whispersofblood
-
Posts
936 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by whispersofblood
-
-
10 hours ago, Grimrock said:
Yeah I think that's the biggest problem with MSU knights, you really need to give them something to improve the hit roll and there's only so many buffs to go around. If you can get daemonic power on them they can wreck most things, but that really lends itself to having a single big unit with a banner and then getting other things that don't need buffs like chosen or varanguard.
How many theridons are you using in your lists? I like the models but when I saw their scrolls I was leaning towards chosen instead. It's good to hear they're working out well.
Just units of 3 at the moment. Cheap enough that if can use them as a screen or trade with them without feeling to bad.
-
1
-
-
Hitting on 4s is terrible. I have had 5 knights tank 6 scythe hunters so that's probably what they are best at... But it's not really a good use of points.
There are a lot of good infantry units that are going to show up as Bodyguards and knights are bad against all of them.
I've been testing slaanesh theridons as my skirmishing unit of choice and it's been good.
-
On 11/8/2022 at 10:40 AM, Bayul said:
Salty rant:
I am drawn to Tzeentch and Undivided for Cabalists thematically, but I can't put a list together that isn't unreliable jank. I have a Necrons and Thousand Sons Codex next to me with the same problem. Only two specific Cults / Dynasties are essential for list building and the rest isn't even mentioned anymore. Point changes and Dataslates* don't have any impact on internal balance.
While this doesn't matter in casual games most of the time, you'll notice the difference in mirror matches with the optimal choice very quickly. If I remember correctly even S2D players played Tzeentch most of the time with the last tome and I predict a similar efffect with Nurgle or Khorne (and Host of the Everchosen)
*Warhammer 40K's BattlescrollsI wonder if you're actually having an internal conflict between your Johnny and Timmy brain.
-
1 hour ago, Bayul said:
Nah, sorry. We've seen actually great Battletomes and Codices recently, like Nighthaunt or Genestealer Cult with good internal balance between subfactions and a good range of useable warscrolls. If you compare this battletome with older publications, then it might feel great but it has to compete with other recent books aswell for such an appraisal.
Excuse my negativity, but i decided to wait for the regular release and another FAQ before I purchase a S2D army. My hype turned to hope.Wait what are your issues?
-
23 hours ago, SpiritofHokuto said:
+1 to run and charge are pretty easy to parse, especially for a melee only footslogging unit that has easy access to run + charge and potentially a 3d6 charge.
People are funny creatures. We tend to value what the thing does more than how that thing does what it does. Getting into combat is generally more important than being better at combat, but +1 A and -1 to wound just provide more of an emotional impact than +1 to charge rolls.
-
2
-
-
The reality is -1 to wound rolls, and +1 attack are much easier to understand and think about than +1 to run and charges, cmd abilities, and subfactions, or the synergy available to Tzeentch which is broadly strategic.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:
How is that not a freeguild general?
I love steampunk a lot, but I do really think they need to be a bit more careful not to mix up the design language of their settings. AoS and 40K sure are meeting in the middle a lot recently, and I think that's to the detriment of both styles.
I wonder if it's a generational thing, but my first thought upon seeing the photo was Lord Solar, and as Warcom load I considered it might be a freeguild or something new.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Boar said:
Will do. I will try to do some more in depth math dive later (I guess maybe today, or later in the week)EDIT: let's start now actually with 1st episode, more to follow
So this is damage from units (not efficiency per point that will come later) against saves weighted as following:
4+ with weight 3
3+ with weight 2
5+ with weight 1
In essence it is assuming that 4+ saves will be encountered most often etc.
When "hard" is added in table that means it is against flat 2+ save
Charge is with stuff that triggers on charge duh, and special is well, special case for Gorebeast chariot after combat (spoiler it is same amount of MW as regular Chariot on charge on average). No marks etc. taken into account.
