.... you don't often roll 3 dmg per shot. And then you only got that going for you for a lot of points. The huge blob of ardboys will lose some of their number but they will reach your army and beat you to a pulp cause you're mostly helpless in CC. 

A unit of 10 horrors is actually often way scarier, with 30 shots at -1, splitting and coming constantly back with less support... now add an emerald lifeswarm and laugh!

Yes, Kairics aren't the best unit we got but outside of Eternal conflagration (when flamers got 0 rend) they're pretty good actually. And flamers without rend aren't very problematic, especially if you got ways to reach them. But test it yourself in real life: shoot with 3 flamers (no rend) at a unit of brutes or troggoths and then with 10 kairic acolytes (with rend cause they need no cult for that).... you'll see that kairics aren't so bad anymore and cost less too. And they're just as useless as flamers in CC.

The one unit that constantly performs hella well and grinds through orruks and other elites are Enlightened. Which also need lots of support though.

I dunno which army you collect but do yourself a favor, collect the best army there is (Tzeentch, but not because flamers are decent units, I played Tzeentch for years when it was F tier) and then you can finally be a winner! All shall be as foreseen!

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 10:24 AM, Beliman said:

It's possible but really edgy.

You need to kill at least 4 (20 wounds at least) to remove the remaining 2 Kurnoth, and the enemy must roll a 5+ for the battleshock. But remember that Kurnoth Hunters are always in range of any Command Ability, so with 1 CP (or 2 with Total Eclipse, cast 8 ), they ignore the battleshock phase. 

If that's the case, I would advise for the Lumineth player to make a trip to Las Vegas.

 

On 3/6/2021 at 5:20 AM, Enoby said:

Is it possible that 3 or 4 died, and the others ran to battleshock? I don't know how Sylvaneth are at preventing that

 

On 3/6/2021 at 2:53 AM, Beliman said:

Is that possible? 6 Kurnoth hunters have 30 wounds with 3+ (using cover).

30 sentinels shoot 28 arrows and you need 2 cast rolls to succeed, rerolls, and still, they are doing 13 average dmg and they cost 420 p vs 380p. 

 

30 sentinels + lambent light + warscroll spell (5+ to hit mortals) + 2x CP spell + -2 bravery spell

So he rolled 30 dice and did 10 mortals on the first roll, rerrolled all of the 1-4's with Lambent Light and got another 7 ish mortals. I then failed a few of the saves on the regular non-mortal hits for a grand total of 20 wounds.

Because he doubled my CP cost I couldn't burn inspiring presence. So I tested at -6 with the debuff. 

He had teclis so many of these spells were auto casted, and IIRC sentinels can get a +1 to cast (and potentially a reroll maybe?).  Not that it mattered because my wizard wasn't even close to dispel range. (Remember Teclis can auto-dispel so if you want to even have a shot at a spell you have to keep your wizards far away).

Lumineth are an absolutely brutal army from range. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

30 sentinels + lambent light + warscroll spell (5+ to hit mortals) + 2x CP spell + -2 bravery spell

So he rolled 30 dice and did 10 mortals on the first roll, rerrolled all of the 1-4's with Lambent Light and got another 7 ish mortals. I then failed a few of the saves on the regular non-mortal hits for a grand total of 20 wounds.

Because he doubled my CP cost I couldn't burn inspiring presence. So I tested at -6 with the debuff. 

He had teclis so many of these spells were auto casted, and IIRC sentinels can get a +1 to cast (and potentially a reroll maybe?).  Not that it mattered because my wizard wasn't even close to dispel range. (Remember Teclis can auto-dispel so if you want to even have a shot at a spell you have to keep your wizards far away).

Lumineth are an absolutely brutal army from range. 

But that's not "Sentinels ". That's Teclis (660 points) + 30 sentinels (420 points), fully buffed (x2 power of hysh, lament light and Total Eclipse) and rolling really good (13 wounds average vs 20 wounds). That's without counting -2 bravery spell.

In my opinion, Sentinels weren't the ones that killed your Kurnoth Hunters, it was Teclis+deathstar combo. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Beliman said:

But that's not "Sentinels ". That's Teclis (660 points) + 30 sentinels (420 points), fully buffed (x2 power of hysh, lament light and Total Eclipse) and rolling really good (13 wounds average vs 20 wounds). That's without counting -2 bravery spell.

