Jump to content

NJohansson

Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NJohansson

  1. We should then probably just give the faction bolters and chainsaws and then call it a day. They are already very similar to Space Marines, would hate to have them getting even more so.
  2. I like it as a concept but I think there will be a real problem with how different it would affect the various armies. My daemons of Tzeentch would probably love said change (although they hardly need additional buffs) while my friends varied Gloomgitz army (with loads of different units) would most likely struggle to fulfill the requirements. In fact I can see a lot of top tier armies easily fulfilling the probable conditions for additional buffs while the bottom tier is likely to struggle to do so.
  3. Different brands/products cater to different audiences. For example at work I generally wear cufflinks (for shirts) and yes there is a market for cufflinks for women - but 99 percent of all cufflinks are worn by and designed for men. It would be a bad marketing/business decision for a company in the cufflink business to start making 50 percent of all their cufflinks to cater for women, especially if they are the biggest company in said market. Yes most successful businesses do their best to attract new audiences (in GWs case women is a major opportunity) but you generally do so by introducing new lines (as in armies) that will attract said customers (for AoS this seems to be various Elven races), while maintaining you focus on the existing and most profitable segment (young males) for whom you create the majority of all models. Changing the existing brands to cater to a new audience is generally done very slowly/carefully or if the current audience is disappearing.
  4. Slightly more than half of all humans are female yes, half of GWs potential customers- probably not. This is a predominately male hobby (we could argue until the end of the world the reasons why but the absolute majority of players are male) and thus there is a clear advantage for GW to cater to the majority of their customers model preferences (big angry looking males with humongous weapons). If GW saw that female models sold better than their male counterparts there would be loads of more female models - they are a business, they produce what they believe their customers want to buy.
  5. They certainly do but two spawn and the battalion is suddenly the cost of almost 40 marauders or a sorcerer on Maticore/Be’Lakor and I generally find StD needs the extra points for additional units - the army can handle going first or second reasonably well and the benefits of the battalions are rarely worth the extra points/restrictions.
  6. The Lord on Manticore - seen him in some Nurgle builds (semi decent but not outstanding IMHO). But the Sorcerer on Manticore is actually good (against the right opponents).
  7. Well you also have Archeon and the FW Khornelord on Dragon:)
  8. To some people yes. For me Tzeentch has always been about scheming cultists, powerful mages and scholars who sold their soul for knowledge and power. My favorite models back in WFB (lore not point vise) were Daemon princes, the powerful chaos lords (especially the dragon riding ones - Egrimm Von Horstman is probably one of my favorite character of all time) and the spawn (the constant danger of to much gifts). But that is fluff and taste and fluff is subjective - saying that a model does not play in accordance with fluff is like saying “I don’t like carrots” - we could argue if a carrot is good for you or not, but if you like it or not is really only up to you. For what it’s worth - the majority of all fluff (regarding chaos) from WFB was about huge armies of marauders invading from the north led by mighty chaos champions. Fluff vise the army has always been a Horde (or a secret sect if within the boarders of the empire) and not a small elite force. Going over to AoS - a chaos warrior is really not that special any longer. In WFB they used to be elite troops - now they are killed by Stormcasts without breaking a sweat.
  9. To be honest - forgot about Middle Earth - somehow newer felt that it was a GW game (probably because of the vastly different setting - Tolking vs actual GW). My main point was that GW games have never been fully balanced. More than that - for a long time (10+ years) they didn’t even try to balance things (the whole “we are a company that make models and not games” era). Now at least they try.
  10. A bit disappointed in the changes. No real boost with the exception of knights - if enough to make them viable time will tell. On the other hand marauders will still be the staple unit and Daemonrift still a must have. Gaunt probably not worth it any longer. Thus most builds will gain little but will now cost around 100 points more in a 2000 points game. Didn’t really feel like the army needed toning down overall. No sky falling but they should just have boosted knights and warriors and we would have been in a much better place without being OP.
  11. Only getting to summon 5 Pinks through the army ability really hurts. That and the nerf to the gaunt summoner really killed a lot of the competitive (maybe to competitive to be fair) options of the list.
  12. If trying to be objective (I like the Book so I am biased) the biggest problem of the argument is that people mix freely between: 1) The competitive strength of the Book; 2) Internal balance in the Book; and 3) How the fluff fits the various units. 1) If looking at competitive strength - my opinion is that it is really good. The book has several strong builds and has placed high in several tournaments. No it is not top three on the power curve. IMHO (there are other contenders but these are mine) right now those books are OBR, Tzeentch and Slaanesh (although this is pre point changes and not taking into account Lumineth) but I would argue that no book should be on the same power level as those books. The winning builds (of said books) are not good for the game (very few armies can offer resistance, a new player does not stand a chance etc) and thus it is those books that should be modified and not StD that should become stronger. 2) Internal balance - the internal balance is not super. Both MoT and MoS are close to worthless compared to the other two marks and there are clear winners (from a point efficiency viewpoint) such as marauders. On the other hand show me one book with great internal balance? Even the top books have half of their entries at “you will never see this unit unless I like the models and don’t care for efficiency”. So asking for “I want all my models to be balanced” is really asking to play checkers since even in chess the Queen is far more valuable than everything else. If you must play with unit X - either accept that you will not build an optimal army or change unit X/army. 3) The fluff changes constantly and really is up to the artist and you as a reader. I have followed GW fluff for 20+ years. I have probably read more than 100 Black library books, I have read all army books of all armies from 4th edition WFB and onwards but regardless of my very personal and subjective feel on the matter - it is mine opinion and mine alone. I personally hate that MoT does not make you a wizard any longer. I find it irritating that my DP of Tzeentch no longer is a mage - but those are the rules and because of that my DP has become enraged, cursed his old master and is now a DP of Khorne (although very much more glittering and feathery than most Khorne DP). Fluff is fluff - and we have both Open play and Narrative play to cater to eventual fluff needs. Saying that the book is worthless because X (usually warriors) are not competitive/fluffy is like saying that DoT are worthless due to chariots and Spawn not making the cut.
