AoS Cities of Sigmar Battletome 2023 Discussion

[Satyrical Sophist]

3 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

if you want ****** the data great,but i hope nobody take it as real when is fake.

That's a quote from your original response, you have since edited. Generally when people use asterisks they are trying to evade the censors and the starred out word is a curse word.  if I understand what you were trying to type that's a very rude way of putting an already very impolite accusation.

46 minutes ago, Doko said:

hnnn why my post was agresive only for saying that is wrong calculate bufed units vs unbufed units?

also dont take in count the cost, see a table of 390 points of fussilers vs 320 of blisbarb is wrong since the start because arent same points.

i could post the real data with same points of fussilers vs same points of blisbarbs and blisbarbs full buffed wit +1 rend and the data would show how blisbarbs are better and dont need a spell that is isnt relyable neither spend one cp neither one warlord trait.

in fact blisbarbs need a increase of 20/30 points to be balanced while fusilers need a reduction of 20 points.

 

but even if fussilers are overcosted for their damage,they are one key unit of our book,supresive fire make playable units as hammerers,also the counter fire with a good brain open many plays.

I'm going to be short on this, and not go into quote storm. The numbers Neil Arthur Hotep quoted originally do include all the buffs he noticed, it's not comparing buffed to unbuffed units. He listed the buffs he included which include hero buffs and spells. He may not have included every buff possible (specifically he missed blissbarb seekers conditional improvement to rend), but he listed which buffs he included and I think got most of them. He included the points of the buffing units in the cost. That's why fusiliers are down as 390 points for 20, and blissbarbs are down as 320. What he didn't do is factor the cost into that, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to quote, since it's what you expect that unit to do in damage.

I took his numbers and factored in the cost. I actually did it two ways..the first way is that I took the damage numbers for fusiliers and divided by the cost of the unit of fusiliers, then multiplied by 100 to get a uniform view of what 100 points of unit can expect to do. It's a slightly arbitrary point value to set to, but I think it works quite well as a comparison.

The other way I factored in the cost was working out how many points worth of fusiliers or blissbarbs it would take to do one point of damage, which JackS wanted to see. That also factors in the cost so 390 points of Fusiliers expects to do 13.22 damage to a 2+ save, so 390 points divided by 13.22 damage gets you an expected 29.05 points of Fusiliers to expect to do 1 damage to a 2+ save. I did a full set of tables for each of the lists options. 

1 hour ago, Myrdin said:

I found myself going to this site quite often when looking for a specific warscroll and being to lazy to open the book (when it come sto faction books that I have).

Here is the Ratling gun warscroll specifically :
https://wahapedia.ru/aos3/factions/skaven/Ratling-Gun

Thanks Myrdin! I do know about Wahpedia, and did check the exact wording but since I don't play Skaven it's a lot more reliable to ask somehow who plays the faction for which buffs to apply and I can check for exact wording when I know what to look for. Even something like "Lore spell and battle trait buff" is enough to make it so I don't miss something.

 

I'll have a look at numbers in the morning, if I get too excelly/Google sheets late at night I end up too awake to get to sleep!

[Doko]

i edited the first post to be nice to you seeing as you tougth was rude and evade posible next problems but seems you ignored it and even you went beyond.

im spanish and the asterisk wasnt nothing rude,i wroted scr ew that isnt something rude in my idiom and is something as modify the data.

again i only said that the table is wrong when dont compare same cost vs same cost.

even if we ignore the +1 rend of blisbarbs,only adding 4 more blisbarbs to the table to get it to 380 points and closer to the 390 of fussilers then blisbarbs win.

but i get it,next time i wont say anithing, i couldnt avoid it seeing people compare  units vs units and forget the huge gap in points,usually the comparations are made same points vs same points to be acurate

[Satyrical Sophist]

5 minutes ago, Doko said:

i edited the first post to be nice to you seeing as you tougth was rude and evade posible next problems but seems you ignored it and even you went beyond.

