Asamu
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Asamu
-
-
2 hours ago, Tooooon said:
Skink wise, what we thinkin? Blowpipes and clubs, or blowpipes and shields?
Blowpipes and shields probably, though clubs do more than double the output in melee without buffs, so I guess it depends on how often you expect them to be fighting. Blowpipes and shields for sure in small units that are being used for screening, but for a unit of 20-40, it's probably up to whether you want them to be a bit more likely to survive or to do substantially more damage on the charge. If I was making a list with 3+ units of 40 skinks, I'd probably go with clubs. It's enough bodies that the extra melee output is probably worth taking a few more losses, and you'd probably be looking to have them kill things.
-
6 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
this is my gut take as well, but just to play devil's advocate:
folks (perhaps even you?) upthread talked about honeycombing the bases to get most of two rows with 1" range into combat. If this is in fact doable, then spears shouldn't actually help very much as 2" still won't be able to get a third row into range.
It's actually a bit easier to get the 3rd rank in (if there's even 1mm between the Saurus bases that are in contact with the enemy, and they're otherwise honeycombed with all bases touching, the 3rd rank is pretty much always in) than the 2nd, but even so, the numbers are pretty close vs 4+ saves, ~ even vs 3+ saves, and favoring clubs against anything better, or spears against worse. Clubs > Spears against any save of 5+ or better when the saves have re-rolls.
Assuming ~10" to work with in a flat line, you're looking at getting 13-14 models within 1" (even in the worst case scenario, where that last 30mm of space in the 10" is needed to space each front model ~5mm to get the 2nd rank as close as possible), or ~20-21 models within 2", which maths slightly better for spears against 4+ saves, but the difference is fairly negligible. Vs 5+ saves or worse, spears will be a fair bit better, and if you're not placing them perfectly, spears make placement easier/more convenient.
The best case scenario is basically ~50% more models with spears in range than you'd get with clubs if you're maximizing models within 1".
You're probably getting enough damage in that you don't need the extra swings from spears against targets with worse than a 4+ save, and vs targets with 3+ saves or better, that extra rend will be worth taking, so it's just going to come down to preference and what you expect the unit to be fighting. I think clubs are a bit more versatile because the rend mitigates the worst case, but spears are certainly at an advantage, if not a large one, against most units in the game. It's only against 2+ or re-rolling saves (Petrifex, S2D, Stormcast) where you'll find the clubs notably out-performing spears with optimal positioning. There is definitely something to be said about ease of use though. Spears making positioning the models to get all their attacks in easier is an advantage that can't be easily calculated.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
<<Why Can't We Have Both? Meme>>
They can hold and they can kill!
PJetski, when I calculated the fully buffed damage efficiency for Saurus I calculated it for a 20 man unit with spears and only counted 10 models for the jaw attacks. They still scored a WDR of .444. For reference, a WDR of around .25 is in contention for "best in the game".
Saurus Knights on the charge calculate out to a WDR of .516.
What does WDR stand for? Is it damage/point cost? If so, Saurus can get up to ~0.4699 with subfaction + Oldblood + scar vet + sunblood + starpriest + hand of glory or burning head for re-roll 1s to hit. I'm only getting ~0.431 for knights with full buffs. If they hadn't gone up in points, it'd be ~5.39, but they're up to 100 points now instead of 80; either way, they'd score lower than Saurus, even on the charge.
It should also be noted that with how easy it is to farm CPs with Saurus lists due to the extra CP generation from all of the Seraphon wizards (Just a Slann + Starpriest + starseer is +1.83 CPs per turn on average, on top of the normal 1 per turn. With Kroak instead of a normal Slann, that goes up to 2.33), Koatl's Claw command trait + aetherquartz Brooch (turns each CP used by the general into ~5 or 6 CP on average), it's fairly easy to spam out the buffs on multiple units, and even use your other buffs alongside that. The list sort of builds itself as well 60-80 saurus in units of 20-40, an Oldblood, a Scar Vet carnosaur (which fully buffed could potentially do ~43.75 damage on average when charging before artefact weapons/saves, depending on how they FAQ the Great Drake asterism; currently, there's nothing saying it doesn't affect mounts), a Slann, a starpriest, a starseer, and 5 guard + a sunblood, astrolith, second scar vet carnosaur, some terradons, salamanders, and/or endless spells to fill out the last 240-380 points.
