New rules for Forge World Exalted Greater Daemons

[Arkiham]

But you were going on about los, changing a model changes the Los.

Anyway. 

Now there is a distinction between the forgeworld EGUO and the normal GUO then i feel the appropriate base size should be used appropriate to the model you're representing.

Purely for representation purposes.

If people are basing for advantage purposes (if there is any ) and it becomes clear they are, then it will be dealt with and any wins whilst abusing that will be appropriately delt with by the community.

Obviously games workshop haven't seen a problem with it,  and ultimately they are the rule writers, so I'd say their call holds more clout than anyone else's. 

There is more pressure on them to be seen as playing fair and fun, due to everyone using them as a Base standard, 

[James McPherson]

Yeah not LOS to the model, LOS through the model to whats behind it. I mean the FW GUO is like a huge immoveable object right? its like a piece of moving scenery you can make fly and won't die all game. Glottkin is a taller model true and is standing so has that gap between his legs so isn't so great at blocking off LOS, but still blocks off a lot of board space, but anyway yadda yadda yadda, this is boring now.

[Broxus]

The Forgewold GUO has been a GUO for as long as I can remember.  Suddenly changing the name so it can't be used is silly and punitive.  The only reason I even started Nurgle was because of that FW GUO model.  I will continue to use it as a GUO since the actual GW GUO is such a terrible sculpt and made of metal.  This is to my own disadvantage because it just looks so darn cool.  There is absouletly nothing wrong with this and if someone had an issue with I would simply not play them.  I would be following every AoS rules by doing this since bases are not even suppose to be used.

[James McPherson]

hey c'mon now, size isn't everything...

[Nico]

Quote

And once he is sat on an objective then yeah, that extra base size keeps other models further away from it, and in a scenario where it's decided by model count and you have a unit of 20 Clanrats trying to get close enough to win it by weight of numbers, yeah that's a bad thing. True he gets in the way of other models and is harder to move past terrain, but I haven't been seeing too many crowded terrain boards recently out there, It's not like cityfighting , and when you are running small units of 10 Plague Bearers or 6 Stormfiends as you do TP it's not like you are exactly running a horde army and putting yourself at a disadvantage. It is a disadvantage for fitting him in cover though so I feel for you on that one.

This is less of an issue now that objectives are scored 6 inches away.

It's also worth discussing before a game whether to measure from the edge of the objective or the centre of the objective. I happen to play edge as it's far easier to measure it (it probably should be the middle of the objective but whatever floats your boat), but obviously try to agree or roll off. I get the feeling that most people measure to the edge - thoughts? 

GUO cannot get a cover save.

To be fair to @James McPherson putting something on a materially smaller base than it is meant to be on is usually objectionable as it can confer a big advantage. However, this specific case is the opposite way around. For example, some of my Dracoth Knights are on oval bases one size too big and it's occasionally disadvantageous for me (piling in is harder, fitting them into cover is harder etc.). To be clear it's my own fault. No-one has ever objected or even necessarily noticed.

I'm certainly planning to make my Glottkin into an EGD of Nurgle to go with my existing Forgeworld EGD of Khorne. The riders are magnetised and I'll find a sword and a flail if that's what he needs to carry. I will put them on the base size as per the new boxes. I certainly hope no-one objects. 

[James McPherson]

yeah, I was trying to make the point about offensive units being more advantageous on smaller bases for things like swift dynamic movement,  optimum piling in etc and more defensive units being suited to large bases which play to their strengths such as board control, movement blocking etc. I guess it also comes down to individual play style and the scenerio / matchup as well. Like Terry's game in Blood and Glory he pretty much yolo'd his GUO straight into the Fyreslayers lines which was pretty aggressive. I'm going to pick the FW one up eventually so I've often thought about what I would use him for, so maybe I have become bliinkered by that and envisioning him as some big roadblock to control boardspace with.  I also have Tamurkhan in progress at the moment who is so large they don't even make a base for.  I think the Glottkin makes a cool GUO or Exalted, I just think you have to be careful on upscaling defensively biased units or downscaling aggressively biased. There was much discussion about this when AOS first came out before the GHB came out because people were rebasing from squares and didn't know what to use, and I thought it was pretty much all settled that the easiest way to avoid grey areas and potential rules exploitation was to standardise and use what came in the box. I spent about 150 quid on secret weapon bases and bought resin 32mm for all my plague bearers so they would look cool, but in the end realised they would have to go on cheap regular 25's as I couldn't afford to go out and buy double, so it's a subject I've been burned with in the past and have stuck to the popular perception with even though it's cost me a lot of money and a cooler looking aesthetic. And nobody try to tell me Plaguebearers are at more of a disadvantage on 32's because they aren't. So obviously it means more to me than someone who has gone out and subverted slightly for aesthetic reasons.