im spanish and the asterisk wasnt nothing rude,i wroted scr ew that isnt something rude in my idiom and is something as modify the data.

again i only said that the table is wrong when dont compare same cost vs same cost.

even if we ignore the +1 rend of blisbarbs,only adding 4 more blisbarbs to the table to get it to 380 points and closer to the 390 of fussilers then blisbarbs win.

but i get it,next time i wont say anithing, i couldnt avoid it seeing people compare  units vs units and forget the huge gap in points,usually the comparations are made same points vs same points to be acurate

If you fully * out a word people are going to assume the worst, particularly when a different, harsher word also fits. Something like sc*wed is clear. Otherwise you risk people assuming the word starts with F. I apologise if it seemed like escalating, was attempting to explain why I thought it was aggressive. 

I know the first table did not account for points. Every other table has. Specifically comparing fusiliers with AoA, command trait and flaming weapons to Blissbarbs with AoA then once you factor in the fact that Fusiliers are 21% more expensive then Blissbarbs are more efficient when shooting targets with 4+ or worse saves. Fusiliers are more efficient Vs 3+ and better.

Blissbarbs honestly seem really amazing. I don't think anyone is trying to say that Fusiliers are too good. I think they are a good unit in cities of sigmar, and interact really well with orders. I don't know what agenda you think people have. I'm just trying to work out how different units interact, and what we can expect them to do. The comparison to Blissbarbs came about because people were disappointed in the damage output of Fusiliers and having a successful shooting unit compare to is a useful thing. One thing I've found looking at the numbers is that if you have a fully buffed up fusilier unit rerolling hits then you are usually better off fishing for 6s unless the target has a 5+ or worse save. That's not a thing I would have known without actually checking it.

I really don't want you to "just not say anything" . Can you tell me what I have done wrong in this tables that I've been posting? I might have, I realised when I was looking at drake spawn knights that I had the wrong number of mount attacks at first and corrected them.

First table I included is taking the expected damage for each unit, then dividing by the number of points, then multiplying to get what a theoretical 100 points of that unit would be. So 5.1 buffed Fusiliers Vs 5.56 AoA Blissbarbs and so on. That's the one with Fusiliers getting 3.39 expected to a 2+ and 6.58 expected to no armour save. Blissbarbs are 2.37 to a 2+ save 7.12 to no armour save.

The second table I included looks at how many points of each unit is needed to do 1 damage to a target.

Both factor in the different points cost for the unit.

 

What would you like me to do? I keep explaining how I am factoring in points and you don't seem to be reading it. I might be factoring them in wrong, but if I am I don't understand how.

 

[Doko]

your math is fine,but the premise is wrong.

 

sorry if i sounded rude before,but to me dont make sense compare fussilers with a warlord trait,+1 cp and with a spell that can faill and enemy can cancell it(very easy this season with primal dice) to a unit (blisbarbs) that is unbuffed and only have the +1 wound for bring one hero.

so i said that the table was wrong,the maths behind is fine but not the source of the numbers.

and as i said,even with all these extra resources spents on fussilers they are worse than blisbars with +1 rend of the cavalry that isnt taken in account in these datas.

but to me this table even if we take in account the +1 rend of blosbarbs dont make sense as i said because we must waste one warlord trait that is only one for entire list and 1cp and worse even a spell that isnt reliably and we compare to a unit(blisbarbs) that dont need nothing,only bring the hero that give +1 wound .

if we compare base stats then the comparation is fair and a huge win for blisbarbs

blisbarbs 160 points for 8'8 rend 1 damage

fussilers 150 for 5(6 if we add the captain) rend 1 damage

[Lord Veshnakar]

Most competent players learn to stop the Warforgers spell in my experience with the new tome. Too much hinges on that spell getting off for my comfort whereas units like blissbarbs or the sentinels were great out of the box. I still like a unit of 20 though to give me some backboard protection.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Lord Veshnakar

[Thugmullet]

I think the fusiliers are costed for there potential in large units and the buffs they can take. Call it GW lack of being able to balance this type of unit or laziness or whatever but it puts fusiliers in a funny spot.

