Jump to content

New rules for Forge World Exalted Greater Daemons


Ben
 Share

Recommended Posts

The forgeworld Exalted Greater Daemons all have rules now!

They have just been released on the forge world website.  

At a quick glance its the same rules as the citadel version with a few more wounds and attacks and a pip of armour save.  

It will be interesting to see if they update the pitched battle points any time soon. 

 

AOS-Exalted-Daemons.pdf

99599915008_Lordofchange01.jpg

99599915003_GreaterDaemonofKhorne01.jpg

99599915005_GreatUncleanOne06.jpg

99599915004_GreaterDaemonofSlaanesh05.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

At a quick glance its the same rules as the citadel version with a few more wounds and attacks and a pip of armour save.  

It will be interesting to see if they update the pitched battle points any time soon. 

Looks right.

I was hoping you might know if points are coming.

Nevertheless, that pip of armour save is colossal for all of them - Chaos finally have something that can compete with a Stardrake or Stonelord. Especially as none of them are named characters, can use command traits and artefacts. 

Assuming points arrive, I'm genuinely excited for Chaos for the first time in a while.

I've got the Billy model - it's awesome. I'm thinking of doing a Terry Pike and converting my The Glottkin into the EGD of Nurgle (it's certainly big enough and I like it - could make a big sword and a big flail); and then maybe Magnus converted into the EGD of Tzeentch - hopefully all sensible conversions that would work at GW events? Thoughts?

Edited by Nico
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the points stay the same as they currently are now with at most a 60-80pt increase these could be really good. I just said on twitter I was quite disappointed with these as there is nothing really 'exalted' about them. The only impressive increase is the +1 save, but with how easy mortal wounds are to obtain they still suffer the same fate as something like a Stardrake.

Same as the current Chaos Alliance ones with +1 save, 5 extra wounds and either a 1 damage increase or an additional attack, very lack luster :(

 

Edited by Terry Pike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope GW gets some points values up asap for these.  Honestly the current Greater Daemons are to expensive to be useful.  If they point these it should be a slight cost increase especially since they don't have command abilities.  It will be nice to have something that can survive the Order gun lines more than a few turns.  My fear is these will be costed to expensive to become useful.  Also, I hope they give these models their titles also such as Great Unclean One so they can work with formations.  I always hated that the Great Unclean for Example never felt that 'Great'.  He was more like Less Than Average Unclean One.

Edited by Broxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the only thing to come out of all this is that the disparity and grey area in base size between GW greater demons and FW greater demons is a bit more clear now, as there is now a clear distinction and points difference between a small base sized  GUO and a large base sized Exalted GUO.

Before, you could potentially gain some small subjective advantage and use say a larger base sized model (arguing that it's roughly the same size as a FW one) or take the FW Exalted variant for the SAME rules & points as a GW Greater Demon and get that extra base size, footprint and LOS blocker all for free.

So yeah an end to that isn't a bad thing because people could potentially just exploit it, or in some cases where the model is unpopular it would create an uneven equivalent where the only other option was something with a much larger base.

Tearing down the vagaries that allow for the bending and exploitation of rules, or perceptions thereof, thus creating a more harmonius and level playing field is never a bad thing. Clarity is always good!

 

Edited by James McPherson
poor choice of words/examples
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of them, the slaanesh one looks the strongest tbh, give it +1 to hit, that's 20 attacks 2+ 3+/2+ reroll 1s with -1/-2 rend with 2/d3 damage.

Good chance to make it a 2+ save also, with the talisman on top, or add an attack for it to be doubled giving you 22 attacks.

I've really been considering a slaanesh army as I see it as a hidden force within chaos if played right, this is really pushing me towards it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James McPherson said:

For me the only real thing to come out of all this is that exploiting the disparity and grey area in base size between GW greater demons and FW greater demons can no longer be allowed as there is now a clear distinction and points difference between a small base size lesser GUO and a large base sized Exalted GUO.

