Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
Posts
421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
-
28 minutes ago, GunslingerOy said:
What is one or two more thing in I could go with?
Flesh Hounds (Blades of Khorne)
Does FW still sell the old Nurgle Plague Toads?
-
As silly as it sounds from a running lists of Monsters perspective Gitz actually has some fun options. I have a soft spot for seeing multiple Arachnarok Spiders on the table after all the fun our gaming group had with a narrative that involved them and a large swarm of their smaller Spider Rider brethren. Know some people who have a blast running the larger squigs. But clearly not an army meant to be all monsters which I think is what you’re looking for here.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Ah the summoning ghouls thing. Forgot about that bit. Maybe that would make up for lack of objectives bodies
The AGKonRT summons Courtiers. So if you’re going hardcore Gristelgore you won’t get the ghouls. But unless you are truly go bug or go home chances are you’ll have an Archregent or basic AGK to get you the ghouls.
So that’s where I think the break is. Can speak from experience that 2AGKonRT w/1 regular RT and 1 regular RZD, even with an Archregent , still left me scrambling for objectives if I didn’t clear huge chunks of my opponent’s army out early. But if you’re willing to have a foundation of Monsters balanced by a nice set of supports go FEC.
But if you’re all in on Monsters and will only take support to fill out spare points than that 10x may be your saving grace.
-
Having both FEC Gristelgore and BCR-based armies in our gaming group I would lean towards the former as well. When a HERO (AGKonRT) think the Terrirgheist wins hands down over even the mighty Frostlord on Stonehorn because of magic AND summoning. The ability to run them w/out riders is compelling as well and I do feel RT wins over Stonehorn Beastriders.
Pre-changes to their “snowball” probably would’ve taken Thundertusk over RZD. Now? Maybe not.
But with BCR Behemoths counting as 10 models arguably if you want an all Monster all the time army you’re almost forced to go BCR to have a chance at being competitive in objective based games.
-
17 hours ago, Frowny said:
I think you are thinking about them wrong. They are melee troops that happen to have a gun, not ranged troops
I get what they ARE. They just aren’t, as written, what I want them to be based on their aesthetic.
A good example of the disconnect between the aesthetic and the reality cane when we brought them out to try out their new tome as part of our new narrative cycle. There were two lonely LBs trying to hold down a flank after the Skullcrushers had charged in walling off one unit of Ironguts and on the other side well buffed 40x Reavers had tied up the other block of Ironguts. Things weren’t looking good for Bloodgullet!
But then the Khorne player (who again, hadn’t gone up against the new tome at all and thus didn’t know their WS) hesitated to move his Bloodwarriors and Mighty Lord Khorne up because he was worried I’d be able to snipe his HERO on my upcoming turn if he failed a long charge. They just look that dangerous. Once he realized what the actual probable damage output of them was he was pissed off that he didn’t go for it (costing himself potential VP in a very close game).
So yeah, in match play despite having better melee options in Ironguts I do basically treat them as upgraded Gluttons. But I am fortunate to have a good narrative gaming group so I don’t have to just settle for what they are. And rather than just rewrite the LB scroll think a LB hero (to be named Leadbelly of course) way to go in that context.
Thanks for the ideas in that direction. I do like the idea of a specific ability/aura and a separate CA fir the LBs.
-
So I think I’ve attached the picture below of the basic set up for a narrative game our group will be playing in the next week or two.
The match will be a Khorne Mortals vs Sylvaneth.
The Sylvaneth have tricked the Khorne army into splitting in half with the Cavalry now on one side of the Awakened Wyldwood line and the Infantry on the other before sprinting their trap.
The objective for Khorne is to reunite their army by getting 2/3 of their units (and leaders) on one side or the other before more than 50% of their army (measured by Wounds) is lost. The Sylvaneth objective is to destroy one side of the army completely.
Given it is narrative I don’t have to be as worried about perfect balance (particularly as this match is part of a larger narrative) but thought it was a good example of a battleplan I’d want to see in regular match play if I could find a way to balance it.