They are expensive. Whether that's a balanced cost depends on what role you want them to play in your army. For a casual game, maybe with  MSU running around then on a per unit cost.. There probably over costed.. But casually maybe fun. Couple wounds here, couple there, lose a few, who cares.

But.. Put 30 of them in a comp list, build your army around it a buff the ****** out of them and there playing an army role and doing stuff the rest of your army can't do. Buffed (including orders) your looking at 30' range, 60 shots on 3+,3+ at 1 rend and doing MW on 6. That's an average 10 mortals at 30' and prob another 10 wounds after saves are rolled. Couple of battalions and it's in a 2 drop list. 1 if you go small on the heroes.

So these guys are potentially removing key enemy linchpin units from the game turn 1. That's there army roll. And that's potential role is what you are paying for in points costs and the base 4+ 4+

Big investment, say 600 points. Your going to come up short army wise somewhere else, your going to have to build around this, it's not a balanced swiss army knife build. But played well there going to be game winners I think.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Thugmullet

[The Lost Sigmarite]

4 hours ago, Doko said:

if we compare base stats then the comparation is fair and a huge win for blisbarbs

Blissbarbs are terribly unbalanced right now, I don't think comparing Fusiliers to them is a good metric apart for showing that they're not in "broken unit territory" and that Fusiliers can be strong yes but also balanced.  The comparison is not fair to me because Blissbarbs overperform way too much for their point costs. 

[Myrdin]

5 hours ago, Doko said:

but to me this table even if we take in account the +1 rend of blosbarbs dont make sense as i said because we must waste one warlord trait that is only one for entire list and 1cp and worse even a spell that isnt reliably and we compare to a unit(blisbarbs) that dont need nothing,only bring the hero that give +1 wound .

if we compare base stats then the comparation is fair and a huge win for blisbarbs

blisbarbs 160 points for 8'8 rend 1 damage

fussilers 150 for 5(6 if we add the captain) rend 1 damage

Now besides this whole "Blissbarbs are good" discussion. Yes they are too good, but I dont want to get into that now. What I want to point at is the highlighted text.

Thats the exact issue I have with Fussiliers personally. They require way to much investment in terms of resources you do not have multiple off or are unreliable, for a meidocre 4+ 4+ platform to become good. Dispelling a spell is easy in the current season. Even with all the casting buffs you might not get the spell through, and at that point your expensive investment is under performing and not pulling their weight. Sacrifice of a generals trait and possibly an artifact, both of which are HUMAN only, meaning you cant even multipurpose with them is what makes them even less appealing.

No matter the math I think GW dropped the ball on them, the cannon and the Fussil Major. In their case its the 4+ to Wound, which should have been a 3+ since we do have access to +1 To Hit buffing without spending a Generals battle trait on it. Then drop them to 130 and its a fair, solid unit. The cannons issue is the range which should have been at minimum 30" possibly even 36" and cost, and the Ogor is just badly designed single "support" piece but thats besides the point rn.

And the problem is that the books are already printed so we can forget about a fix, since GW is absolutely incompetent in this regard. That leaves us with the "once a year" price adjustment, where they usually "fix" a non performing unit by dropping the points.

In case of Cannon and Fussils, enough of a points reduction might help. The Ogor requires a full scroll redesign coz whatever that thing was supposed to be and do simply doesnt work. Not even on the paper, and that should give you a huge warning sign already.

Its funny how they want to sells us these new kits, yet they completely ommited the usual power creept/decent warscroll that goes with it.