-
5 hours ago, Phasteon said:
You dont need Saurus to kill, you need them to hold.
40 Wounds reducing incoming damage by 1 is a very good tarpit thats hard to shift.
Saurus also murder most things they touch when buffed though. It's easy to get basically infinite CPs with Koatl's Claw, which means a +2 to hit for pretty much all of your Saurus all the time. Maybe +1 to wound and exploding 6s as well, and potentially mortal wounds on 6s.
It's also fairly easy to get the unit to a 2+ save with a skink priest + starseer.
7 hours ago, PJetski said:The problem with Saurus is still that they have 1" weapons on >1" bases. It's very difficult to get more than 5 Knights into combat, and almost impossible to get 10+ into combat at the same time. Warriors can use 2" Spears, but that means you lose a point of Rend.
It's actually easier than you might think. If you honeycomb the bases, you can get 2 ranks in pretty easily (assuming you get perfect base to base contact); vs other 32mm bases or monsters, you should never not have 2 ranks in. It's only against 25mm infantry that are lined up perfectly in b2b where it doesn't quite work out, but with a little bit of lateral spacing on them in such a formation, you can guarantee it against anything, so getting 10+ saurus in isn't actually very difficult. It's just a matter of arranging them correctly.
10 buffed Coalesced Saurus with the horde bonus for a unit >15 in a Sunclaw with +2 to hit, exploding 6s, and mortal wounds on 6s do 20 damage to units with a 4+ save. They have outstanding offensive potential for their price range, and with a 4+ save and -1 to damage when damage > 1, they're tough as well, with potential bonuses to their save from the Slann command ability and starseer spell, mortal wound shrugs from an astrolith, and potential -2 for enemies to hit from geminids and the starpriest spell.
-
15 hours ago, Kasper said:
Great idea in theory, but pretty much impossible to implement in pratice. As mentioned in previous posts, subfactions arent equal across armies at all. Some armies are forced into a subfaction and other armies can opt out of a subfaction and is arguably better off due to not being forced into a terrible command trait and artefact.
This means you cant just slap on a point tax and reduce points for models since the armies that arent forced into subfactions will suddenly be way better off. You would have to redo every army and how subfactions function.
If you really want to tax popular choices, I think a tax on malign sorcery artefacts is just as needed.
Eh... even in CoS, Slaanesh, and S2D, some subfactions are better than others. The suggestion is more about internal balance than balance between different armies. Say they took all the units in a book and reduced their point cost by ~5%, then made the best sub-faction cost 100 points (Or you increase from 2000 pts to 2100 pts for convenience), the worst cost 30 or so points, and not having a subfaction free (specific numbers depending entirely on the army in question; this is just an example). That would leave the current competitive lists unchanged while giving a small boost to the currently less competitive lists. Maybe have 3 or 4 point values for 1000/1500//2000/3000 point games.
I don't think this is really an issue for the proposal in the OP.
As long as the costs assigned to the subfactions are reasonable, it doesn't cause problems with the balance between different armies.
-
2 hours ago, Grimrock said:
One interesting thought for S2D wizards. If they're tzeentch marked then you can ally in the blue scribes to give them a very reliable reroll for their casting. The scribes can also learn their lore spells and cast them later, using the 2+ ability to almost guarantee they go off and can't be dispelled. Not bad for 120 points. I've been thinking about a Cabalists army with 3 wizards marked for tzeentch, the blue scribes, and a bunch of khorne or nurgle stuff to fill out the rest of the list. Seems like it has potential at least.
I'm not sure the scribes can learn the S2D lore spells, since they can only learn spells that are possible for them to cast. Needs an FAQ, because the clarification might just be for endless spells. The clarification probably shouldn't be there, or should be worded to specify what it actually means, because if a spell is impossible to cast it wouldn't matter if the model knows it or not (what the rule means by "possible to cast" is unclear).
-
3 minutes ago, Gecktron said:
Where does the re-rolling one to wound come from?
For Iron drakes, it comes from longbeards. Handguns/Crossbows can't get it. Thought there was a spell or artefact that gave it initially, but there isn't. Hadn't looked at that stuff in a while.
-
8 hours ago, Gecktron said:
Which lists? Most Hallowheart armies only have 1 or 2 shooting units at best. And most of them have to stand still to get most out of their abilities.
The Blood and Glory winner only had a unit of crossbows and one unit of handgunners.Magic outside of Hallowheart is much weaker. Doing both is hard for CoS.