-
Gutbusters were my first army.
The Leadbelcher remains one of my favorite models. Just love the aesthetic. I also love the idea of these cannons stuffed with battlefield detritus blasting away at the enemy only to be turned around and used as giant clubs to bash their opponent’s head in.
Love, love, love it.
What I don’t love us the actual War Scroll.
12”/d3/4+/3+/-1/1 just doesn’t match what I want to get out of these units in the Shooting Phase. I’ve actually been much happier with their 1”/2/3+/3+-1/2 melee profile. The issue with their Shooting is compounded by the lack of options to substantively buff it. Sure you can 3xtend the range but that’s not been my issue.
What they need, in my opinion, is a Hero that can buff them. I am in the process of kit bashing one to use in my narrative games. Have some ideas as to what buff I want but thought I’d reach out on this thread to see if there are other better ideas?
-
On 2/28/2020 at 2:20 PM, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
Kicking off our next narrative cycle on Sunday
From a narrative perspective would say Round One went “half right”.
Khorne Mortals vs Bloodgullet Mawtribe was one of the most fun and balanced games our group has played. The game shifted back-and-forth over five rounds with Mawtribes ahead on victory points but Khorne Mortals wracking up an incredibly high Wound total for their Blood for the Blood God score. As a result both players were very happy.
On the other table unfortunately Khorne Daemons vs Boulderhead Mawtribe was just one of those matches that went off the rails. The BCR player had a great R1 and took out some key pieces early which left the Daemons player struggling. They degraded all for of the Behemoths significantly but they were never in a position to concentrate their firepower and finish them off.
As a result the Blood for the Blood God score is very lopsided at moment with Mortals up 118 to 30. But we’ll tweak the Daemons list and see what happens next round when Daemons go up against the KO while the Mortals wander deeper into the forest and find themself in Sylvaneth territory.
-
On 2/28/2020 at 4:04 PM, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
Kicking off a Khorne based narrative cycle this weekend. Basic concept is that Bel’akor has stirred up trouble between the Daemon and Mortal sides of the Blades of Khorne. It is an argument that can only be settled by a contest to see which group can claim more blood for the blood god.
So the first round is finished and the Mortals have taken a decisive lead having taken 118 Wounds worth of Blood for the Blood God to the Daemons more paltry 30.
Some bad luck for the Daemons for sure as they got caught out early losing their key Bloodthirster early to the Frostlord on Stonehorn and severely degrading but NOT killing (on the Wounds of killed models count to our score) all of the BCR behemoths. Don’t worry, we’ll be tweaking the list to bring in Mazarall the Butcher next round so let’s see if the Daemons can turn it around in Round 2.
Can speak in more detail to the other battle between the Mortals and the Bloodgullet Mawtribe. Khorne won the initiative and had Ogors go first, smartly letting them largely waste their first round of spell casting but conceding the center objective to them. The Bloodreaver Deathstar did a lot of damage to the Ironguts in the middle, complimented by Blood Bind going off for a 6 and at the end of R1 things were looking good for Khorne, despite losing a lot of Reavers when they didn’t have the CP to avoid Battleshock.
But in R2 Bloodgullet finally got their spells off and tied up the Skullcrushers with their 2nd unit of Ironguts while the few remaining Ironguts of the 1st unit held on. When the Ogors got their Tyrant, 2nd Butcher and 4x Unit if Leadbelchers into the Wrathmongers who had shifted to protect the flank they went down, dealing a lot of damage but opening up the flank.
The biggest mistake for a Khorne was not getting the Bloodwarriors and Mighty Lord of Khorne into the action R3, which allowed the Mawtribe to hang on in what was becoming a battle of attrition in the center and on the opposite flank. But Blood Tithe rewards save the days shutting down Voracious Maw in Rs 3-5. Add in some cold rolling for Bloodgullet in R4&5 and slowly the tide turned back to Khorne.
