Pangu
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Pangu
-
-
11 minutes ago, Gdead909 said:
Or you move your general up who is on a terrorgheist baseline speed 14 is really good
In a Mordants list its very unlikely that a AGKoT since you are most likely need a courtier general to unlock a knight unit as battleline. If your general is an infernal its probably fine with his movement 12.
-
12 minutes ago, soots said:
royal mordant flayer in hallowmourne. 1-2cp
32" + 2d6 charge.
free hero phase move from batallion. 12
move run plus 1. 19 (use ca for run 6 if need)
charge plus 1. 2d6 +1
horrors can do 22" + 2d6
The movement is impressive, but without a hero within 12" to give them feeding frenzy its not very effective. Maybe its good for sending 3 flayers around the back of the army to pick off support?
-
8 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:
Lot of that isn't quite right. I play BoC.
They have the same (not better) save.
They have a much more situational heal. Sure it's nice when you get it off, but they need to wipe out a unit while injured.
Damage wise they can be quite effective, but Vs a 4+ save they are doing an expected 2.25 wounds each to a 4+. (2.66 to a 5+). That's factoring in the mortals.
The horrors are a pain to work out, but they get about 1.67 to 4+ and 2.2 to a 5+. ( I may be straight up wrong on working that out, the 3 damage on a 6 to wound is odd).
Are horrors more than 160 now? I haven't got my book yet
Bullgors have a sheild option getting them a 4+ in combat. The default axe option is the same as a horrors attack but with rend -1. I was thinking bullgors where 140, but its been a while since I looked at their cost.
-
9 minutes ago, PUFNSTUF said:
What battalion though? None would really fit, except ghoul patrol, and I don't know if royal family counts with all 3 being ridden.
Ghoul patrol while not ideal has the lowest cost of entry of any of our battalions. I think its justifiable do to the Cp, artifact, extra mount trait.
-
11 minutes ago, Mutter said:
I don't think so, 'cause hordes are just too powerful in 2.0. I can't see unridden TGs and ZDs making enough of a dent before being overcome. And every unridden monster cuts down on your ridden mounts, which I think are much more viable.
But it'll be intersting to see them on the table every so often.
I agree with most of this, however the number of actual players willing to take advantage of hordes are pretty rare. Most of the meta is still made up of moderate model count lists. It's expensive and time consuming to build and paint 120+ model lists. In a 5 game tournament you simply aren't going to run into that many horde armies so i dont think its that big a deal.
-
6 hours ago, TheWilddog said:
Maybe I am still stuck in the pre-new book mindset but I have trouble going with the battleline TG and ZD. Before the new book the only real strength of the army was our summoning. The only lists that did well leveraged our big guys, yes because they were somewhat good on their own but mainly because they summoned in a bunch of extra points. I can't help but think that is still the case. When I look at running 3 bare TG (because it is just probable better that the ZD) all I can think about is if I add another 100 points it will add another cheap caster AND let me summon in another 160 points. It just seems that the way for us to be competitive is with summoning, and the TG/ZD battleline 900 point sink seems to distract from that. Of course this is all just conjecture based on, as I said pre-new book experience. Need to grind some games to get a real feel, but I think breaking summoning will be our best bet, like it was before.
I think it will be viable to go all monsters just because the gristlegore traits are just that good. However, I think the most optimal list runs gristlegore with a couple ridden monsters, Minimum ghoul battleline, and spend the remaining points on arch Regents and a battalion.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
After listening to a podcast about comp. FeC it seems like prettz much only our ghouls, kings the Varghulf and monsters are viable. Our "knights" weren't spoken of too well XD
There is no doubt that all of our potential battleline options are pretty bad, especially the knights.
Compare Horrors to any other medium sized infantry, like Bullgors. Bullgors are considered a mediocre unit and they are better in almost every way, they are cheaper, do more damage, do mortal wounds, have a better save and a better heal.
People are excited for Flayers thinking they are going to be this amazing alpha strike unit with deadwatch and blisterskin. There damage output is still really poor, they are completely reliant on Feeding Frenzy to do any work. That doesnt meld well with them flying off away from your army since you need to be completely within 12" of a hero to get the buff off. They are also so squishy that they are unlikely to survive the retaliation from your opponent to get to use the Deadwatch ability. This is easily the most overrated unit in the book and I feel people are going to be incredibly dissapointed when they get them on the table. They are best at hovering around the edges of the battlefield playing cleanup and picking off isolated units, they are not a hammer.
Even ghouls are aweful if you compare them to similarly classed units. They are inferior in every way to Plague Monks and are vastly more expensive.