30 crossbows can put out ~41.7 damage when buffed (to 2+/2+ re-rolling 1s to wound).
30 handguns can put out ~20.8 damage at rend -1 when buffed (to 2+/2+).
20 Iron Drakes can put out ~25.9 damage at rend -2 on 2+/3+ re-rolling 1s to wound.
Those buffs are easy to get for any of those units, even in a hallowheart list. They can do something like this:
SpoilerAllegiance: Cities of Sigmar
- City: Hallowheart
Mortal Realm: Aqshy
Runelord (90)
- General
- Trait: Veteran of the Blazing Crusade
Runelord (90)
- Trait: Veteran of the Blazing Crusade
Celestial Hurricanum With Celestial Battlemage (280)
Battlemage (90)
Battlemage (90)
Sorceress (90)
20 x Longbeards (220)
- Ancestral Weapons & Shields
- City Role: Honoured Retinue (Must be 5-20 models)
30 x Irondrakes (450)
20 x Irondrakes (300)
Whitefire Retinue (140)
Geminids of Uhl-Gysh (60)
Soulscream Bridge (80)
Total: 1980 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 106~64.8 damage with shooting at rend -2 per turn. with 16" range.
The unit of 30 can be buffed to a 2+ to wound with Ignite weapons, which raises that damage to ~74.5 at rend -2.Most lists run crossbows/handguns, and could run a Freeguild general to pump those to 2+/2+ guaranteed. It's a bit worse vs high saves. Handguns have the benefit of their stand and shoot rule, which could be a big deal vs close combat armies. Crossbows have a longer range of 24", so have more target options.
I don't think KO can match that kind of firepower tbh. It can alpha strike reliably, and looks good at contesting far away objectives, but I find it hard to see how it could match up to CoS in terms of firepower.
Curious how people are playing Aethergold atm. It says "you can pick a triumph it is eligible to use and immediately apply its effect". Does that mean you have to have an available triumph (which requires your list to be less points than the opponents)? Or can you just pick any of the 6 from the list and use it even if your list was more points?
-
3 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:
I mean, overall Horrors are nerfed over what they were before the new book, AND they went up in points.
Taking the rend cult, plus changehost makes them better than they were before. But you can't nerf the warscroll because those two things exist, since it only really hurts them outside those. So instead you nerf the cult and changehost. That makes much more sense.Eh, Blue/Pink horrors have much higher shooting output than they did before even without bonus rend (2/3 shots on 5+/4+ to up to 3+/4+ vs 1 shot at 4+/4+), and the blue/brimstone horrors are added immediately within melee of the enemy unit upon models being removed, rather than having to be summoned more than 9" away later, which lets them stay on objectives rather than being forced off after losing 10 wounds. And enemies suffer -1 to hit them in melee if they're wholly within 12" of a daemon hero, which makes them a lot harder to get rid of in the first place. Pinks have the highest wound-point ration in the game, at 1 wound per 4 points, which makes it relatively easy to get an absurd number of wounds on the table, and they don't have a massive footprint.
The new spell being easy to cast makes generating summoning points a bit easier (but is less useful than an actual spell), and the loss of being a normal wizard is compensated for with the increased shooting output. Blue/Brimstone Horrors also got significantly better in melee with +1/+2 to wound compared to before (Brimstones at 2 attacks 5+/4+ is pretty good melee stats for such a cheap unit).
It looks like a significant buff overall, IMO. A unit of 10 horrors would need to take ~30 damage in one go to reliably battleshock off, and that's not likely to happen.
-
On 1/8/2020 at 10:48 PM, Iradekhorne said:
The first question is a question about the summon of the gaunt summoner. The warscroll say "you can summon "pink horrors"" but that warscroll name doesn't exist. My question is, you still playing it like they summon 10 horrors? in that case, pinks?
Because I don't know... the power of the summon of pinks are much more than the other options, Maybie they refere to summon blues.
If you summon Horrors, they must be pinks. Yeah, it's way better than the other options, but... currently the rules don't really allow for any ambiguity here.
In the gaunt summoner rule:
"Choose 1 unit from the following list:
• 10 Pink Horrors"It is not bolded as a keyword, and there is no mention of warscrolls in the rule, so all that matters is whether or not Pink Horrors have a model and rules - which they do, on the Horrors of Tzeentch warscroll.