Not enough to fully close the VP gap which had opened when the Wrathmongers flank fell but enough so that Mawtribes only had 1 model left on the table at the end of R5. Given the individual games are less important to the narrative than the Blood Toll think the Mortals were very happy with their debut. Will Tweak a few things on this list too but looks pretty decent.
Next time - the Mortals will enter the forest at the edge of this battlefield to face off against the Sylvaneth. Meanwhile the Duardin who were inside the Dispossessed stronghold the Daemons fought in front of will call in the KO to reopen the pass and clear out their Daemon Infestation (after the BCR continue their migration).
-
1
-
1
-
-
As a side observation in my limited experience many of the non-symmetrical battleplans in the tomes can be made symmetrical. For example in the Khorne tome there is a battleplan where the opponent’s objective is to destroy the Skull Altar. In January we modified this for the second battle of a Khorne vs LoA Execution Herd narrative. As the latter doesn’t have its own faction terrain we swapped in a Herdstone (dedicated to Hashut of course!) so each side could have one. Used the 20 wounds, no Save for each from the original battleplan.
For a little more flavor we also determined that the gods themselves had launched Endless Spells/Judgements at the other’s “temple” with Hashut sending a Wildfire Taurus straight at the Skull Altar and Khorne sending a Wrath Axe. Was a fun way to incorporate these models as we didn’t include them in the cost of the army, they couldn’t be dismissed, but they also only traveled in a straight line and when they hit their target they exploded.
I have to believe we can do the reverse though to and find ways to provide balance in a battleplan with asymmetries. The “flavor” above may be one way as one of the issues with making the terrain a target is that the Damage going into that is NOT going into your opponent’s units. Effectively then the Defender gets a “free” extra 20 Wounds. Could these be balanced out with a free Predatory spell capable of dealing out an extra 20 wounds over the course of a game, even if some restrictions, as in the above, are placed on its use?
Another potential insight from that game related to the placement of the objectives. We were playing with territories on the diagonal and the terrain pieces in back corner 12” from each edge. In hindsight this was a little too deep and reduced the probability of a major victory. If, then, only one of us was going after a terrain piece where that terrain piece is put could make a big difference to the balance. (I believe in the original battleplan the Skull Altar is dead center.)
-
20 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
Biggest outstanding question is whether score should be kept with Skulls (# of models killed) or Blood (# of wounds from models killed)? Leaning towards the latter to even out facing different factions (e.g. BCR and KO likely to have lower model count then say Gutbusters or Sylvaneth...)
The other detail we are working out is the Blood Tithe. We’re stretching to get two full Khorne armies on table so our summoning bench (pre-Daemon army casualties) is WRATH, 10x Bloodletters, 10x Flesh Hounds (at least 5 of which we initially need to reserve for Karanak), 6x Bloodcrushers, and a Bloodmaster. So decent but if both players were looking to draw from it could easily see conflicting demands.
Fortunately the nature of the bet is such that the Mortals shouldn’t want to be summoning Daemonic aid. So at least for tomorrow’s game no Summoning for the Goretide. For balance then we are thinking the Daemons should be prevented from using the Rewards table. Truthfully we haven’t used the Rewards Table as much as we’ve summoned so not sure how much balance that actually provides?
-
Kicking off a Khorne based narrative cycle this weekend. Basic concept is that Bel’akor has stirred up trouble between the Daemon and Mortal sides of the Blades of Khorne. It is an argument that can only be settled by a contest to see which group can claim more blood for the blood god.
From Khorne perspective after playing a lot of mixed lists lately it is an excuse to bulk out the units in order to be better able to field pure Daemon and pure Mortals lists. Enables us to try out some units we haven’t really seen much of on the table as well.
