Jump to content

AoS 3rd - Idoneth Deepkin discussion


HollowHills

Recommended Posts

I originally got into IDK with the intention of doing them as a Kurnothi Wild Hunt sort of idea -- all based around mists instead of the aether sea. For eels I was going to make take the wild riders but make them centaurs, leviadon was going to be the frost/flame phoenix painted like ethereal misty, kitbash Orion with Radukar the Beast as a counts-as Eidolon, etc. The big prob was I couldn't think of anything I particularly liked for sharks that would have fit on the same base.

Anyway all that is to say, there is some cool ideas if you wanted to get away from the sea creature theme.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 3:33 AM, HollowHills said:

Just stopping by to casual mention that many playtesters have been using sharks and Team England are changing their DoK player to an IDK player for this year...

Not saying that this is bad feedback, but isn't it kind of weird to draw any conclusions from playtesters playtesting a unit? Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing? I hope playtesters are using sharks, thrallmasters, reavers, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orbei said:

Not saying that this is bad feedback, but isn't it kind of weird to draw any conclusions from playtesters playtesting a unit? Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing? I hope playtesters are using sharks, thrallmasters, reavers, etc..

The playtesters have advanced knowledge of what will be really good in the coming months, from playtesting it and see rules/points before we all get to see them.  So if they are gearing up a particular unit it generally means they think it will be better than average once the new rules or points come out.

 

Edit: There are a lot of opinions on this sort of stuff so i'm trying to put it as non-biased as possible, but thats generally why you see mentions like you quoted.  They obviously should be playtesting everything, but we've had it shown that they dont, eg SCE dragons.

Edited by Drofnum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm finding myself in the "sharks are objectively worse" club, though without a view of the full battletome it's hard to know where they'll end up. The 2 extra wounds weirdly feel like a nerf due to the loss of Leviadon buff and cover, and the points increase, while justified if running the harpoon, makes the net (which I've always run) just more expensive for no extra benefit. I still think they're a good unit, and the 3" coherency combined with the net makes them great for messing with people, but it's a harder sell.

I'm excited to try 10 general-battleline Reavers sat in a boat on an objective, however. Alongside the increased range on Thralls for only 10 extra points, Namarti stocks are looking strong.

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes sharks are still ok, but worse than before.

 

thralls are great but still they are foot unit, and all those struggle, even more with 5save. but they may be good.

 

reavers in short range are worst now, but at longe range they are like 3x better. so i think they will be really good now, but they are too pricy and squishy so will need some ishlaen guard in front of every reaver unit. but ill use like 30 reavers, with turtle storm eidolon and 2 or 3 ishlaen guard as core. they will have really nice shotthing damage, like 35 dmg with 1rend per turn untill they start diying.

 

and i could add some morsar to add some damage or sharks to have even more ranged threat, maybe 2 sharks to raise average dmg to 43 or so. enough to kill 25+ troops models or some beast or heros.

 

but maybe i would have too low real damage to clean up the units after trim them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Siorra said:

 "sharks are objectively worse"

 

Ok, so 10 wounds losing access to turtle save vrs keeping 8 wounds and getting the +1 save is not by definition worse.    First, if you're getting hit by mortal wounds, the 10 wound version is better, the saves don't help.   If you're not getting the turtle save, again the shark with 10 wounds is more survivable, if the turtle save is reworded in the new book, again the 10 wound shark is more survivable.   So in more situations than not the new shark is more survivable and thus justifies a point increase, they were already very powerful, and likely some of the point increase was coming without the increase to wounds.

So in the situations its worse, how much worse is it?   -1 rend is very common so lets look at the math and see how much we lost on the turtle buff.

8 wound shark getting hit by -1 rend, and getting the bonus save from the turtle, you will die to 16 attacks that allow you to save against.

10 wound shark getting hit by -1 rend and not getting the bonus save from the turtle will die to roughly 15 attacks.   So one less attack from 1 rend while getting the turtle buff is simply not that big.

We have not seen the book, so judging this is hard, but our faction currently has a Mortal wound problem, this helps, increasing our total wounds before losing damage output is something we need.   We will see, but its not convincing to read arguments that "sharks are objectively worse" because they may lose access to the turtle save while also gaining damage out put and becoming more survivable to mortal wounds and while not benefiting from a specific buff.

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

That math is a little shaky when you only consider only -1 rend while higher rends are getting more common. Also a lot of -1 rend attacks do more than one damage. Attacks with higher rend usually do even more damage.

So up until now we could keep sharks in the turtle bubble, maybe in cover, give allout defense and maybe a mystic shield. So we could stack effects to keep our Allopexes alive.
We have cover in turn one and five (turn four of we reverse the tides). During the rest of the game cover often is not an option especially for an aggressive unit like the Allopex. Most IDK players also don't use much magic so there often won't be a caster there or in range to give them mystic shield.