Before, you could model for advantage and use say a Glottkin model (arguing that it's roughly the same size as a FW one) or take the FW GUO for the SAME rules & points as a GW GUO and get that extra base size, footprint and LOS blocker all for free. So yeah an end to that isn't a bad thing because people will just exploit it and say 'they didn't like' the small GUO model. I'm all for tearing down the vagaries that allow for the bending and exploitation of rules and create a more level playing field.

 

I couldnt disagree more with this blanket statement about people exploiting base sizes.

My Glotkin to Great Unclean Conversion blocks less line of sight than the small current GUO model due to him being a standing model rather than the small solid blob that he is. My conversion looks bad ass and more often than not is made worse by the large base size as more models can fit in and attack him, he cannot hide behind any terrain as he is to tall and his upper body is massive and wont be covered at all. Its also impossible to move a movement 5 GUO around on the Glotkin sized base as its hard to fit past units and terrain, again making the large base size worse.

I do not like the current great unclean one model, so are you are saying I am exploiting my conversion (which actually makes it worse in most cases as stated above)?

Also the FW greater daemons were supplied on small 50mm frontage bases, so your point about confirming base sizes is false. The FW Keeper on a 50mm square base would be a lot more powerful than modelling it on say a larger oval cahriot base...

Edited by Terry Pike
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James McPherson said:

For me the only real thing to come out of all this is that exploiting the disparity and grey area in base size between GW greater demons and FW greater demons can no longer be allowed as there is now a clear distinction and points difference between a small base size lesser GUO and a large base sized Exalted GUO.

Before, you could model for advantage and use say a Glottkin model (arguing that it's roughly the same size as a FW one) or take the FW GUO for the SAME rules & points as a GW GUO and get that extra base size, footprint and LOS blocker all for free. So yeah an end to that isn't a bad thing because people will just exploit it and say 'they didn't like' the small GUO model. I'm all for tearing down the vagaries that allow for the bending and exploitation of rules and create a more level playing field.

 

This makes now sense for several reasons.  First, AoS was designed to be played without bases so modeling bases for advantage is a made up concept.  Second, the GUO is one of the worst GW models in the game and I many don't want to use it in their armies.  Third, a bigger base is in no way an advantage in this game and only a disadvantage.  I literally hurt myself every game by using the FW GUO because it looks cooler.  So often he gets stuck because he can't move through a gap or fit somewhere.

Edited by Broxus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Before, you could model for advantage and use say a Glottkin model (arguing that it's roughly the same size as a FW one) or take the FW GUO for the SAME rules & points as a GW GUO and get that extra base size, footprint and LOS blocker all for free. So yeah an end to that isn't a bad thing because people will just exploit it and say 'they didn't like' the small GUO model. I'm all for tearing down the vagaries that allow for the bending and exploitation of rules and create a more level playing field.

Modelling for disadvantage you mean. If you think bigger bases are a good thing.... 90% of the time it's a huge disadvantage. Got to defend Terry on this one.

Oh Mork, I'd take Gordrakk on a CD any day over the dinner plate. I use old CDs for some bases as they are very economical (i.e. free if I wouldn't use the CD otherwise) e.g. for mid size Forgeworld miscreants like the Troll Hag).

Check out Vince Venturella's jaw dropping Alarielle and ask whether the fact that it might be (I'm not actually sure how big it is, it looks custom size) on a slightly larger base than normal should keep it out of an event:

https://twitter.com/warhammerweekly

The new boxes for the EGDs have an oval or round base in them by the way, so yes you can use the standard one.

I would generally say that bigger bases are fine within reason (unless you're doing something obviously exploitative like bringing a manhole cover).

Incidentally, the official bases for the Thundertusk and Stonehorn are a joke/are an inadvertent buff. They are one size too small.