UNIT
MELEE
CHARGE
MELEE_HARD
CHARGE_HARD
SPECIAL
Chaos Chosen
11,8
7,4
Chaos Knights
4,6
9,8
2,2
5,8
Chaos Warriors [10 Halberd & Shield]
4,5
2,3
Chaos Chariot
2,0
4,3
0,9
3,3
Ogroid Theridons [GW]
10,7
6,7
Ogroid Theridons [Falchion]
5,7
3,0
Varanguard (Fellspear)
8,4
11,6
5,0
7,7
Varanguard (Ensorcelled)
10,4
5,4
Varanguard (Demonforged)
9,9
6,5
Gorebeast Chariot
2,8
1,2
2,3
That should give overview of what damage to expect from what units with split between normal and hard targets.
So about that Varanguard
We see that Fellspears if they manage charge are best overall, but if they don't they lag behind but not disastrously so. Demonforge appears to be niche weapon vs very hard armor. And Ensorcelled actually is just slightly behind spears in slaughtering common troops. As we can see choice can depend on your playstyle and local meta.
Of note is that due to smaller base number of attacks Fellspear and Demonforge can be more swingy with every success or fail mattering more than in case of Ensorcelled Weapon attacks. The same means however that they benefit more from Khorne Mark or Slaanesh Banner tough.
What about other choices?
In case of charioteers 4+ save is equilibrium point, and greatblade will be better against better armor. With caveat that it is also more vulnerable to -1 to hit like from Grot netters for instance.
For Chaos Warriors (after GV go extinct ofc.) point where 10 Warriors with Murderous Weapons gain advantage over their Halberd wielding cousins is 8 guys in combat.
Chaos Knight champion, well let AoS Stathammer show how it is. If you are thinking of using your Knights as mobile anvil actually giving Flail or Warhammer may be good enough, but probably annoyance as you will have to roll different profile. Due to -1 to hit effects on 4+ to hit hammer and Coalesced everywhere I would be tempted going for flail if I ever considered anything other than Lance.
And if someone wonders about Chaos Lord he still prefers 2 weapons, but difference while smaller is still significant especially against 4+ or lighter armor
As an FYI varanguard can't take banners as they don't have a standard bearer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, novakai said:
Well at least the Nurgle player got her invitation back because GW step in and resolve the situation by inviting both players
Which is weird as every other invitation is based on Battle score, is it not?
-
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Okay, I used my Taker Tribe (3 Kraken Eaters and a Gatebreaker) vs Lumineth (Teclis/30 Sentinel blob/2x10 Wardens/gazelle Regent and 5 horsey guys) last night in Savage Gains, 2000 points. It took til the bottom of turn 5, with my going first and getting priority every turn, end score was 34-32.....Lumineth won. That 8 extra VPs from the new "Balancing Act" was what gave him the victory. So a top tier army got better vs an almost top tier army. I was unable to kill either of his Priority Target models (isn't Teclis one of them too?)
So I will say based on my single experience they failed with their balancing, as lower tier armies will probably not be able to take down many of these Priority Targets. IMHO a Priority Target should never get extra points for killing a Priority Target. That would be more fairly balanced. Also Lumineth need a points hike.
SoB are rated higher than LRL, and your point in LRL doesn't make sense. If they needed the extra VPs to win the game, that means they would have lost otherwise... Why would they need a points hike? Teclis isn't a Primary Target, only Severith and the Spirit of the wind are.
Also come the next GHB the bonus VPs for killing Monsters will be gone making this a win for you. This is a super close game unless it's a tournament what's wrong with that as the final result?
Lastly you can modify this result by taking mancrushers instead of more megas. They aren't Primary Targets and it probably would result in a more enjoyable game for the people around you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
I wonder what would happen if a group of scriptors wrote:
- Archaon
- Sigmar
- Alarielle
- Teclis
- Khorne
into their books.
GG AoS‘s setting I‘d say. 🤣
None of those characters are Mortal...
-
17 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
But what does that even mean? If they would be bad if you increased their points, how would that points increase be "proper?" Isn't the "proper" points value the value needed to make something, well, not bad?
@Neil Arthur Hotep did a decent job explaining it, but I should probably explain it in my own words.