In addition we can have multiple units of sharks in one turtle bubble but can only cast mystic shield once per round and issue allout defence once per phase to one unit. Which is a double disadvantage because to protect one unit of sharks throughout one round we now have to invest two to three command points (depending on if shooting is a factor).



And on what might or might not be in the new book - well that is all speculation. There might be changes and synergies that change the in game value of sharks. We don't know. The point structure might change completely and in the end sharks could be out cheapest cavalry unit again. Again we don't know anything. We don't even really know when the new book will drop. Everybody is expecting it soon but...we don't know. Could be on pre-order next week or still taking some weeks or even month.

The only background we can safely judge the changes are the current rules. And there sharks pretty clearly got a damper. I will reevaluate that judgement when we get new rules but I am playing in an event next week which had it's list deadline a little over a week ago. If I had to write that list again today I would be 160 points over. And that is definitively not a plus.

  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vinnyt said:

I would say the only background we can safely judge the changes are WITHOUT any other current rules since they're likely to change. 

That does not make any sense. 

We can only judge the profiles in the light of A ruleset and the the only one we have is the one we currently operate with. You cannot judge stats in a vakuum (which was pretty much one of your main arguments so far) or what we fantasize what the new rules might look like.

Everybody will surely reevaluate the assessments once the new battletome drops just as we did when the new core rules were released and here and there Reavers all of a sudden got some playtime after being virtually unused for well over three years. 

It is entirely possible that the new book will show us a completely different picture but as long as we are playing with the old book and in AoS 3 the sharks got pretty clearly worse and Reavers are a wash at best.


 

 

4 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Is there any speculated date on the IDK Battletome release?

Nothing with substance. March had been thrown around since before the battle box was announced. But that is only based on some reddit rumors as far as I know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DocKeule said:

That does not make any sense. 

We can only judge the profiles in the light of A ruleset and the the only one we have is the one we currently operate with. You cannot judge stats in a vakuum (which was pretty much one of your main arguments so far) or what we fantasize what the new rules might look like.

Everybody will surely reevaluate the assessments once the new battletome drops just as we did when the new core rules were released and here and there Reavers all of a sudden got some playtime after being virtually unused for well over three years. 

It is entirely possible that the new book will show us a completely different picture but as long as we are playing with the old book and in AoS 3 the sharks got pretty clearly worse and Reavers are a wash at best.


 

 

Nothing with substance. March had been thrown around since before the battle box was announced. But that is only based on some reddit rumors as far as I know.

Thx!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DocKeule said:

You cannot judge stats in a vakuum

you absolutely can. Look at the SBG release. Everyone was freaking out about the army being super underpowered at the end of 2.0 and then bam! New edition and it turns out that they're one of the stronger armies around! You may prefer not to, and that's fine, but speaking like you're the arbiter of pre-codex release evaluation is foolish. 

 

13 minutes ago, DocKeule said:

sharks got pretty clearly worse and Reavers are a wash at best

I'm also not sure how you can look at the actual honest-to-god math and complain that reavers are a wash at best. I would love to see your analysis. 

19 minutes ago, DocKeule said:

Everybody will surely reevaluate the assessments once the new battletome drops

Yes, which is why complaining about something being worse is premature. Just like how I'm not saying that sharks are the greatest unit to ever grace the table or are guaranteed meta picks. In fact, all I say is that the new sharks are roughly as damage efficient and survivable in terms of raw stats as they were previously, except now they have more shooting efficiency. However you interpret that is up to you, but the pure math is not really debatable. 

And if you wanna talk playing with the old book, how about you do so with the new rules and post some batreps here? I do that all the time because it turns out that most of the commonly held Deepkin axioms (turtles are mandatory, eels are mandatory) aren't true. Turns out you don't need a turtle or hordes of eels to be successful. In a crazy turn of events, actually playing games is a great way to prove your point if you're making claims regarding the viability of a unit. Hell, that lunatic who took 3 eidolons won a GT so there's clearly a lot of unseen depth (hehe) to our current book! 

And how often were y'all getting shark units in cover? Because I basically never did. You're not able to ever shoot at the sharks because I screen appropriately and charge with them (which removes the benefit of cover). I honestly don't think, in the 18ish games I've played with deepkin, that I've ever said to myself "man, I sure am appreciative of cover on turn one and would absolutely prefer that over reversing the tides with fuethan". In fact, you can look at the whatever number of battle reports I've posted here in detail to see exactly how I use my sharks to maximize their effectiveness. Oh, and the more (currently available) buffs you stack on the new sharks, the more insane they get since shooting is far and away the most effective form of damage in 3.0. Once you get 2srr1/2/-1/d3 damage across multiple gatling shark units, you're gonna start causing real problems across the board. 