Edited by Nico
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If the points stay the same as they currently are now with at most a 60-80pt increase these could be really good. I just said on twitter I was quite disappointed with these as there is nothing really 'exalted' about them. The only impressive increase is the +1 save, but with how easy mortal wounds are to obtain they still suffer the same fate as something like a Stardrake.

I'm similar to this:

  • EGD of Khorne 360 (Base Bloodthirster, the meh one you rarely see used, is 280). Really poor Command Ability. Not quite as good as a Flappy from FEC which has a spell and a slightly better command ability, not as good as a Mourngul or Necrosphinx.
  • EGD of Nurgle 320 (base GUO is 240).
  • EGD of Tzeentch 320 (base LoC is 260) It isn't any better at spell casting, it's just tougher.
  • EGD of Slaanesh 330 (base KoS is 280 and overcosted).

The loss of the keyword Great Unclean One for the EGD of Nurgle etc. is also a subtle nerf that keeps them in check.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nico,

 

I think you are pretty close to what the points will actually be with the current point system.  That is regretful since the 'Great' Great Unclean One at 320-340 points is not really a viable option.  The main reason is he is slow and his damage output just doesn't cut it to be useful.  He just needs more dakka to be useful.  Sure he can take more damage than the GUO, but that isn't really super useful unless he kills stuff.   If you were to compare him to lets say 30 Plaguebearers, 3 plague drones (and a Herald of Nurgle), or any equivalent pointed unit he simply would suck.  These other units do more damage and have more wounds.   This is addition to his loss of the Great Unclean One keywords and command ability.  The only reason to take him is because he looks cool in Narrative play.


The Khorne bloodthirister becomes pretty viable at 360 since his damage has always been solid but his surviablity has lacked.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/12/2016 at 2:33 AM, Terry Pike said:

I couldnt disagree more with this blanket statement about people exploiting base sizes.

My Glotkin to Great Unclean Conversion blocks less line of sight than the small current GUO model due to him being a standing model rather than the small solid blob that he is. My conversion looks bad ass and more often than not is made worse by the large base size as more models can fit in and attack him, he cannot hide behind any terrain as he is to tall and his upper body is massive and wont be covered at all. Its also impossible to move a movement 5 GUO around on the Glotkin sized base as its hard to fit past units and terrain, again making the large base size worse.

I do not like the current great unclean one model, so are you are saying I am exploiting my conversion (which actually makes it worse in most cases as stated above)?

Also the FW greater daemons were supplied on small 50mm frontage bases, so your point about confirming base sizes is false. The FW Keeper on a 50mm square base would be a lot more powerful than modelling it on say a larger oval cahriot base...

Well the Glottkins legs yeah you can see through them, I'll give you that so yeah in terms of LOS blocking the FW blob is better.

Larger models are better for controlling board space, movement blocking enemy units, mostly defensive things, smaller ones are better for offensive.

I think with defensive armies like Nurgle Daemons it's an advantage and with more offensive armies possibly its a disadvantage. Yours has a bit of both so I can see why you don't agree, but at the end of the day man you slightly subverted or bent the widely accepted (unwritten) rule that you use what base the mini is supplied with to suit yourself (obviously with the best of intentions albeit) so I'm not surprised you disagree.

At the end of the day if everyone agrees it's fine then there's no issue anyway.

 

Edited by James McPherson
cleaned up the rambling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James McPherson said:

Wall of text accusing me of exploiting Age of Sigmar Rules.

"but at the end of the day man you slightly subverted or bent the rules to suit yourself"

Can you show me where in the 4 pages (or warscolls) where the exploited rules are please.

Also just for reference: The base size of the Glotkin cannot stop you from scoring on an objective, as you need to be within 6" to claim, its impossible for this base to cover a 12" area on its own.

If we played and you lost in your example above, would the base size giving me more of a disadvantage than an advantage be your real concern?

Edited by Terry Pike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Terry Pike said:

Can you show me where in the 4 pages (or warscolls) where the exploited rules are please.