In my opinion, Sentinels weren't the ones that killed your Kurnoth Hunters, it was Teclis+deathstar combo. 

On the other hand, while you're definitely right that Teclis was key to this list, it only works so well because of Sentinal rules. For example, if they'd have put all of those buffs on wardens instead (well besides rr hits in shooting), it would have been nowhere as good as the Wardens would have needed to move up the field, charge (thus negating their special -1 to hit), and risk being attacked back if it didn't work (and the Kurnoth Hunters would have had the chance to attack before battleshock). Wardens would have a higher average damage but it still wouldn't be as good due to all of the loops you need to jump through to get them into combat and the risk you put them in by moving them up the field.

So you're right that Teclis was what made it happen, but it's much more brutal when using Sentinal rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Enoby said:

On the other hand, while you're definitely right that Teclis was key to this list, it only works so well because of Sentinal rules. For example, if they'd have put all of those buffs on wardens instead (well besides rr hits in shooting), it would have been nowhere as good as the Wardens would have needed to move up the field, charge (thus negating their special -1 to hit), and risk being attacked back if it didn't work (and the Kurnoth Hunters would have had the chance to attack before battleshock). Wardens would have a higher average damage but it still wouldn't be as good due to all of the loops you need to jump through to get them into combat and the risk you put them in by moving them up the field.

So you're right that Teclis was what made it happen, but it's much more brutal when using Sentinal rules.

100% agree! Don't get me wrong, Sentinels are above other ranged units (and they are elfs, so that makes them a lot worst).
But I was jsut pointing that the main problem is not just "sentinels ", it's that one of the most obnoxious characters to play against (Teclis)  buffs one of the best ranged units to create a eazy-to-play monster, and the player rolls really good to do 20 wounds.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Sentinels + Lambent light really did the work.  The CP and Bravery debuff just kind of put me out of my misery quicker lol. But without those debuffs I would have still been testing on -4 which would be  tough roll to make/use inspriring presence.

But in context this was on the bottom of turn 1 and I think any of their wizards can reliably cast lambent light.  I effectively lost 1/5th of my army and my opponent didnt even have to move. 

This is debatable, but I personally find Teclis to be a point sink and  he really only excels vs  armies who can't function without CP or magic.  But regardless of Teclis, Sentinels are broken AF at their current cost and I will die on that hill.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Beliman said:

But that's not "Sentinels ". That's Teclis (660 points) + 30 sentinels (420 points), fully buffed (x2 power of hysh, lament light and Total Eclipse) and rolling really good (13 wounds average vs 20 wounds). That's without counting -2 bravery spell.

In my opinion, Sentinels weren't the ones that killed your Kurnoth Hunters, it was Teclis+deathstar combo. 

You're not wrong. The whole thing would not have gone down this way without Teclis. But saying that the Sentinels did not kill those Kurnoth hunters also does not seem quite right. They were both integrally involved and it's probably for the best to recognize that and not try to simplify our explanation further by trying to pin it to just one of the units.

However, with 30 Sentinels, having them all deal mortals on 5+ and having Lambent Light on 20 of them is a fairly ordinary scenario.  Power of Hysh casts on a 6 and Lumineth have several ways to boost or reroll that, so that's fairly achievable. Lambent Light needs another wizard, but what Lumineth army does not bring at least one extra wizard? I would say this setup does not really qualify as a death star, because it does not require buidling around your archers. You only really need to bring them and then make use of other stuff you would bring anyway to buff them. It really slots in very easily into your "standard" Lumineth army.

What makes this situation kind of tricky to judge is that if you bring Teclis, casting Total Eclipse every round is just generally good. There is really very little reason not to do it. It's difficult to really call that part of a combo involving the Sentinels. Lumineth just have a lot going on as an army, not just with Sentinels, but with their magic dominance and other rules, as well. Honestly, I really wonder what the faction will look like after BR: Teclis. It's hard to see how GW could add as many models as they are planning and not make Lumineth an absolutely dominant faction.

Just to be clear: I agree with you, using this case as an example of what Sentinels are capable of is a bit iffy. Having Teclis around, as well, certainly changes the scenario pretty significantly. Plus, dealing 20 damage when ~14.5 (if my math is right) are expected is certainly not the typical case. But then again, pure damage is not really the reason why Sentinels are a problematic unit in the first place.