And I've moved away from the turtle (in the current book) since its damage output really isn't that great (even new sharks are more damage efficient) and there are too many mortal wounds floating around the meta (nurgle just rips through the turtle). 

But hey, go play some games and post the reports here so we can all learn! 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, vinnyt said:

you absolutely can. Look at the SBG release. Everyone was freaking out about the army being super underpowered at the end of 2.0 and then bam! New edition and it turns out that they're one of the stronger armies around! You may prefer not to, and that's fine, but speaking like you're the arbiter of pre-codex release evaluation is foolish. 

Sorry, didn't mean to take your job away from you mate.

 

35 minutes ago, vinnyt said:

I'm also not sure how you can look at the actual honest-to-god math and complain that reavers are a wash at best. I would love to see your analysis. 


I don't argue that the stats got improved but that came with a 50 % point increase. 

 

35 minutes ago, vinnyt said:

Yes, which is why complaining about something being worse is premature. Just like how I'm not saying that sharks are the greatest unit to ever grace the table or are guaranteed meta picks. In fact, all I say is that the new sharks are roughly as damage efficient and survivable in terms of raw stats as they were previously, except now they have more shooting efficiency. However you interpret that is up to you, but the pure math is not really debatable. 

Again: That ist not the main issue although I would weight the loss of the void drum effect higher than you (for reasons that I just listed like attacks with more than one damage, stacking of protective abilities and the limitations on commands). But a rise in points by 40 or about a third is my problem when the bottom line is one more damage in shooting.

 

35 minutes ago, vinnyt said:

And how often were y'all getting shark units in cover? Because I basically never did. You're not able to ever shoot at the sharks because I screen appropriately and charge with them (which removes the benefit of cover). I honestly don't think, in the 18ish games I've played with deepkin, that I've ever said to myself "man, I sure am appreciative of cover on turn one and would absolutely prefer that over reversing the tides with fuethan". In fact, you can look at the whatever number of battle reports I've posted here in detail to see exactly how I use my sharks to maximize their effectiveness. Oh, and the more (currently available) buffs you stack on the new sharks, the more insane they get since shooting is far and away the most effective form of damage in 3.0. Once you get 2srr1/2/-1/d3 damage across multiple gatling shark units, you're gonna start causing real problems across the board. 

That is exactly my point that sharks will usually not have cover.

 

37 minutes ago, vinnyt said:

And I've moved away from the turtle (in the current book) since its damage output really isn't that great (even new sharks are more damage efficient) and there are too many mortal wounds floating around the meta (nurgle just rips through the turtle). 

For me the turtle often did the important damage where it mattered to take out or at least bracket HQ units. 

 

37 minutes ago, Baz said:

LVO preview next Thursday is probably when the battletome will be announced.

Since it isn't released with the box I don't expect the new book to follow that soon. Just gut feeling though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DocKeule said:

Since it isn't released with the box I don't expect the new book to follow that soon. Just gut feeling though.

DOK and Slaanesh were released a few weeks after their respective battletomes were announced.

Main issue for GW is that all officially previewed AOS stuff has been released so they need to preview more and release. I'm not expecting tonnes of AoS stuff for the next few months but it all cant be 40k releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vinnyt said:

I would say the only background we can safely judge the changes are WITHOUT any other current rules since they're likely to change. 

Its entirely reasonable to look at the known changes and apply the other current rules in evaluating their potential impact. In your own initial take on the changes you show math which includes current buffs. Yet when people discuss a current buff that no longer benefits the new sharks you finger wag at them. Obviously no one other than playtesters or GW know what the end result will be so all we can do is consider what we know.

For example, when considering the thrallmaster is it reasonable to assume that he might benefit from forgotten nightmares? That rule might be removed from the next battletome. But we don't know that and it is how the army currently plays. When considering the value of this hero it only makes sense to consider him in the context of how the army currently functions, which includes all current rules. If the rules change people can adjust their opinion. 

1 hour ago, vinnyt said:

Yes, which is why complaining about something being worse is premature. Just like how I'm not saying that sharks are the greatest unit to ever grace the table or are guaranteed meta picks. In fact, all I say is that the new sharks are roughly as damage efficient and survivable in terms of raw stats as they were previously, except now they have more shooting efficiency. However you interpret that is up to you, but the pure math is not really debatable. 

This is just unreasonable. Your initial take is hype and excitement for the changes. Which is completely cool, it's nice that you're enthusiastic. But other people can look at the changes and draw different conclusions. You don't get to say that pointing out how things become worse, like how sharks are worse wounds per point than before, is premature bellyaching while simultaneously being excited for the improved shooting profile. Either all judgements are premature or people can form opinions based on what is known. Right now I'm in the camp that they look like a downgrade due to the reduced wounds per point and less efficient overall damage output (which includes fighting on your opponent's turn). YMMV.