In a unit of Horrors of Tzeentch:
"PINK HORRORS: Any number of models in this unit can be Pink Horrors"
Pink Horrors are still specific models in the game, even if they do not have their own warscroll, and you are summoning a unit of them. There is no rules conflict or ambiguity, and this does not need an errata or FAQ unless they're intending to reduce the power level of the rule.
-
6 hours ago, NinjaBadger7 said:
Hey all
Apologies if this has been asked previously - is there a preference on axe or sword for a Daemon Prince?
Sword every time. I did the math earlier in the thread. It averages better damage against all save values both on and off the charge. Though the axe is a bit more consistent, so if you don't care about the 2" reach, and would rather do a more consistent amount of damage than a higher average amount of damage, then going with the axe could make sense.
-
17 minutes ago, Superking said:
I have managed to get two godsworn bands (the box set from last year) for dirt cheap - what should I build them as in terms of weapons/options? Should I sell any of it on eBay?
So, 2 warshrines, 2 chariots, 2 manticores, 20 knights, and 32 warriors?
Personally, I'd wait a bit to see what they do in the FAQ, but... a mix of dual hand weapons and shielded warriors is probably safe. You could use lances to make 10 or so halberds; it's a super easy swap, since you can just cutoff the gauntlet/forearm and glue it in place. Currently, I'd default to running warriors in units of 15 with 2-5 halberd/shield warriors and 10 or more dual weapon warriors, but if the shield rules get an errata to work per model as I expect, I'd probably run less dual weapon models in favor of more shields (minimum of 5 shields in a unit of 15).
On the Knights, I'd go ensorcelled weapons every time, but some people seem to like lances because they're a bit better on the charge. With the above point on halberds though, you get a bit more mileage out of ensorcelled weapons anyway though.
1 sorc manticore and 1 combat manticore (I'd go lance + blade or lance + shield probably), Both chariots as regular chariots with greatblades.
There's merit to running 2 warshrines in a list, because the prayers are so strong, and they're just reasonable for the cost compared to a lot of monsters.
I'd only sell maybe 5-10 knights, assuming you don't have anything else already, especially if you plan on picking up the new starter set. I can't see a list ever running more than ~15 of them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Kurrilino said:
Lord on demonic mount let them hit 3+
Yeah, but that requires a CP, which won't always be available for them, and there are better uses of a CP for output, like the chaos lord letting them fight twice. Doesn't seem appropriate to compare buffed knights to unbuffed Varanguard. You also listed the graphs as "vanilla", which implies no buffs for either unit.
-
1
-
2
-
-
As written, yes, chaos warriors/marauders/knights/varanguard can all mix weapon options. This has been discussed at length in the S2D thread.
Rune Shields require at least 2 to work, because of the plural, but, as written, as long as the unit has at least 2 shields, the entire unit gets the 5+ mortal wound save. "Roll a dice each time you allocate a mortal wound to a unit[any model can be suffering the wound] that carries Chaos Runeshields[plural, so there must be more than one]. On a 5+, that mortal wound is negated."
If you had 19 great weapons and 1 halberd+shield, the shield would do nothing, because the wording for the shield rules requires more than one. If you had 18 great weapons and 2 halberd+shield models, the entire unit would get a 5+ mortal wound save until one of the shielded models is removed.
The same applies to chaos marauders getting +1 to save rolls as long as there are multiple shields in the unit.
The shield rules will likely get an errata to work on a per model basis. If they changed the rule to "...mortal wound to a model that carries a chaos runeshield...", a change of 1 word and 2 letters, it would clean up the rule nicely and make it consistent with the rules for shields on other units.
-
1 hour ago, Kurrilino said:
5 Knights vs 3 Varanguard vanilla lance charge
10 Knights vs 3 Varanguard vanilla lance charge
Knight lances hit on a 4+. All of their numbers should be 3/4 of what you have them.
That said, yeah, Varanguard aren't great outside of the Everchosen sub-faction, and are pretty awful compared with knights, which also aren't spectacular (though aren't terrible), and they get less out of buffs.
-
58 minutes ago, Oldshrimpeyes said:
Having acquired 20 marauders in a trade I'm keen to get them on the field. However, two questions arise:
Is a unit of 20 worth it? And, is there any positive to them having flails? Unfortunately they are pre assembled as such and I can't get rid of them for hand weapon and shield.