Think about buying a stock, the best time to buy it when you think the value of the stock is more than it is currently being offered for. You are interested in owning the stock so that you can gain the correction. You understand despite the market saying that the stock is worth X, that its fundamentals are that it should be worth Y.
There are a couple things that are true of all armies, number one is how much approximately 2000 points costs in models. Under the current point scheme without Start Collecting boxes for ease of matching, BoC armies are running about 600 GPB, while DoK for example are under 400 GPB. Yes, some armies cost more than other like SoB who are still only 480 GPB. Unless you are doing a very specific build 2000 points is under 500 GPB.
The next is how the army looks on the board. The game has been trending for while to smaller armies, and this has been doubly true in AoS3, which makes sense the complexity of the rule has increased having fewer units speeds up the game. Because of the low points BoC are a massive army on the board, basically consisting of an attack profile and a save. This also runs afoul of the CMD point mechanics which push players towards having fewer more impactful units.
There isn't a thing I can point to directly and say ah ha. But, given the context of AoS I think there is enough information to correct surmise that BoC aren't what GW would want them to be. Meaning they will be hammered into something more closely related to what they aught to be. This is probably the peak of BoC meat strength, and likely units will get more utility abilities to bring them more in-line with the design paradigm. Which means for the most part units that are interesting first, and efficiency second. And, as @Lord Krungharr experience confirms my analysis of the faction on the table, I think reversion to the mean is likely. Their points and recursion make them efficient, not interesting, unique, or GW's version of fun. And, it pushes them outside the established cost framework.
There is more, including GW and the secondary market but tbh its a bit shop talky and I probably should do some work.
-
38 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. BoC are good because their warscrolls have gone from terrible-to-decent value for points to decent-to-good value for points thanks to the patch that increased their effectiveness? Um...yes? How does that refute the point that you can patch factions to be better?
As for the idea that they'll get points increases in the GHB...I mean, it's GW, anything's possible, including very stupid things. But that would be pretty silly even by GW's normal standards. Why would they take away what makes BoC a decent faction without adding something to compensate? I would expect BoC to maintain their current status until there is a tome that can change them up to be more like other AOS factions. That would be the logical thing to do.
If your point is that "efficient brute strength without a lot of special rules" isn't great faction design, sure, that's fair. But I don't see how that refutes the idea that you can patch a faction into relevance. What you really seem to be saying here is that patching a faction into relevance doesn't generally result in top-tier design. Which is probably true, and I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's better to get a full rework than a patch. But doesn't seem to be really here nor there to the point being made that you can patch a faction to be functional, even if it doesn't result in the prettiest results.
They definitely could have patched Khorne into similar relevance to BoC. GSG I agree is more difficult due to the way the book is structured, but I don't think that'd be impossible either, it'd just take a bit more thought on what you need to do.
My point concerning BoC is that the patch didn't suddenly make them well designed and capable. What makes them good at the moment is that they are probably 20% undercosted and have very fast recursion. Meaning they do enough damage but mostly they just have too many wounds to fold them over during the objective game. But also, they seem to still lose on battle tactics because it's easy to deny their heavily projected battle tactics.
Maybe I'm wrong but this is just my opinion based on the reports I've had access to. They are still bad, they just aren't pathetic or laughable I guess. I still see them comfortably below the middle factions which seem to have gained the ability to punch up against the best stuff.
*I should clarify I mean BoC are still poor, when properly priced. Not as is at the moment*
-
20 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
How do you think skaven will be faring against the seraphon, with this new update
Honestly? Don't know enough about Skaven to guess. I don't know anyone who plays them anymore and I'm not interested myself. My standing opinion of Skaven is that they are the result of the internet over reacting to anything that has the appearance of being strong, and without your own loud and popular community to defend it, typically resulting in factions getting nuked. See also; KO, HoS.
-
1 hour ago, PrimeElectrid said:
You definitely can patch weak factions into relevancy: see BoC and Nighthaunt.
BoC are only good fundamentally because they still have the bottom basement pricing, they are significantly undercosted at the moment which is artificially boosting their perceived power. Expect point increases in the GHB.