EDIT: Got mixed up about Lambent Light. It's actually a debuff, not a buff. It allows you to reroll all ranged hits against one unit. When I was writing the post, I thought it allowed one of your units to reroll failed hits. That actually brings the average damage to around 16, not 14.5.

Edited by Neil Arthur Hotep
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm talking about Petrifex, Kroak, Sentinels, the old Slaanesh locus... That kind of thing. I don't think GWs rules designers are incompetent.

I think these are great examples of how they are imcompetent.

When we only need a firts glace to sentinels to know how broken they are but who are paid to balance them dont know it......they are incopetent or gw do it to sell more of these minis. Its one or other because its imposible so bad balance done by a competent people

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I agree - and not necessarily even powercreep, just sorting out different design philosophies between designers. Obviously some designers think it's okay for a potentially battleline unit to do MW on a 5+ without full LoS from 30" away, whereas others think it's a bit much for Slaangors to do 2 damage. Both design philosophies can be valid, but not in the same game. 

Personally, I'd prefer them to tone things down. I've only managed one game with the new Slaanesh book (against Squigs from White Dwarf) and I enjoyed it far more than any game I've had against or playing very killy factions because it was much slower so there was more time to counterplay. This isn't even necessarily a power creep issue, but more so an issue that damage has well overtaken defensiveness so it feels like playing rocket tag. It's still tactical with screening, positioning, and buff allocation, but it does leave games and armies feeling samey when the strategy in a casual game is "find best unit, buff best unit, attack with best unit, wipe out opponent's unit". It feels less like a war with struggling in the centre for dominance, but more like a game of cat and mouse. I also really dislike the narrative implications; when you read about these units having trained for 1000s of years or conquered hundreds of cities for their god, but they die to one charge all the same. Don't get me wrong, some units are very survivable, but they're built to be so and are an exception to the norm.

I say it's not a Powercreep issue because even the Legions of Azghor have ways to buff their bull centaurs to get better hits and rerolls with their attacks doing 2 and d3 damage. They won't win a tournament, but in a casual game the formula is the same and the result is units being deleted left and right. 

I'd really like to see damage be scaled down somehow, but can't imagine it'd be an easy thing to do. 

Its interesting because HoS have more power projection than LRL but one is considered more competitive than the other. HoS can actually be quite durable if you play a high level game, and there isn't anything you can really do about the things HoS actually do. Why I like analysis tournament results is because we can often get more specific information about units and under what conditions those units were used such as battleplans.

 

22 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

So Sentinels + Lambent light really did the work.  The CP and Bravery debuff just kind of put me out of my misery quicker lol. But without those debuffs I would have still been testing on -4 which would be  tough roll to make/use inspriring presence.

But in context this was on the bottom of turn 1 and I think any of their wizards can reliably cast lambent light.  I effectively lost 1/5th of my army and my opponent didnt even have to move. 

This is debatable, but I personally find Teclis to be a point sink and  he really only excels vs  armies who can't function without CP or magic.  But regardless of Teclis, Sentinels are broken AF at their current cost and I will die on that hill.  

A couple questions if you don't mind?
Was this the first time you played LRL?
How did he hit you with Lambent light on your primary damage dealer the range of the spell is 18", and LRL have no access to Hero phase teleports? 
If you played that game again would you do anything differently regarding deployment and unit selection?

I don't want to offend you, but what you are describing sounds like a misplay not something being OP.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

However, with 30 Sentinels, having them all deal mortals on 5+ and having Lambent Light on 20 of them is a fairly ordinary scenario.

Just to be clear: I agree with you, using this case as an example of what Sentinels are capable of is a bit iffy. Having Teclis around, as well, certainly changes the scenario pretty significantly. Plus, dealing 20 damage when ~14.5 (if my math is right) are expected is certainly not the typical case. But then again, pure damage is not really the reason why Sentinels are a problematic unit in the first place.

Don't quote me on this but I think Lambent light targets an enemy unit. So ideally he could dump all of his archers into that unit making 20 damage a lot more reasonable. Also don't forget of the normal non/mortal hits which actually become quite powerful at close range. (aka normal range for any other archer unit)

7 minutes ago, Doko said:

I think these are great examples of how they are imcompetent.

When we only need a firts glace to sentinels to know how broken they are but who are paid to balance them dont know it......they are incopetent or gw do it to sell more of these minis. Its one or other because its imposible so bad balance done by a competent people

So the original Slaanesh coded and Sylvaneth codex came out around the same time. One was likely the most overpowered codex I have ever personally witnessed in warhammer, and one is probably the worst codex in the game right now. 