EDIT: And for armies centered wholly about Fussiliers... Again its the Old World dwarves issue I mentioned few pages before. Nobody liked playing against them, and I believe eventually even as them, once the novelty of camping the corner and shooting your opponent to death died down. Cities was not a single unit focus army, and I would hate for them to become that.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Myrdin

[The Lost Sigmarite]

Who cares about using Fusiliers beyond scoring battle tactics ? Real Sigmarite chads use Cavaliers and charge straight at the enemy to crush them in manly close quarters combat.

[Thugmullet]

Just now, The Lost Sigmarite said:

Who cares about using Fusiliers beyond scoring battle tactics ? Real Sigmarite chads use Cavaliers and charge straight at the enemy to crush them in manly close quarters combat.

This is logical sir and is an attitude with out fault.

[Myrdin]

5 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:

Who cares about using Fusiliers beyond scoring battle tactics ? Real Sigmarite chads use Cavaliers and charge straight at the enemy to crush them in manly close quarters combat.

Mounts the steed with mali....ahem... righteous intent, yes yes!

Edited September 6, 2023 by Myrdin

[JackStreicher]

[Lightbox]

20 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:

Who cares about using Fusiliers beyond scoring battle tactics ? Real Sigmarite chads use Cavaliers and charge straight at the enemy to crush them in manly close quarters combat.

Tally ho!

I'm very much looking forward to trying to convert a lot of my various cavalry models into a glorious mix of cavaliers to nobly crush my foes beneath their hooves! 

I think one thing that's really nice is that Im gonna get a lot of use out of some of the heroes from the cursed city box I got for the death side 😅 Will make some characterful heroes and models for the big retinue squad.

[The Lost Sigmarite]

I'd be cool to see what cavalry heavy lists can be tested - those Cavalier-Marshals look very spammable as the mini beatsticks that can be. 

You can play around with Countercharge if you keep your Cavaliers behind your Steelhelm screens for a surprisingly meaty counterpunch for 5 humans on horses - and you don't have to take the decision of "do I pull the trigger of my counterpunch now or wait a turn" because the opponent does it for you when they charge. You just gotta leave some space around the board for the charge/pile-ins to happen.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 hours ago, Doko said:

blisbarbs archers and idoneth reavers are the standar of ranged units with rend1

also in these tables blisbarbs are missing the -1 save to enemy from the cavalry,also to be acurate must be same points,fussilers are 70 espensiver,this table with same points(4 extra blisbarbs) and a -1 save to blisbarbs and the data change

I missed the Blissbard Seeker/Blissbarb Archer interaction. I have not really been following tournaments super closely for a year or so.

Here are the numbers for 20 Archers and 5 Seekers vs. 30 Fusiliers and an Alchemite:

Save	Blissbarb Archers plus Seekers (530 pts)	Fusiliers plus Alchemite (540 pts)
2+	13.17	19.52
3+	17.85	24.11
4+	22.54	28.7
5+	27.22	33.3
6+	28.11	37.89
-	28.11	37.89

Details:

Spoiler

20 Blissbarb Archers at +1/+1, rend -2 from Seeker ability. Seekers unbuffed (I think this is right, none of the tournament lists I referenced seemed to have any extra sources of +1 to hit or whatever).

30 Fusiliers, +1/+1, Alchemite mortals spell included. Requires a unit of Steelhelms for 100 points to actually run.

I'll also explain my decision not to normalize these numbers to damage per 100 points or points per 1 damage, and did not include numbers for unbuffed units of 10 or theoretical maximum buffs (although I already explained the reasoning a few times in this thread).

Basically, with these numbers, I wanted to compare a few different shooting units in ways that they are actually used. In the original post, I used a once reinforced unit with all the buffs they would typically get if they are actually run in a list. I do this because it is immediately meaningful information: If you run this unit and add reasonable buffs like a support hero, a command and/or a spell, how do they compare to other units that are, in fact, being used successfully in tournaments.