All of our non-hero units are 30-40pts overcosted. This puts us in a situation where we are incentivized to max out on our overly efficient characters and minimize our other units. I actually think the podcast gives more credit to some units than they deserve. Anyways, they are very correct in that we have very limited competitive options. Either you go monster mash or you focus on abusing Archregents. Anything focused on knights cant get enough wounds or damage output on the table to be effective.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Peegee said:
I'm really hesitating between Gristlegore and Blisterkin for my Monster Mash list. The first one is all about optimizing the big guys insane power but I feel the second one is more flexible, movement bonus, redeployment and extra CP are very tempting as well.
I think always strikes first is so powerful for any list running a monster that it outweighs any other option available to FEC. Everything else in gristlegore is just icing.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Forrix said:
I'm curious what the people saying FEC is overpowered think about Legions of Nagash? While all the summoning, resurrecting, and extra attacks are pretty good FEC still kinda feels like an inferior version of legions. Skeleton warriors for instance are cheaper than ghouls, can get 240 attacks via an extra pile in, can bring back 4d3+ models a turn easily, and if they get wiped out the whole unit can come back guaranteed for 1 command point.
I largely agree. All of our battleline options are too poorly costed to be worth buying straight into lists. I also believe that our healing is basically a trap. The whole system is taxed too heavily to be viable.
However, Gristlegore with 3 mounted heros and an Archregent is going t be an incredbly effective list that doesn't resemble anything LoN can do.
-
46 minutes ago, Graywater said:
See, I actually look at it differently. Pur monster mash list is good still. But not the be all end all. The addition of the grand courts are just straight upgrades and I think help allow armies built around horrors, flayers, and or ghouls to be perfectly viable. I'm excited to run a few different lists, particularly around running my favorite unit, horrors.
Imo none of the Courts address the core issue with knights and serfs, and that's thier points cost. They are still absurdly overcosted. Modern armies have no issues dealing with >100 wounds armies, especially when they only have a 5+ or 6+ save. Knight/serf armies also need more character support bringing their drop count up and eliminating the option of the alpha strike. The whole setup is just incredibly inefficient and don't see a way around this other than spamming archregent which is exactly what i want to avoid.
-
7 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:
Or maybe they did but it doesn't align with player meta. GW's game vision and player meta can be quite different. I mean they did accidentally create the monster that was 40k 8th launch where people would show up with 8 flying hive tryants.
Well, play testing is meaningless if it isn't effective. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that the archregent as written is too efficient. I'll hold off until the faq before saying much more about the book.
-
3 hours ago, soots said:
Gristle-what you call it is a good grand court.
Giving mounted guy hit first to go with another hero means both attack first on the charge. Unfortunately, there is no way to alphastrike the hero and they have no good access to reroll hit.
Fast-move court is also good.
I agree the courts have major downsides. but the best thing of having only 3 unit choices is everything you field meets requirements for batallions and the batallions are amazing. So you should atleast buy one and get the free item.
I dont like the flayer in hero phase batallion, its going to be very difficult to trigger as you dont want Flayers hanging around in combat for 3 turns.
Easily the most powerful batallion for me is the Royal Mordants. Gives Flayers a 24/28" move or Horrors 14"/18" move. Alpha striking horrors look tourney ready
the Archregent is broken and i see them being staple in optimized Legion of Nagash lists.
As for the army, i feel like its a one trick pony still and horrible tome. D3A feeding frenzy. Thats all there is. Save the dispel for the D3a and let one unit feeding frenzy attack a turn. The rest of the units are insanely overpriced and pay for access to the aforementioned abilities. Its going to be easy to counter because its too predictable. I feel like if they gave flayers a proper shooting attack and horrors rend it would 3x more flexible.
I completely agree with this assesment. As a player who likes the aesthetic of knights + serfs the book comes across as such a disappointment. Instead of making balanced lists viable they just pushed even harder into the monster mash list. Then there is the archregent... It's fairly obvious they didnt do much play testing or deep analysis of this book.
-
1 hour ago, lord_blackfang said:
While I regret the lack of new warscrolls, it looks like we won't be hurting for power or variety of builds 😍
I don't know if i agree with this. I feel that big blocks of serfs or knights still wont be a viable option. In fact, abilities like feeding frenzy or the archregent spell push you harder into monster mash lists.
-
1 hour ago, lord_blackfang said:
Man, with the Archregent effectively costing between 0 and 40 pts for a wizard with decent melee and regeneration, I imagine we'll fill all leftover Leader slots with them. I mean literally he costs 0 points.