  13. Every 10th page or so we return to “bad book - the sky is falling”. Despite the relatively good success rate of various StD builds and high placings at tournament (before Covid) still the same argument comes back. The lore (or ones opinion of it) is highly subjective. If you don’t like the book - there are many others that may give you a better feeling for fluff, lore, right good etc. Does not make the book bad, just not right for you.
  14. If your only chance to win is to remove Teclis first turn then you need to rework your army. Sorry to say that but you really can’t base your strategy on it. Not reliable in the long run.
  15. This is a common misconception - not using the double turn results in a greater chance of denying your opponent said chance. As an example - My Tzeentch army happily goes turn by turn - witch usually result in me winning the attrition game - the double turn is the only real threat to that.
  16. How many armies can do than reliably? Against new players that is a possibility for maybe half of them, with proper positioning by the Lumineth player maybe a handful (probably less).
  17. Really surprised (not judging) that so many people find going first being an advantage. Sure there are some Alpha strike armies that can pull it off but most armies benefit going second. You get the possibility of double turn (not just taking it but dictating if the opponent get the chance or not), better chance of getting range on spells, charges etc. and you also get the possibility that your opponent do not get full efficiency out of their army (turn one) due to not having range etc. I generally see a need for scenarios to increase benefits for going first - not for going second.
  18. Be’lakor, Kairos, Sorcerer Lord on Manticore and Khorne Daemon Prince are some allies that I have seen work really well depending on the actual army composition in question.
  19. My main problem with the new (sort of) direction with DoT is that it is so efficient at shooting. The army is definitely not unbeatable but most optimised builds comes down to can you remove enough of your opponents army with the initial shooting/spell casting or not. While loosing is never fun - people tend to get a worse gaming experience if they don’t even get to engage.
  20. I always go back and forth between the Rod and Sword. In the end the sword wins (for me) not because it is great but because I have tons of ****** shooting anyway - 2D6 more or less rarely means anything. The sword on the other hand is useless 90% of the time since the LoC tends to stay out of CC BUT it provides me with three things: 1) The chance to really threaten support level characters in CC (any decent save hero is more or less safe from the Rod); 2) Prevents the LoC from getting charged by mediocre “hunter” units - any decent hammer will still destroy the LoC but most 100-200 point units will regret fighting a LoC with the sword; and 3) The Hail Mary situation where you have no choice but to commit the LoC or lose the game. If the LoC will need to charge a 3-400+ monster I rather have the Sword (odds are the opponent will have a nice set of new feathers regardless but the sword makes it at least a possibility).
  21. I guess it is down to play style and your idea behind the army. With Cabalist I personally use 1-2 marauders units as ballistic missiles (teleport them up to 9” away and charge - preferably something holding a back line objective or a mage) so in such case they don’t really work as fodder. The horrors are excellent (especially if you have the emerald swarm) or the snake people (since they get models back). I also always try to include the spell portal (since I really need to be able to get my spells where needed) and then I really like the Khorne DP (or Kairos) since they both can buy me an extra turn out of CC if necessary.
  22. The Manticore Sorcerer greatly benefits from the Ethereal amulet. As to the second one, I feel that the Godswrarh isn’t really worth it in Cabalists. A second Gaunt (trimming needed to fit), the Blue scribes, Khorne DP or another unit of marauders provide much more than the lower drop and additional artifact. I would also look to remove a marauder horse unit to replace it with a sacrificial unit for the rituals.
  23. Nagash is either fairly middle of the pack (sometimes just worthless) to absolute ridiculous depending on actual list/what your opponent is playing. Lowering his cost would unfortunately make him of the charts in some of the more frequent competitive Death lists.
  24. I would argue against units of 20. Ten are relatively cheap and function as a road block/holding objectives in your own zone - 30 gives you discount. 20 is just expensive and not worth it at all.
  25. Big disclaimer - not my army (although I have played against it half a dozen times at least): He plays with Rotigus, one GUO and Be’Lakor as the main characters and then 3 units of 10 plaguebeares as core (almost the same as your initial list - which was very close to what he used to play in Magotkin). Then he adds Drones or bigger units of plaguebearers depending on preference (trying out different combos) and what is left is spent on Endless spells or a support hero. The main thought behind the list is to utilise the durability of Nurgle. The Legion gives the whole army an additional 6+ ward save and lets you summon a unit of plaguebearers (10+ on 3 dice) which should give you a new unit 3-4 times per game (on average closer to 3). Then Be’Lakor can return d3 models To all plaguebearer units on a 3+ (Including drones which actually makes them playable) and Be’Lakor also has a very powerful ability and access to STD endless spells as well as becoming a decent tank/fighter in the legion. The main drawback (from my perspective) is a that the drops are high - but in our meta people usually are playing 1-3 or armies that do not care so the usual Thrice list is still outdeplyed when it matters (different metas will affect this naturally). The list is not S-tier in any way (hard to get a real punch with Nurgle Daemons), but I have played against both it and the regular Maggot daemon army quite a lot (my main opponent) and I find that the Legion list gives me more of a challenge (played against with both StD and DoT).
×
×
  • Create New...