NH have good fundamentals, but lack a dedicated top tier player base and marginal warscroll issues. They are still a far way away from BoK and GSG from a competitive perspective. They don't need a redesign they need to be further honed which you should expect given its their first ever battletomes.
Even HoS despite the meme level shithousery aren't fundamentally bad, and I've seen them compete first hand. They just have a lot of cringe warscrolls and recursion in a meta that is about sprinting rather than a marathon. They also don't struggle into the middle tier as much as people feel they do . But, even there they are getting some benefit from these new rules as they have decent shooting and decent combat units at their disposal.
-
Well a) you can't patch GSG, Khorne et all into relavancy.
b) This patch is clearly more about the bring the top factions closer to the middle factions without too heavily impacting the games between the top factions.
Which it does. Anecdotally between the games I've seen post patch and reports from friends abroad it's actually having a positive effect. To the point that I have Seraphon and SCE players making changes after playing 4-5 games under the new package.
So despite my initial reaction, I have to give GW a round of applause.
-
7
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Warscroll changes > point adjustments > this weird handicap system where you get compensated for having bad overpriced units by getting extra points for killing your opponent's busted underpriced units.
I actually think points are the worst methodology of balancing. Things are either worth their points in a tight band or not. Ignoring obviously severely undercoated. 5,10,15 or even 20 points won't be the difference between a unit that does its job reliably and one that sometimes does its job being selected.
Similarly the community hates units that don't do their jobs. So we have to accept that to some degree we want units we can count on.
The room between does its job and can be managed is so narrow that I think looking for innovative ways to increase global risk to taking the units we want to take is wise.
Lastly the community is strongly biased towards the game being a variety of units that do things rather than including units that stop things happening. That has its own balance pressure. And is ultimately responsible for the power projection meta we currently occupy.
My initial reaction to the battlepack was "this is silly", but after some thought I think this is a more correct move than the community is giving it credit for.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, novakai said:
I don’t think you can say that a forceful trend since GW just release Kruleboyz which while are part of warclans aren’t really coherent with the existing army and basically a new army by themselves.
i wouldn’t say DoK are poster child of anything AoS either sense it only recently that GW made them more accessible but I would still say their are an intermediate to expert level difficulty army with you wanted to start collecting them given how difficult it is to paint the army.
Which is why stormcast have a pretty significant per box discount.
Kruelboyz also have a pretty good collection of units. They only are missing cavalry but they instead have a good selection of monsters which I think makes a pretty complete faction with room for creative growth
-
6 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:
Funny thing about that- I love DOK, as I suspect a good amount of us WHF+AOS fans do, however I do not love their pricetag.
DoK are relatively cheap to build an army out of, which is more important than a per box price. They also have a pretty good diversity of models, textures and sizes.
They are a great faction and poster child for what GW is probably forcefully trending towards which are customers with larger singular or coherent collections of models. Rather than the Buy a whole new faction all the time model of yesterday. Personally I think it's a significantly more responsible and moral model of consumption.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
I had a League game yesterday in which we never got a single double turn due to our rolls. It was enjoyable and tense, a really good game!
If he ever had a double turn I would've lost (tabled) due to his insane damage capabilities. If I had a doubleturn he would have lost.
This way it was tactical and fun without throwing a wrench at us and forcing the game to go a certain way.
Planning ahead in this case was: Screening like crazy, which would've been in vain if he spiked his dice or got a double turn.
It's one of the examples of why a DT is actually pretty bad. It's an unfair advantage for one player, period. You can argue as much as you want, this however doesn't change. (It isn'T made fair by giving the other player the chance to also get a DT. If one player gets a DT he's at an unfair advantage from that point onwards)
If you are interested:
I played an experimental SBGL list with 2x 20 and 3x 10 Grave Guard, 60 Zombies, 2 Vamps, 10 Wolves, a Nekro and a Wight King in Legion of Blood
HE played a Knights of the Empty Throne list with: 6 Varanguard (Tzeentch, General)), 3 Varanguard, Bela'Kor, 2x5 Knights, 1x Iron Golems, 1 Sorcerer Lord and a Warshrine.