Flails have a 2" reach, so there's some benefit to it, but since the unit isn't required to run full one way or the other, you probably never want a full unit of them.
Chop off the flail bits and make some axe heads and shields out of plastic card or something if they aren't pre-painted.
-
On 12/16/2019 at 8:41 AM, Smooth criminal said:
Lances are about 30% better on the charge and 30% worse without a charge.
It's worse than that for lances actually.
On the charge, before accounting for rend, they do the same damage on average, because they're 4+/3+ rather than 3+/3+.
Off the charge, lances have no rend, less attacks, and a worse to hit value. Lance off the charge average half the damage of ensorcelled weapon, not accounting for Ensorcelled weapons having rend -1 and Lances having none.
Lances are only worth taking if you're giving the unit buffs, especially bonus attacks, and getting charges consistently.
-
11 hours ago, Forrix said:
If this is the passage you all are referring to on Archaon (I don't have my book with me) then that explicitly refers to only one Aura of Chaos if a unit has more than one Mark of Chaos.
8 hours ago, Midjithero said:Correct! Archaon would have to choose which aura he produces. However, it doesn’t say that he then loses his other god mark keywords. Hence, other heroes of those additional gods would still confer the bonus onto Archaon due to him having the matching keywords.
Re-read the last part of that.
The sentence that actually clarifies he only gets "one" is referring to the mark of chaos keywords, not the aura of chaos. That's the issue here.
"If you select a unit with more than one mark of chaos keyword... you must pick which one will apply for the duration of the battle." The sentence says nothing regarding the aura of chaos. It only mentions the keywords, and is in a separate paragraph from the rule on auras, which still leaves the rule as each character getting one aura, determined by its "mark of chaos keyword" - clarified as Khorne/Nurgle/Tzeentch/Slaanesh/Undivided. Thus, only one of the 5 relevant keywords is applied to Archaon in battle, regardless of what's actually on his warscroll. You pick one of the keywords, not one of the auras. It's an important distinction in how the rule is worded.
IMO, this needs an Errata, if the intent is as you are saying (in which case, it should say "If you select a unit with more than one mark of chaos keyword to be part of your army, you must pick one aura of chaos ability for it to have"), or an FAQ if it is intended as written.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Forrix said:
What counter argument are you referring to? Archaon doesn't have the Mark of Chaos rule on his warscroll, he just has the god names in the keyword section. The Mutalith Vortex Beast can only have the Tzeentch keyword but still has the Mark of Chaos rule on his warscroll. The only argument I see for Archaon not benefiting from multiple keywords is on Warscrolls with the Mark of Chaos rule its says "following Mark of Chaos keyword(s): [god names]" which implies God names alone qualify for being a Mark of Chaos. This does seem to be the RAW however it creates a pretty bad scenario where how a Warscroll works is limited by the specific wording on a different warscroll and not anything in the allegiance abilites or core rules.
I wouldn't want to tell an opponent in a tournament that his list doesn't work the way he thinks it does because a rule written on a different warscroll from Archaon's implies that Archaon is effected by a limitation of the Mark of Chaos rule even though Mark of Chaos is an ability that is not on Archaon's warscroll.
The counter argument is that Archaon is the only model with multiple mark of chaos keywords... That clarification on the rule can only be applied to him. There's no other reason for it to be there.
"If you select a unit with more than one Mark of Chaos keyword to be part of your army, you must pick which one will apply to that unit for the duration of the battle." While this rule is in the section about the Aura of Chaos rules, the rule as written is about the keywords, not the auras, and examples are provided just prior to this to clarify that. You pick which keyword to apply for Archaon, not which aura to apply, so he'd be treated as not having the other keywords by RAW.
-
1 hour ago, Inquisitorsz said:
The only thing that significantly stops Varanguard is high save stuff because they only have rend -1 and things immune to battleshock.
On the charge, 3 sixth circle knights do an average of 38 wounds (against no save). That's 23.82 against a 4+ save.
So their biggest enemy is mortek guard. With their defensive reroll and a 3+ save, Varanguard only kill 9, and then they're immune to battleshock.
So for an identical 300pts, 20 Mortek Guard come out on top most of the time.
Luckily Varanguard can attack twice, so you could in theory kill 18 or be a bit lucky and kill the unit.