Also just for reference: The base size of the Glotkin cannot stop you from scoring on an objective, as you need to be within 6" to claim, its impossible for this base to cover a 12" area on its own.

If we played and you lost in your example above, would the base size giving me more of a disadvantage than an advantage be your real concern?

When I say sat on an objective, I don't mean literally the epicentre of one, I mean movement blocking one . having to skirt around 3" outside of a huge base like that is quite a big problem for something with say movement 4 or 5, even a movement 6 clanrat or something is going to struggle to edge round that beast.

I don't want to argue with you man we are just going round in circles (large and small ones!)  I'm not getting at you I'm just voicing an opinion, I'm sorry that we disagree. I'm happy to take your word for it.

Going back on topic what will be interesting to see is if people try to subvert it the other way around and use the GW GUO and play it as an Exalted GUO.

Because as you say in the above point, there is nowhere in the 4 pages of rules saying I can't, so that would ok right? Or is it generally , ok to make larger bases, but not ok to make smaller ones, is that what's been unofficially decided? Where is that in the 4 pages of rules?

 

Edited by James McPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigger bases are a much larger disadvantage than advantage.  As you said everyone is entitled to their opinion, your is just wrong.  I have seen Terry's stuff and to be honest he hurts himself by playing the Glottkin as a GUO.  You could argue that large models can block LoS but that has nothing to do with base size.  Playing models on the smallest base possible gives you a massive advantage during movement and combat phases.  You obviously have never tried playing a model on a large base that size or you would realize this.  You are trying to make up some rules or etiquette that was never designed into the game, based on speculative theory that isn't applicable to real games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James McPherson said:

when I say sat on an objective, I don't mean literally the epicentre of one, I mean movement blocking one . having to skirt around 3" of a huge base like that is quite an obstacle to negotiate.

I don't want to argue with you man we are just going round in circles (large and small ones!)  I'm not getting at you I'm just voicing an opinion, I'm sorry that we disagree.

What will be even more interesting to see is if people try to subvert it the other way around and use their GW GUO's as Exalted GUO's now to get the benefits of using a smaller base, because if you and Nico and most other people think it's so much better to have one on a smaller base then that would become a thing right?

SO that begs the question would that be OK then if I do that with my GW GUO and play it as an Exalted GUO? Because as you say in the above point, its not in the 4 pages of rules saying I can't, so that would ok right? You see where I'm going with this?

We are already changing rulings over here in NZ at AOS tournaments based on what Nico is saying on TGA! Apparently you are the voice of authority Nico!

Well, at a tournament at the games workshop headquarters, organised, sponsored and ran by games workshop, with rules set by games workshop, lists okay'd by the games workshop team running it, aired for the first time by games workshop, it was allowed.

Pretty much means it's allowed.

And they didn't see a problem with it, so who are you to say no its not allowed?

Just a question. 

Edited by Arkiham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue, you are welcome to disagree it's all good!

I'm allowed a voice and opinion, as is every other person in this community. I'm not stating it as fact, I'm stating it as how it appears to me and I'm allowed to think whatever I like. You are welcome to tell me I'm wrong in the spirit of healthy debate, and I respect your opinion but don't talk down to me or patronise me. Some situations its a disadvantage, some it's an advantage, some games the disadvantages will come to the fore, other games the opposite will happen and perhaps the advantages can come into play.

If you don't play the mini's on the base sizes they are meant to be played on, there will always be some discrepancies whether you perceive them positively or negatively is beside the point, that's what happens with discrepancies, they allow for varying interpretations of rules or opinions resulting from the subversion. All I'm saying is I prefer to eradicate these subversions from the game to make it as level a playing field as possible. So kill me for having an opinion. Shoot me why don't you? Because after all that is such a heinous, controversial thing to say right? That I just want a regular standardised basing size guide for people to stick to and for the game to be as generic and fair as possible, and we already have one, its the bases that the models are supplied with, you use those. If people start picking and choosing whatever they like, then it gets complicated.

Edited by James McPherson
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...