Yeah I always forget monsters don't get cover saves a lot, it's my bane =)

[James McPherson]

We are meant to be getting new Greater Deamons anyway aren't we, with a new LOC coming up first, and they will all be much larger bases akin to Magnus, who is probably pretty similar to the FW Exalted GDs so this point is moot anyway in a few months time.

[Broxus]

 

I did the math having both the Exalted GUO and 10 Blightkings attack a unit with an armor save of 4+ since it is such a common save in the game.  
I also did the math using the Exalted GUO and 10 Blightkingsmy Nurgle saves vs a unit with no rend, requiring a 4+ to hit and a 4+ to wound.  I didn't take into account self healing/damage AoE that the Blightkings or self heals the Exalted GUO can do.  

The Blightkings = 12 damage a turn and 256 attacks to kill them

The Exalted GUO= 4.8 damage a turn and requires 214 attacks to kill him (note this includes ranged attack)

As you can see the Blightkings outclass the Exalted GUO in every category and do approximately 250% more damage and are 20% more survivable at only 360points.  

Please note for comparison purposes I think even the Blightkings are to expensive (suffering from the Nurgle Tax) in the GHB and the costs would be even worse if I used several GHB Stormcast unit points.  The Blightkings, GUO and all other infantry should be equitable in their points value computations depending on how good they are.  If you are using the GHB Blightking points of 180-points for a unit of 5.  The Exalted GUO should likely be 300-320 to be an equitable and viable option.  Otherwise it would never make sense to take him other than the fact he looks cool.   So you would suffer both the Nurgle and cool model tax for your army.

[Nico]

Quote

 And nobody try to tell me Plaguebearers are at more of a disadvantage on 32's because they aren't.

30 Plaguebearers cannot attack in 2 ranks on 32 bases. No a big deal for them, but colossal for Bloodletters (who probably should be on 32 I gather). Would be fatal to Grots, Skaven and Skeletons if they were on 32s.

Quote

Please note for comparison purposes I think even the Blightkings are to expensive (suffering from the Nurgle Tax) in the GHB and the costs would be even worse if I used several GHB Stormcast unit points.  The Blightkings, GUO and all other infantry should be equitable in their points value computations depending on how good they are.  If you are using the GHB Blightking points of 180-points for a unit of 5.  The Exalted GUO should likely be 300-320 to be an equitable and viable option.  Otherwise it would never make sense to take him other than the fact he looks cool.   So you would suffer both the Nurgle and cool model tax for your army.

Blightkings are pretty meh due to speed.

I think the comparison isn't that helpful. The point about the EGD is (particularly on 3 Places of Power) is that you can buff him up (with mystic shield and Oracular Visions). 

[Terry Pike]

9 hours ago, James McPherson said:

And nobody try to tell me Plaguebearers are at more of a disadvantage on 32's because they aren't.

As they are sold on 32's in the start collecting box it would make sense this is the correct base size, as is the latest release containing plaguebearers.

[Ollie Grimwood]

You should still be able get most of your "second rank" attacks on 32mm with careful placement though. 

[James McPherson]

1 hour ago, Terry Pike said:

As they are sold on 32's in the start collecting box it would make sense this is the correct base size, as is the latest release containing plaguebearers.

Aaargghhh!

I got 3 of the individual boxes youshopped over to NZ from element last week and they all went on 25s. I even thought to myself, these look too small as I was doing it, especially when you try to fit the Nurglings on there. I've bought 2 of those S.C. Nurgle sets in the past but they are back in the UK, wasn't able to bring them over with me. ****** it! I did bring my S.Wpn. bases though, I can finally use them then that's pretty sweet.

What size are you PB's on Terry?

[RuneBrush]

I'm pretty chuffed that we finally have rules for the FW Greater Daemons.  I've had a Bloodthirster in the cupboard for well over 10 years now (before I had an airbrush) so looks like I've finally got a reason to dig him out and paint him up.

I think my biggest issue is going to be when somebody plonks down a regular Greater Daemon and claims it's Exalted or the other way round.  Previously it didn't make much difference as they shared the same warscroll, but now I think it does.  Not so much from a game mechanic point of view but more from the aspect of knowing what each model on the battlefield is - and not just for the people playing.  AoS is rapidly becoming a spectator sport, it's not uncommon for people to wander over in your local store and it's becoming even more commonplace to see pictures and videos of games on Facebook, Twitch etc.  Needling a guide that "model X is being run as model Y" isn't really very useful when you're trying to work out what's going on 

[Terry Pike]

1 hour ago, James McPherson said:

What size are you PB's on Terry?