I don't normalize for 100 points because usually running 100 points of models is just not actual option. As an example, Nagash casts 8 spells at +3 for 900 points. That's 1 spell per 112,5 points. But you can't actually run 1/8 of Nagash, so this info is less immediately useful than the original data of 8 casts for 900.

Similarly, I don't find the damage numbers of 10 unbuffed Fusiliers very useful. This is not how the unit would actually be used in lists. Cities is a synergy army and most units are bad if you look at their warscrolls only, but get significantly uplifted by orders, commands and hero abilities. The fact that they do 5 points of rend -1 damage  base-line only tells you that they are not worth including at min size and unbuffed. They don't have a role if you run them that way. But they do have a role if you invest into their buffs. And at that point, it really does not matter how bad the base-line is. @Thugmullet made that point in his post, as well.

For Fusiliers, 20 or 30 of them with an Alchemite really seems like the minimum needed to make them go. I would say, in most lists, Master of Ballistics is also a reasonable investment. People are over-valuing command traits in general, imo, because you only get one. Just spend it on making your big ranged threat do 30% more damage, seems fine to me. Of course, you can just decide that running Fusiliers locks in your list too much. @Myrdin talks about this pretty reasonably, in my opinion. 30 Fusiliers probably do lock you into running a Master of Ballistics Alchemite in a cast bonus city. If you want to run a Misthavn cavalry rush instead, Fusiliers could be a non-starter for you because hard-casting the Alchemite spell is just not consistent enough. Or maybe you want the Alchemite mortals on a different unit, because he can buff anything human, after all. Of course, the decision gets even more complicated if you factor in core battalions and battle tactics. So it's not like the damage numbers alone determine what you should be running.

 

 

[JackStreicher]

Still waiting on my box to arrive ;-|

So, has anyone had any games with the new cities so far? I'd like to exchange soem experiences.
(my next game is on friday)

One thing I think I haven't mentioned yet is that orders are one-dimensional in 1k point games. Usually one has to few heroes to make the most out of the orders, this would be different with Hammerhal Aqsha though.

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

20 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Still waiting on my box to arrive ;-|

So, has anyone had any games with the new cities so far? I'd like to exchange soem experiences.
(my next game is on friday)

One thing I think I haven't mentioned yet is that orders are one-dimensional in 1k point games. Usually one has to few heroes to make the most out of the orders, this would be different with Hammerhal Aqsha though.

Same here. I was worried there was a problem with my order, because I had to update my shipping adress through GW customer support. Seems shipping to continental europe is just still pretty slow. I remember it taking about a week when I ordered before (Cursed City).

I'm sadly too busy with work to get games in right now, but I am trying to organize a 1000-1250 or so point game with a list consisting of mainly Steam Tanks. Probably of limited interest to most players, but I am excited to put the new Steam Tank warscroll through its paces.

I guess you could run the Ven Densts in 1000 point games for those double ordies. I think orders will probably frequently be fairly predictable/flowchart, actually. Turn 1, mostly Advance until everything is in position. Does the opponent have shooting? Then potentially Counter-Fire. If not, mostly suppressive fire on your ranged units. Counter charge on fast/flying stuff, except for that big first charge. For elf and dwarf units, it also seems fairly clear what type of unit gets what order most of the time.

[JackStreicher]

I'd be interested to run a list like:

20x Corsairs
Sorceress
20 Fusiliers
Warforger
Marshal
+ Some Infantry or Chariots

in a 1k - 1.25k game

[Beliman]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:16 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Damage calculations of Fusiliers vs. various boogeyman shooting units I could remember off the top of my head

When people compare "high elite ranged troops" and don't use any Kharadron unit, Sigmar kills a kitten.

On 9/4/2023 at 5:28 PM, Myrdin said:

Whereas other armies dont or very rarely have this type of limitation.

Believe me that Cities are far away from being the "once-per-game" army.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Beliman

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

29 minutes ago, Beliman said:

When people compare "high elite ranged troops" and don't use any Kharadron unit, Sigmar kills a kitten.