By the end of the game his Varanguard had slaughtered 85 Grave Guards, 30 Zombies, 10 Wolves, a Vamp Lord and almost my Wight King. In the end the Zombies won me the game combined with my arcane Vampire buffing them.There is a distinction between a game where a double turn doesn't appear and a game without a double turn. In this fun and balanced game with largely no ranged damage, the possibility of a double turn still existed. And so you likely made decision with that in mind which led to by your own admission a fun and balanced game.
What you have to ask yourself is if even the possibility didn't exist would the player who went first have just won because they got to choose the first engagements.
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Even if every faction had the tools necessary to beat dragon spam, it still wouldn't be a good game experience, because matches would still come down to rock-paper-scissors re: whether you spammed the counter tools or not. That's the fundamental problem with skew lists. Typically skew lists aren't *that* big a problem in AOS because damage spillover and the lack of a toughness stat means that everything is at least relatively good at killing everything else. An entire army of 9W flyers with a 3+ save that cross the whole board in one turn while spamming ranged MWs and locking down your whole army are so skew, though, that they end up overwhelming the ability of the mechanics to cope. You need to tailor against the list to have a chance (or have a list that just naturally does the counters).
If everyone is having to list tailor to stand a chance against a particular list, that's a good sign there's a problem with the list. And of course, in this case, most factions can't tailor to beat dragon spam even if they wanted to.
I think the comparison with gargants is actually interesting. There were a lot of complaints about how gargants introduced a DPS check to the game, and that is true, they basically do - but at least there are multiple ways to pass a DPS check against models that are on a 4+ whose survivability is really just based on a high wounds characteristic, because all forms of damage basically work against that profile. There are far fewer ways to pass a DPS check against models on a 3+ with a 4+ spell shrug that cross the whole board in a turn, especially when they can also put out 10-15ish ranged MWs a turn to snipe out whatever pieces you do have that could help you against that profile.
I don't necessarily agree with this tbh. I think there are a lot of hypothetical units that change the way we currently play the game. And, the ability for a warscroll to do that I think is really positive.
For example I've seen players in the face of Sentinels create interesting decentralized buff systems with units they never would have used before. Which they never would have done when given the option to just take a easy buff hero.
So I think there is value to meta destroying warscrolls. The question should be does this thing increase or decrease the way in which the game is played. Or, create a new interesting thing.
I would say SDG do not, because they mostly destroy the movement phase. Which is the most fundamental phase of the game, and the one which can leave people feeling the most powerless.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Yondaime said:
The Maw its not broken, it was the 15 pigs following him that were the problem, and even if did good recently it was a good tier a, because it counters very well certain armyes but its easily countered by others
Imho there are 2 units atm that are problematic at high levels
Sentinels and Morathi, simply for the fact that they ignore 2 of the most important core rules (los and wound counts)
That isn't a very good metric of problematic, most units that do even those specific things aren't problematic at all. Sentinels aren't even problematic at high levels...
SDG Spam is getting a lot of pushback because it hits both player archetypes. The typical combat experience types like VV, who probably would love the idea of piloting it, but then would hate it because of the play experience. And, the people who see a game of AoS as a problem solving exercise, because the solution is relatively obvious but hidden behind very specific factions. Which means its a bad experience for those types as well. SDG could do 100% more damage and I wouldn't care about them. The answer is boring, it doesn't produce a new way to play or see the game, and that is what makes them problematic for me personally.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Just remove the conditional battleline and the dragons are probably ok (if still stupidly overbloated as a scroll). But that's difficult for GW to do at this point given how many people have already bought the spam list.
I'm not sure this is necessarily true. I wouldn't state at this point that the terminal level of SDG is 10 + KD. Even without being battleline you can comfortable field KD+7 and tbh it might be better at playing the breadth of GHB2021 battleplans.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Do we have any clues about these new Marauder Cav?