And while the jury is out on new Slaanesh, I think we can all agree new DOK and Lumineth are several tiers above it. 

So we are beginning to see a longterm pattern of releases that demonstrate a complete unwillingness to properly playtest.  Incompetent may not be the right word but its pretty close! 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Landohammer said:

 

 

30 sentinels + lambent light + warscroll spell (5+ to hit mortals) + 2x CP spell + -2 bravery spell

So he rolled 30 dice and did 10 mortals on the first roll, rerrolled all of the 1-4's with Lambent Light and got another 7 ish mortals. I then failed a few of the saves on the regular non-mortal hits for a grand total of 20 wounds.

Because he doubled my CP cost I couldn't burn inspiring presence. So I tested at -6 with the debuff. 

He had teclis so many of these spells were auto casted, and IIRC sentinels can get a +1 to cast (and potentially a reroll maybe?).  Not that it mattered because my wizard wasn't even close to dispel range. (Remember Teclis can auto-dispel so if you want to even have a shot at a spell you have to keep your wizards far away).

Lumineth are an absolutely brutal army from range. 

So let me understand your point. The opponnet threw 6 spells, 3 power of hysh, cp and bravery stuff and lambent (maybe 7 with umbral), all those were successfull (i got near 30 matches with lumineth and that is not the normal), they guy did 30 shoots (wrong, all sentinels units lose 1 shoot for unit), made 17 damage (average stadistic damage) killing 3 models, you rolled a 4+ and lost the rest of the models and so the full unit (still, playing with dices, not auto and 50% not succeding).

And you think is absolutely op that the other guy killed you 380 points with 1150 points using all stuff they are capable to and with some lucky rolls?

What a joke.

Let me say to you, you lost that in deployment, not because of lumineth.

Edited by Ragest
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Its interesting because HoS have more power projection than LRL but one is considered more competitive than the other. HoS can actually be quite durable if you play a high level game, and there isn't anything you can really do about the things HoS actually do. Why I like analysis tournament results is because we can often get more specific information about units and under what conditions those units were used such as battleplans.

Could I just check what you mean by power projection? :)

I agree that new Slaanesh, if played in such a way, has the potential to be durable and I really like that sort of playstyle where durability isn't just big rr save. Unless I'm missing something, the consensus is that Slaanesh is no longer going to be well served as a full glass cannon smash the opponent in the face army. Our damage is decent but not enough to overwhelm, but our tricks are considerable enough that we can 'bully' with pile in shenanigans and summoning. 

I personally like this as it forces the opponent to counterplay, and that counterplay is more than just screening or cover. I still can't say too much due to lack of personal playtime with the new book and lack of tournament data, but it seems we'll be a more tactically allowing army on both sides. More than just smashing faces, which I like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Its interesting because HoS have more power projection than LRL but one is considered more competitive than the other. HoS can actually be quite durable if you play a high level game, and there isn't anything you can really do about the things HoS actually do. Why I like analysis tournament results is because we can often get more specific information about units and under what conditions those units were used such as battleplans.

 

A couple questions if you don't mind?
Was this the first time you played LRL?
How did he hit you with Lambent light on your primary damage dealer the range of the spell is 18", and LRL have no access to Hero phase teleports? 
If you played that game again would you do anything differently regarding deployment and unit selection?

I don't want to offend you, but what you are describing sounds like a misplay not something being OP.
 

I don't mind. I was playing Sylvaneth so I summoned a forest on the top of 1 and teleported as close to his sentinels as I could. Naturally I failed the charge which left me much closer to them. However he did have a spell portal so I'm not sure I would have been safe from lambent light anywhere. (though I think my forests may have blocked line of sight from portal, not sure).

No I play Lumineth quite I often and win as many as I lose. Overall I think they are just a strong faction, not necessarily OP. Its sentinels I take issue with.

My list had no ranged or magical threat. (and honestly Sylvaneth doesn't do either of those well). I have found in my past experience with lumineth that  simply rushing them is the best option. Once Sentinels and/or Teclis are dead they lose their primary means of controlling the board. Then you just have to deal with Eltharion and Dawnriders lol. 