20 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Get ready for battleline sharks with further buffs from a specific enclave 😉

This could be interesting and potentially alleviate my current concerns. But.. eh. I have 4 currently and really like using a pair of them. They are nice independent operators. I hope they remain viable as a smaller component of an army and don't need to be spammed to really shine. Dragon spam is already dumb and IDK don't need shark spam as a counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Baz said:

DOK and Slaanesh were released a few weeks after their respective battletomes were announced.

Main issue for GW is that all officially previewed AOS stuff has been released so they need to preview more and release. I'm not expecting tonnes of AoS stuff for the next few months but it all cant be 40k releases.

I would also expect the release in the first quarter. But I also don't see the point in putting it up a week or two after the box.

 

23 minutes ago, Orbei said:

Dragon spam is already dumb and IDK don't need shark spam as a counter.

I would really love no more spam-lists at all and fluffier and more mixed lists being rewarded. I personally never went all out on any unit type but other's who did also did much better competitively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DocKeule said:

Sorry, didn't mean to take your job away from you mate.

unironically hilarious- solid banter right there

 

3 hours ago, Orbei said:

Right now I'm in the camp that they look like a downgrade due to the reduced wounds per point and less efficient overall damage output (which includes fighting on your opponent's turn).

absolutely fine even though overall relative damage output is functionally identical and objectively higher on your opponents turn, only losing out when looking at the ratio of that specific scenario to points increase (relative damage vs absolute damage). 

My big problem with the new book discourse is that it relies entirely on unsupported anecdotal evidence. People say things like "____ is worse" without any sort of supporting evidence or worse, just making up random numbers out of nowhere or saying "the math says (subjective opinion)." I provide the actual, calculated math to demonstrate raw stats and invite people to draw their own conclusions. I do my best to not speak in subjective absolutes and instead just give information. In fact, my all-bolded conclusion wasn't that sharks are better or worse than before. 

3 hours ago, Orbei said:

ou don't get to say that pointing out how things become worse, like how sharks are worse wounds per point than before, is premature bellyaching while simultaneously being excited for the improved shooting profile.

Also not what I said- I said that basically new sharks are roughly as survivable (lose out on a small amount of raw relative wounds for the ability to tank more absolute wounds without losing efficiency and command themselves) and roughly as efficient (same overall relative output, but with a ranged skew which I feel is more important than losing out on relative melee output in your opponent's turn). Evaluating them in the context of a soon-to-be outdated book makes no sense to me and leads to an "SBG-esque situation". But hey, you do you and make the buff damage tables to get the numbers you want to compare. 

When you say stuff like "I think the increase in ranged output doesn't make up for the loss of melee efficiency", I can absolutely respect that. That's not doom and gloom, that's a reasonable take. It's just annoying to see unsupported negativity and random numbers just made up out of nowhere. 

"_____ are bad"- prove it, explain why you think so, support it with as much objective evidence as you can, provide examples of how and why x may be better or how y synergizes more with what you're trying to do. Just randomly spouting stuff doesn't add to the discourse or help anyone grow as a player. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i wont bother on explain why and how shark is worse than before again since allready did.

 

shark is good still. but  obviously worse than prebox ( ok, worse for everybody but 1 people).

but new reavers arent a wash neither, like i showed with my maths :D they are worse in short range only, and that was a rare case. on long range they are like 3 times better, and im trilled to play 20 or 30 of them behind my units, or grabing objetives while deleting chaff.

 

thrall are weird. they are really nice on paper, but still melee foot unit with big base( not 20 one)and squishy( not so much with turtle). so they may dont see any table despite being great 

 

btw i got my box today, and hero had his long spear warped on one of the 2 tips, anyone got same problem? or knows how to fix it on plastic mini

 

aand noone can deny every scrool got better, and points change every 6 months so im really happy with new scrolls, not like my poor fyreslayer brother who was going to buy 3 boxes with me. and canceled 2 of them after watching scrolls

 

Edited by Kitsumy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

they are worse in short range only, and that was a rare case. on long range they are like 3 times better,

Old reavers- 30 shots, 4/4/-/1

New reavers 20 shots, 2/3/-1/1

Expected output: Old reavers- 1.25/2.5/3.75/5/6.25 (against 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ saves)

Expected output: New reavers- 3.7/5.56/7.41/9.26/11.1

Damage efficiency- Old reavers at 115 points- 92/46/30.7/23/18.4

Damage efficiency- New reavers at 170 points- 46/30.6/22.9/18.35/15.3

 

New reavers are objectively better and more efficient at short range across all save values and it's not even close. I seriously have no idea how you are doing math but I would really advise showing your work

Edited by vinnyt
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
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...