The big caveat is that you really need that charging bonus. If you don't charge, you're stuck there all game.Other than OBR, Varanguard should be able to roll through most other units in the game. Making a horde immune to battleshock can slow them down, but with a double pile in, they should be able to kill almost anything that doesn't have an amazing defensive ability.
Here's the data.
That's fully buffed too. So within range of Archaon, with mark of Khorne.
Even if you don't double attack, and tied up in combat for a turn due to battleshock immunity... You'll still do like 35 wounds across 2 rounds of combat against 5+ save hordes. So with a bit of luck you could clear a horde before it's your turn again.
People need to be careful not to underestimate Varanguard. But there are things that shut them down. *cough* Mortek Guard *cough*Should also be noted that if you warshrine buff them or give them re-rolls to hit/wound from another source, Khorne stops being the best mark, and Slaanesh, a 20% damage increase on a 2+ to hit average, and Nurgle, a 12.5% damage increase average when doing 2 damage/attack on a 3+ to wound, or 25% on a 3+ to wound with 1 damage attacks overtake it, as Khorne is only a 9.375% increase when the unit has full re-rolls to hit and wound from another source. With just re-roll 1s to hit and wound from Archaon picking a unit to focus in the sub-faction, Khorne remains the best option, assuming they remain wholly within 18" of Archaon, as +1 to wound is marginally better than the extra attacks from Slaanesh in that situation, and is, at worst, equal with the bonus from Nurgle.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, KoalaSnok said:
This has been answered before in Slaanesh FAQ, as well as some other places. It generates a normal hit which causes a wound roll as per standard attack sequence. There is no reason to think that the extra generated hit would be a "hit with dice value of 6", its just a "hit".
(Fun fact: The same question recently came up in 40k with the new space marine rules sometimes generating additional hits and other effects on hit rolls of 6, which they at first FAQ'ed INCORRECTLY to get all other bonuses on the extra hit, and then had to REFAQ not to do so in order to be consistent with earlier FAQ's on the issue.)
Thanks. That seems like the best way to rule it.
1 hour ago, Blisterfeet said:Do we have any preference when it comes to how to build Varanguard? Does mathammer support one build over another? Mainly looking for then to be another hammer so any weapon combination good against 4+ saves.
With 6th Circle on the charge, Ensorcelled weapons are best unless save values are extremely good (at a 3+ save with no re-rolls, they're equal to 6th circle lances on the charge, and Lances are the best on the charge vs anything better than a 3+; Daemonforged weapons are never the best on the charge with 6th circle, but are better than ensorcelled weapons vs a 3+ re-rollable save).
On the charge with a different circle (or no circle), Lances are better than Ensorcelled weapons because of the rend -2, and sometimes better than Daemonforged weapons (depends on target save values; if saves are high enough, the mortal wounds are better than the rend, and vs a 6+ save, or worse, the extra rend of lances doesn't matter), but off the charge, lances are ~25% worse than ensorcelled weapons at baseline, and their advantage on the charge is minimal unless the target has particularly good saves.
If you're going 6th circle and really banking on that one round with the charge, lances are the way to go if you're expecting saves of better than 3+ (like from petrifex OBR)
Off the charge, Daemonforged weapons are the best, so they're a good choice for hedging your bets if you don't think you'll get the charge reliably for some reason (like in a list with no screening units, or where you want them to hit back when the screen is killed rather than charging), and if you're not taking 6th circle, are probably the best choice, as the rend advantage from lances, and extra attacks from ensorcelled weapons become less valuable.
It's worth noting that lances compare relatively better if you're running a Khorne general, and Ensorcelled weapons compare relatively better if running a Nurgle general. Daemonforged weapons get the least benefit from any of the marks (same benefit as ensorcelled off the charge with khorne/Slaanesh though), but perform the best baseline when not charging.
There's actually merit to all 3 choices with Varanguard, and I don't think the choice is as straightforward as always running Ensorcelled weapons with 6th circle, though that probably is correct, especially if you're also running Nurgle.
With Knights, things are sort of similar, though the lances are so much worse off the charge than ensorcelled weapons with the worse hit rolls, lower attacks, and no rend that you need to be getting the charge every time they fight for lances to be worth it.
1 hour ago, Tizianolol said:Guys can archaon use his command ability on himself? If another melee unit kills him, can he spend 1 command point and fight again?