You're not wrong. But I was just calculating units I remembered at the moment/am reasonably familiar with how they work. I make no claims of completeness

Thunderers are the prime shooting unit in KO, right? I have honestly never looked at the KO book in enough depths to know what their synergies are, though.

[Skreech Verminking]

On 9/6/2023 at 1:55 AM, Satyrical Sophist said:

Thanks Myrdin! I do know about Wahpedia, and did check the exact wording but since I don't play Skaven it's a lot more reliable to ask somehow who plays the faction for which buffs to apply and I can check for exact wording when I know what to look for. Even something like "Lore spell and battle trait buff" is enough to make it so I don't miss something.

 

I'll have a look at numbers in the morning, if I get too excelly/Google sheets late at night I end up too awake to get to sleep!

I do play rattling gun weapon teams a lot in the skaven faction.

and I am a pretty much a skaven player, even though I do have to mention that the current skaven battletome represents the skaven incredible badly.

 

On 9/5/2023 at 10:09 PM, Satyrical Sophist said:

I can include Rattling Guns if you'd like! What buffs would you like on them that aren't on the warscroll, I don't have the Skaven book.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 12:51 AM, Myrdin said:

I found myself going to this site quite often when looking for a specific warscroll and being to lazy to open the book (when it come sto faction books that I have).

Here is the Ratling gun warscroll specifically :
https://wahapedia.ru/aos3/factions/skaven/Ratling-Gun

Personally there aren’t too many buffs you can give the rattling gun weapon team.

The probably more well known one would be a +1 to hit through a command ability like all out attack or the command trait deranged inventor.

Preferable of course mmwp would be used, yet you often have to ask you if there isn’t a better unit to get that buff.

but lets leave that fact out.

The ratting gun weapon team hits and wounds on 4s with a rend of -1 and damage of 1.

we can increase the damage for up to 3 rattling gun weapon teams to 2 per shot.

and they can throw out an amount of attacks equal to the result of a 2d6 +3 

Since that means that the rattling gun weapon team will do on average a bad amount of damage will definitely want to overcharge the rattling gun weapon team, increasing the attacks characteristics to the amount of the result of a 4d6 +3.

Depending if you’re playing a fun game against friends, at an event where the rules as intended are used, or at a tournament where only rules as they are written apply the rattling gun weapon team will either die immediately after shooting or it will never explode 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

On 9/6/2023 at 9:15 AM, Myrdin said:

Now besides this whole "Blissbarbs are good" discussion. Yes they are too good, but I dont want to get into that now. What I want to point at is the highlighted text.

Thats the exact issue I have with Fussiliers personally. They require way to much investment in terms of resources you do not have multiple off or are unreliable, for a meidocre 4+ 4+ platform to become good. Dispelling a spell is easy in the current season. Even with all the casting buffs you might not get the spell through, and at that point your expensive investment is under performing and not pulling their weight. Sacrifice of a generals trait and possibly an artifact, both of which are HUMAN only, meaning you cant even multipurpose with them is what makes them even less appealing.

No matter the math I think GW dropped the ball on them, the cannon and the Fussil Major. In their case its the 4+ to Wound, which should have been a 3+ since we do have access to +1 To Hit buffing without spending a Generals battle trait on it. Then drop them to 130 and its a fair, solid unit. The cannons issue is the range which should have been at minimum 30" possibly even 36" and cost, and the Ogor is just badly designed single "support" piece but thats besides the point rn.

And the problem is that the books are already printed so we can forget about a fix, since GW is absolutely incompetent in this regard. That leaves us with the "once a year" price adjustment, where they usually "fix" a non performing unit by dropping the points.

In case of Cannon and Fussils, enough of a points reduction might help. The Ogor requires a full scroll redesign coz whatever that thing was supposed to be and do simply doesnt work. Not even on the paper, and that should give you a huge warning sign already.