I'd be very surprised if his summon ability doesnt get faq'd so that the ability can only be used once per game instead of once per archregent, to prevent the ability from being spammed.
-
1 hour ago, Neinball said:
For the throne, I like the model and I think Archregent's will be mandatory, so it's at least always a free command point. Nothing flashy, but at least it's reliable.
I have a hard time getting hyped on the Archregent. The problem is the majority of his support comes from spellcasting and currently FEC's magic phase is pretty garbage. I don't like relying on spells in such a magic heavy meta. Looking at him in a vacuum id much rather spend my points towards a mounted hero who can contribute in combat. It really will depend on his cost and whether or not we can get a casting bonus.
-
9 hours ago, Clanan said:
What do people think of Plague Squall versus the other two options? I love the flavor but not rolling any 6s is so painful.
Its not super consistent, but its one of the spells that helps to define our faction. The ability to snipe heroes off the board or work down behemoths, in conjunction with the wheel, is a big deal and makes plague squall a must take spell imo.
-
2 hours ago, Myrdin said:
Where can we leave that feedback ?
There are some units that require a bit of love.
Units that are not mentioned are fine from my perspective and well balanced for their cost and role in the army.
Beastlord - Drop the requirement for his Command Ability to kill a model before it can be used. Thats a really stupid one and is inconsistent, and
Raiders - Should really be Battle line
Warhounds - Should really be Battle line, and slightly cheaper.
Cockatrice - is a prime example of nice idea but bad design. 50% chance to hit to deal 1-6 damage is a no. Especially since it cant even fight in combat its Petrifying Gaze should be the main selling point. The price is not the issue. The usability is. Its extremely unreliable and the damage chart is to random. Either make the damage 2D3 or improve the Hit rate. Alternativel A reroll once every 2 turns for either the Hit or the Damage roll would make it much better (once per 2 turns to not make it too good). Or allow it to be taken in a flock of 1-3 so you can at least charge them
Jabberslythe - The Acid blood should activate on 2+ not 4+ since its been nerfed already to a single MW not D3 anymore. This by itself would fix a lot of its identity issues. Making its gimmick Aura of Madness is meh. I would like to see something else. Minus -1 Bravery to units within 12" and -D3 if in combat with Jabber itself would be much more interesting
Gors - should be 2A base making them viable in both MSU and hordes. All things considered they are just butt naked bestigors with smaller weapons. But the "type of beastmen" is the same. If we wanted to go really fancy, the Paired weapon option is garbage and should be the same as for Tzaangors as in: +1 to Hit if equipped with paired weapons. Would at least make you consider it when compared to taking a shield.
Enlightened - should be +20pts more for both mounted and dismounted so they are on par with Bestigors in price, since essentially they do the same thing albeit slightly different (yes I dont want only buffs, these guys are a steal at 100/140 pts)
Skyfires - should drop in price. -20pts minimum. Personally I would like to see a dissmounted version like with Enlightened as well, but thats just me.
Tzaangors - Slight decrease in price. 160 Would be about right
Tzaangor Shaman - Same thing. -20/-40 pts. Reasons were already stated.
Bullgors - need something. If nothing else drop to 140 so they are on par with Dragon Ogors. Personally I think just the price drop is not enough, but it would be a good start. Maybe upp their Save to 4+ to make them stick around a little longer. Though honestly I`d say they could use +1 attack to their Weapon profiles (not the horns), to they really feel like the Hammer they were supposed to be. They were always a hard hitting unit in the past, but currently they dont have that umpf anymore and are generally under-powered.
Cygor - could use a little love. Something like +1 to hit for its Desecrated Boulder if it didnt move or the enemy unit being shot at didnt move. Alternatively dropping him to 160 might also work. (Though I`d rather it being more efficient than cheaper)
Now I have issues with the Greatfrays as well (mostly all of Allherd could use a revamp. Nothing horrible but adjustments to make it actually good. Darkwalkers - the Desolate shard should not be a single use item for such a miniscule effect it does.)
I will not get into the battalions, but some of them could use a little love, or price decreasing.
Things that I have not mentioned are more or less fine from my perspective.Feedback can be left on the post on the Warhammer Community Facebook page.
Regarding the feedback itself, they are only looking to reevaluate points costs.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Sneeto said:
Thanks for the heads up, with the army I have thus far would a GUO or a Glottkin be a better purchase for a big unit?
The Glottkin wants to support an army with larger size units. His +wound spell is best on larger model count units like maruaders, plaguebearers or plague monks. His command ability is also better on those units or units with lots of melee weapon profiles like plague drones.