32's as of Warlords when I finally got round to re-basing them

[Nico]

Quote

I think my biggest issue is going to be when somebody plonks down a regular Greater Daemon and claims it's Exalted or the other way round.  Previously it didn't make much difference as they shared the same warscroll, but now I think it does.  Not so much from a game mechanic point of view but more from the aspect of knowing what each model on the battlefield is - and not just for the people playing.  AoS is rapidly becoming a spectator sport, it's not uncommon for people to wander over in your local store and it's becoming even more commonplace to see pictures and videos of games on Facebook, Twitch etc.  Needling a guide that "model X is being run as model Y" isn't really very useful when you're trying to work out what's going on 

I think they should at least rebase it onto the new base sizes in the new boxes (see the description on Forgeworld). I'm considering The Glottkin to the EDF of Nurgle and Magnus to the EGD of Tzeentch with some conversions to go with my existing Forgeworld EGD of Khorne.

[Phoenixlaw]

Are the matched play points out yet ?

[Infernalslayer]

Sadly, no, as far as i know.

It is funny, as in the article with the warscrolls which was posted on December 16th, they said "we’re told that matched play points for each are being worked on now, so you can expect those in the not too distant future."

I guess the "not too distant future" can be more than 5 months 

[Kaleb Daark]

On 27/04/2017 at 5:02 PM, Infernalslayer said:

Sadly, no, as far as i know.

It is funny, as in the article with the warscrolls which was posted on December 16th, they said "we’re told that matched play points for each are being worked on now, so you can expect those in the not too distant future."

I guess the "not too distant future" can be more than 5 months 

what they're trying to say is you'll get them as soon as HH starts running out of momentum.

[Killax]

14 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

what they're trying to say is you'll get them as soon as HH starts running out of momentum.

Heh more or less! Yeah I think GW and the folks for Matched Play are running into some dilemma's with some of FW's content/models. Sayl for example is by far the hottest Age of Sigmar related selling model. Which isn't a great example of how well balanced and costed he is  Then there are also examples of some big monstrosities weighing at 500+ points which usually don't see the competative daylight...

I'll wait, no hurry, but I guess that sometimes GW and FW don't really know what to do with model A or B. In that same vein, where is the Khorne Dragon?  

[Kaleb Daark]

Obviously this will all be sorted once they see sense and let you an I have total control of the AoS chaos dwarf and chaos side of things

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Kaleb Daark said:

Obviously this will all be sorted once they see sense and let you an I have total control of the AoS chaos dwarf and chaos side of things

Hahaha! Well, I don't believe GW intends to sort it all out. The pro to that is that fun is generally valued over the competative side of design.
Overly competative design really also stops creative design as the aim becomes to balance, not to create a specific interest in model A or B. However, with enough unbalanced design you can have a really fun game aswell and I think that's where GW is aiming for  

All we really need to improve the game in that sence is more Battletome's so you can be 'broken' with everything, which results into nothing being really broken, just heaps of fun.

The one thing I do want to critique GW for is their wording use, it would be helpful if they remained consistant. This is also really helpful for newer players who might miss even the most basic of rules due to it being completely different as model A or B but resolved in a similar way. 

[OmNom]

Haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere but the points for the Exalted Greater Daemons are on the 'matched play points update' pdf on FW's downloads section. 

Hideously overpriced of course.

[Infernalslayer]

Indeed, not really worth their points as is typical with all the monstrous chaos creatures from Forgeworld.

[Arkiham]

I didn't think some were that bad .

 

Think the nurgle one is good value.

 

15 wounds 3+ 5+ on everything. Heals d3 a turn possibly an addtional d3 also from spell, not included item, could have a 3+5+5+.

I like it

[Infernalslayer]

Indeed the Nurgle one seems the most useful for the points. The drawback is that it doesn't have the "Great Unclean One" keyword to be used in the Tallyband of Nurgle batallion, and for 80 points more, you can take two great unclean ones in his place.

 

I also imagine that when the anticipated new Great Unclean One kit will be released by GW, a new updated warscroll will be released as they did with the Lord of Change, and it will probably make this one even less useful.

 

Still love the big guy and will use him from time to time, it just seems that the chaos monsters are not loved enough by FW.