Its funny how they want to sells us these new kits, yet they completely ommited the usual power creept/decent warscroll that goes with it.

EDIT: And for armies centered wholly about Fussiliers... Again its the Old World dwarves issue I mentioned few pages before. Nobody liked playing against them, and I believe eventually even as them, once the novelty of camping the corner and shooting your opponent to death died down. Cities was not a single unit focus army, and I would hate for them to become that.

If we are having a discussion about fussilators and blossbarbs.

shouldn’t we first discuss the fact that dwarfen irondrakes cost 10points more then the fusilators?

[Myrdin]

59 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

If we are having a discussion about fussilators and blossbarbs.

shouldn’t we first discuss the fact that dwarfen irondrakes cost 10points more then the fusilators?

I fail to see why you are quoting me, since I have almost zero contribution to the Blissbarbs-Fussiliers discussion. Hell my very first line in the comment you quoted says that.

And no we do not discuss Irondrakes here, because clearly this new books is going back to being a single race focus, in this case HUMAN centric, unlike the preivous one that I enjoyed greatly for being a mixed race "typical Fantasy city".

Trust me, I hate it greatly, that all the new stuff is that way here. I was hoping CoS will be the one unique faction in this entire game that has mixed raced mortals fighting against the evils of the world. But as that is clearly not the case you can see how the non human stuff has been treated compared to the humans one. Less orders, less traits, less spells, no new units, and those units got changed, some for better some for worse. Irondrakes before were basically the dwarven version of the Sisters of the Watch. Now they are worse in every aspect than Fussiliers once we factor in all the variable buffs, stat line and what not.

If the buffs the new book can do were not all keyworded under "HUMAN" I would be much less salty about the affair of loosing bunch of the units I enjoyed using, since I would still have some fun combos left to do, instead of the very railroaded ones that all revolve around race specific keyword.

Hence I dont wish to discuss them. It makes me sad the way the book is going.

Edit: Still miffed I cant take bunch of Copters and turn them into Dakkajets with Alchemite and Hurricanum xd

 

A tiny bit of a rant, but with very logical reasoning below

Edit 2, this is just a general thing I wanted to talk about before in general: I HATE the inept fool who wrote the orders and made the Castelite one a universal oder and the Counterfire a Human only.

That make NO SENSE!

In fact it would make perfect sense for the Castelite one to be Human specific and the Counterfire one to be universal, since both the Dark Elves and the Dwarves have plenty of shooting of their own. THAT would make all the sense in fact.

But since its not that way you can tell it was either a huge oversight (it would change the dynamic of the 2 subfacitons a lot if they could use this order) or intention to clamp down on them, and make sure people slowly phase them out of their armies, before after loosing Wood and High elves we can sure as hell expect the Dwarves and DElves to go the way of the buffalo in the next book as well. Dwarves might rolled into one huge Duardin coalition while DElves can hope that Malarions faction will be a thing by that point.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Myrdin

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

45 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

shouldn’t we first discuss the fact that dwarfen irondrakes cost 10points more then the fusilators?

I was recently looking at Irondrakes again as a second shooting unit (because I think the second Fusilier unit is a lot worse than the first), but it seems to me that Irondrakes just are not cutting currently. Their short range and the non-movement requirement kind of make them too hard to use for their points/their damage.

If they get a bit cheaper, though, I think I might do 20 of those dudes and a Runelord for the to-hit buff. What I like about them is that they are completely self-contained pair that does not need any command abilities or a specific city choice to do its job. Right now, though, it is insanity that 20 Irondrakes and a Runelord is 30 points more expensive than 20 Fusiliers and an Alchemite.

[The Lost Sigmarite]

Realised this while building Cavaliers : their 60x35 bases allow them to have a really small footprint, perfect for squeezing in to pile-in as much models as possible and move next to other units.