The GUO on the otherhand has debuff spells like favoured poxes which benifits any unit. His movement buff is also great for supporting any unit. His command ability only supports daemon units though, so generally you will want at least one unit of plaguebearers or drones to take advatage of it.
Looking at your current selection of models, which is mostly blightkings + mortal heroes, you have 3 good paths for growing your army; GUO + daemon units, Glottkin + a horde unit, or more blightkings to build one of the Cysts.
-
18 hours ago, sorokyl said:
So far you have a mortal army. Mortals and Daemons don't synergize well. 3/4 units in the SC box aren't good, and the Plaguebearers are only good in groups of 30. So no, a SC box would not be ideal . Get 5x more blightkings and whatever heroes you fancy. (Mortal Heroes. Maybe a GUO)
I strongly disagree with the majority of these statements. First, the only unit in the start collecting box that likely will never be considered for play is nurglings. The rest of the units range between good(poxbringer/drones) to amazing(plaguebearers). Second, the majority of daemon units can function fine without support, especially plaguebearers, so they are fine to support a army that is predominately mortal. As a bonus, drones are one of the better recipients for Blades of Putrefaction, which is a mortal spell. If you choose to go this route you will probably want to invest in 2 SC boxes and couple extra boxes of plaguebearers to build a 30 man unit plus some for summoning.
Nurgle has a wide range of good units to make for a variety of builds. Generally a GUO is all you really need to tie the disparate elements together into a cohesive army. Id only suggest builds like blightcyst or plague cyst if you really love Blightkings, as they encourage you to spam them almost exclusively. Regardless of what you choose, you will want some plaguebearers to summon.
-
1
-
-
With nurgle you can take Tamurkhans Horde allegiance which gives you a great bonus ability, -1 to run and charge for opponents, and still allows a Beastmen general to get a artifact and trait(even if they are pretty poor).
-
4
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Ragnar Alpaca said:
Ok thanks @SwampHeart how good is this battalion compared to the others, I haven’t seen much talk of it? Is it that bad?
Its a medicore battalion in the majority of scenarios. Its expensive and the battalion ability is pretty poor. It does offer a lot of flexibility in unit selection though, so if you have a specific build in mind or want to run Beasts with the Maggotkin allegiance its at least playable.
-
15 minutes ago, Pandamina said:
Yes in this particular instance i meant 'BoC horde armies aren't good at killing things' exactly. I'm not a native speaker so it sometimes tricky for me to express my thoughts. Didn't want to insult anybody. I agree that hordes are overall the best choice for the objective games as the nature of such games is to have more models within range of objective to control it. And primordial call mechanic is a great addition to score some remote objects at the end of the game.
Personally, i use Primordial Call almost exclusively on 3 points summons to summon onto objectives as quickly and as often as i can. You really want to apply scenario pressure as early as possible.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, decker_cky said:
Question for the wise beast generals here: What is the best we can make a list with 3 x 30 bestigors look? I know there's a footprint issue, but I feel like it creates uncomfortable issues for your opponents.
Ive been running 3x30 bestigors quite successfully. Like Swampheart has said, the list isnt built to alpha armies off the table. BoC just cant concentrate enough hitting power into our units unless you build around Enlightened(which i wont do as tzeentch isnt my thing). Instead the army has to grind out scenario wins, which it can be incredibly good at.
My current list is 1 drop with 183 models. 3x30 bestigor, 30 gors, 40 ungors 3x10 raiders, 2x shaman, beastlord, desolating battalion. Typically i push up onto objectives with the gors/raiders turn 1 while summoning in 10x ungors roughly every round to contest back-field objectives. This puts a ton of pressure on the opponent to spread out. The bestigors are usually in my second line and focus on maintaining the objectives or removing key threats. The big block of ungors usually hangs out at the herdstone for sacrifices and comes out late game with the herdstone buff to either maintain objectives or finish off injured units.
The key to the horde army is to keep the waves coming in and always applying pressure while the opponents are slowly being wittled down. The summoning is key to throw out chariots to tie up units or pressure vulnerable characters or apply scenario pressure all over the board with ungors.
-
8 hours ago, XReN said:
Flayers feel dissapointing, their armor dealing potential do not compete with rerolls and damage 2(3) of horrors
They were important when the meta consisted of armies with 2+ rerollable armor saves, but since the inception of 2.0 flayers have dropped off in utility quite a bit.
AoS 2 - Flesh-eater Courts Discussion
in Death
Posted · Edited by Pangu
I think FEC is the easiest army for conversions in the history of GW. The delusion theme lends itself to almost anything. Carnival, Circus, Missionaries, Robin Hood, vampire hunters, etc.