 

36 minutes ago, Ragest said:

So let me understand your point. The opponnet threw 6 spells, 3 power of hysh, cp and bravery stuff and lambent (maybe 7 with umbral), all those were successfull (i got near 30 matches with lumineth and that is not the normal), they guy did 30 shoots (wrong, all sentinels units lose 1 shoot for unit), made 17 damage (average stadistic damage) killing 3 models, you rolled a 4+ and lost the rest of the models and so the full unit (still, playing with dices, not auto and 50% not succeding).

And you think is absolutely op that the other guy killed you 380 points with 1150 points using all stuff they are capable to and with some lucky rolls?

What a joke.

Let me say to you, you lost that in deployment, not because of lumineth.

You are coming across as a bit aggressive mate.  

I am really surprised that everyone finds this so unbelievable. So 17 is average but 20 is impossible to believe? What is that like +17% above average? Lets also not forget this is from battleline units and a single wizard. That is a pretty bonkers amount of output at range for a single turn. 

Let me clarify that I am not accusing Lumineth as being OP. But the faction does have tools that exacerbate the impact of an already overperforming unit. This scenario was a good example of that.  But overall Lumineth are fine as a faction, its just the sentinels that I complain about. 

And to clarify, I lost this game when I decided to bring Sylvaneth lol.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ragest said:

Let me say to you, you lost that in deployment, not because of lumineth.

Telling people they "lost in deployment" for being able to be targeted by a unit with a 36" threat range (actually 42" if you really need it to be) that ignores LOS is pretty silly and illustrates just how dumb the unit design on Sentinels is.

If Sentinels had 18" range and spell portal was removed from the game, that'd be good advice. As is, it really isn't. 

Note that I'm not saying that 30 sentinels + a full round of magic casting being able to kill 380 points of stuff is necessarily OP. But the "L2deploy" advice here is kinda silly. The whole problem with Sentinels is that you really can't avoid them; how they perform comes down almost 100% to how much the LRL player wants to invest in boosting their deadliness, not on anything you do as the player on the receiving end.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Could I just check what you mean by power projection? :)

I agree that new Slaanesh, if played in such a way, has the potential to be durable and I really like that sort of playstyle where durability isn't just big rr save. Unless I'm missing something, the consensus is that Slaanesh is no longer going to be well served as a full glass cannon smash the opponent in the face army. Our damage is decent but not enough to overwhelm, but our tricks are considerable enough that we can 'bully' with pile in shenanigans and summoning. 

I personally like this as it forces the opponent to counterplay, and that counterplay is more than just screening or cover. I still can't say too much due to lack of personal playtime with the new book and lack of tournament data, but it seems we'll be a more tactically allowing army on both sides. More than just smashing faces, which I like.  


The ability to apply your damage or ability where you want on the board, and have that power have be effective in determining the course of the match. 2.9ing is a ridiculous ability, but anything with seeker in its name is good at this. I think what will probably keep HoS in check is relatively low amount of fly available, but its effect on objective play is ferocious. 

Personally I agree I find intellectual counter play, managing board space, putting the opponent under pressure, etc to be far more engaging than unbind rolls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, yukishiro1 said:

Telling people they "lost in deployment" for being able to be targeted by a unit with a 36" threat range (actually 42" if you really need it to be) that ignores LOS is pretty silly and illustrates just how dumb the unit design on Sentinels is.

If Sentinels had 18" range and spell portal was removed from the game, that'd be good advice. As is, it really isn't. 

Note that I'm not saying that 30 sentinels + a full round of magic casting being able to kill 380 points of stuff is necessarily OP. But the "L2deploy" advice here is kinda silly. The whole problem with Sentinels is that you really can't avoid them; how they perform comes down almost 100% to how much the LRL player wants to invest in boosting their deadliness, not on anything you do as the player on the receiving end.

This right here ^^^ I am curious what Ragest thinks is the proper deployment vs 30 Sentinels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Neil Arthur Hotep I don't have any problem if GW nerf Sentinels!! Btw, I said that Sentinels alone didn't kill all Kunorths, but Teclis +deathstar (of sentinels) killed them (and hot rolls btw, 20 wounds is a lot).

But returning to the main argument, I think that 1000+ points dedicated to KILL(well, Teclis does a lot more than that, but that's another thing to discuss), should kill 380 point, and it's not something to worry about, but that doesn't mean that Sentinels are fine, as I already said, I hope that GW nerf them.

Link to comment
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...