He has to use it in the hero phase, so you'd have to be expecting him to die, but yes, he could use it on himself, as he is a S2D unit.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TheVenerableBede said:
Is there a consensus about which weapon is better on the Daemon Prince? I'm not a big fan of 4s to hit on heroes so I would normally default to the Axe for reliability; am I wrong or is it 50/50?
Well, the sword maths out a bit better, especially on the charge with the +1 to hit, which is a larger benefit with the 4+ to hit base than with a 3+ to hit. Ignoring the claw damage:
Vs no save on the charge: ~4 sword vs ~3.33 axe. Off the charge, the sword is at ~3.11 vs ~2.67 for the axe
vs a 5+ save on the charge, the sword averages ~3.56 damage, vs the axe's ~3.33; off the charge, that's ~2.81 sword vs ~2.67 axe.
Vs a 4+ save on the charge, the sword averages ~3.11 damage, vs the axe's ~2.78; off the charge, that's ~2.52 sword vs ~2.22 axe.
Vs a 3+ save: on the charge: ~2.67 sword/2.22 axe; off the charge: ~1.78 axe vs ~2.22 sword.
The sword causes ~1.33 mortal wounds on average; which makes it pretty much even with or better than the axe even against targets with the best saves in the game.
The sword also gets a 2" reach, which can make it a bit easier to reach a priority target.
The sword being the better option seems to remain consistent regardless of which mark the model has or what other buffs they have (aside from maybe extra attacks, which obviously help the axe a bit more, as it has the better hit roll, and the sword makes less wound rolls).
The sword actually starts getting better by comparison, rather than worse, against particularly high saves as the mortal wounds end up out-weighing the additional rend by a larger margin. As you can see from the above math, the smallest gap seems to be vs a 5+ save, where the sword is only ~6.67%/~5.56% over the axe on/off the charge. Against a 3+ re-rollable save, just the mortal wounds from the sword end up being worth more than the output of the axe.
I'm curious how the 6s to hit causing mortal wounds interacts with the Slaanesh bonus.
Does the attack cause
1.) 4 mortal wounds instead of only 2, because it causes an extra hit,
2.) an extra wound roll,
or 3.) does nothing happen?
I'd lean towards 2, as it seems the most fair, but there's an argument for each one (The attack scores a 6, which generates an additional hit that also counts as having had a 6 for the hit roll, so 4 mortal wounds are caused. There was no roll for the extra hit, so it makes a wound roll as normal. The 6 to hit stops the attack sequence and inflicts 2 mortal wounds, so the extra hit can't roll to wound, as it was part of the same attack).
-
The auras are generated by heroes. Units with the same mark as that hero that are wholly within 12" (Or 18" with certain bonuses/artefacts in non-cabalist lists) can receive the benefit of it.
For Archaon, I'd lean towards Khorne, Nurgle, or Slaanesh, depending on the rest of the list and what you think you'll be up against.
-
3
-
-
Some math:
Blades work out to a ~11% nerf baseline, but they can benefit from the verminlord corruptor ability, in which case it's a slight buff, not taking into account the rend on 6s to hit from before.Woe staves work out pretty much the same with no buffs on the unit if you have 3 models deep swinging (IE: 1/3 of the models swinging are not within 1" of the target), but worse if the unit is swinging less than that (if all models are within 1", it's a ~25% nerf, before accounting for any bonuses). They also lost the extra attack for woe staves on the charge with only 1 attack profile now, and get less benefit from re-rolls to wound, bonus attacks, and horde bonuses.
As far as maximum possible output, it's a pretty heavy nerf to Woe staves (from ~6.62 per model to ~3.95 per model, with just +2 attacks and full re-rolls from prayers, the command ability, and charging), and a slight buff to blades (from ~3.95/model to ~4.32/model), but the loss of rend on 6s to hit probably evens out the maximum output for blades.
Overall, I think they're still a pretty strong unit, but they no longer have the potential to put out totally unreasonable amounts of damage (Though ~4 damage/model at no rend is still extremely good).
-
2
-
2
-
Whats the 'Worst' Warscroll and why?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
If we're talking just the warscroll, and not whether or not the unit is competitive, I'd go with Katakros for now. The warscroll is needlessly complex and has too much going on with the damage table and large number abilities + healing. Too much complexity/too much going on for one unit is a bad thing. He's competitive, but I don't like what his warscroll does to the game.
Talking warscroll vs lore power level/the model's appearance, maybe cygors; they're just underwhelming, and don't perform at all like you'd expect looking at the model.