The Daemons list is pretty simple:
Tyrants of Blood Battalion w/RAGE, FURY and Skarbrand
Murderhost w/Skulltaker and three units of Bloodletters (30-10-10)
Karanak
For Mortals we’re taking advantage of it being narrative to up the drops:
Gore Pilgrims w/2x Slaughterpriests, Bloodsecrator, 40x Reavers, 5x Bloodwarriors & 5x Bloodwarriors
9x Skull Crushers
5x Wrathmongers
Aspiring Deathbringer
Mighty Lord of Khorne
Chaos Lord on Karkadrak
For the mortals we’re trying out a Reaver Deathstar of the 40x Reavers, Bloodsecrator, 5x Wrathmongers, Aspiring Deathbringer and Slaughterpriest w/Killing Frenzy to see if the aura bubbles can be managed to max the attacks and hit probabilities.
The intent Is to play through three rounds with the Khorne winner getting to be the general of that side in the 8K blowoff finale. We’ll adjust each list each round (can’t wait to get Mazarall the Butcher out there).
For the opposing armies the intent is to try out some new battletomes. So this weekend the Daemons will be going up against a BCR list while the Mortals will face off against Gutbusters to try out the new Mawtribes tome. Hoping the next round to try out the new KO tome.
Biggest outstanding question is whether score should be kept with Skulls (# of models killed) or Blood (# of wounds from models killed)? Leaning towards the latter to even out facing different factions (e.g. BCR and KO likely to have lower model count then say Gutbusters or Sylvaneth...)
-
1
-
2
-
-
Kicking off our next narrative cycle on Sunday.
Basic premise is Bel’akor has created conflict in Khorne’s army between the Daemons and Mortals which can only be resolved by a contest to see which army can supply more skulls for the skull throne.
Using this narrative to try out some new battletomes and we’re kicking off with Mawtribes as the Daemons will face off against BCR in the “Blood in the Snow Bowl” while the Mortals fight against the Gutbusters.
For Khorne it is also about our group trying out some models we don’t normally see on the table. We’re particularly intrigued to see how the “Reaver Deathstar” performs. (40x Reavers, 5x Wrathmongers, Bloodsecrator, Aspiring Deathbringer and Slaughterpriest withKilling Frenzy). We’ll see how long they can maintain those aura bubbles.Intent is to go three Rounds to see which Khorne sub-faction provides more blood for the blood god. Winner gets to be that sides’ General during the final big 8k+ total points blow off battle.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, chord said:
Oh, for these style games I just play with people who understand its not a matched style game. Its competitive but not "fair"
Same. Fortunate to have a great gaming group that’s into narrative and thus down for stuff like that. We’ll kick off or next narrative cycle this weekend.
But it isn’t just an AoS gaming group and a lot of the time we have more players than can comfortably play AoS so we’ll switch to a board game like Scythe or even something like Wings of War.
And again the other downside is that playing these type of games only in my gaming group means playing a limited number of factions. If I want to play against Fyreslayers, or IDK, or DoK, or Slaanesh, or Gitz, or myriad other armies I have to expand my play out to the larger local gaming community... which almost inevitably means match play.
Again, not end of the world and realize I’m lucky to have 3-4 other players who are usually down for narrative/asymmetrical but given how much fun w have can’t help but wish there was a better way to bring it out to the larger local gaming community. Hence this thread...
-
6 minutes ago, chord said:
Asymmetrical battle plans can be a lot of fun, but you need to redefine the terms of winning. For example maybe you're the rear guard and you just need to survive for x battle rounds, or need to destroy y pieces of terrain.
I love these types of battleplans. How have you approached the idea of balancing them so that the survival of the rearguard and its destruction are reasonably proportional? Personally I’m fine playing a game where the odds are stacked against me. Love a good challenge and at worst usually learn something in my failures. But with so much focus on fairness from many (most?) match play centric players how have you addressed this?
-
3 hours ago, DerZauberer said:
In 40.000 (where i've started the hobby) we somehow managed to get a lot of those asymmetrical games in and they were always huge fun. And even when not using the pre-made asymmetrical missions, the Mealstrom of War cards and the objective placement phase made each game very distinct.
The Maelstrom of War option for AoS sounds very interesting with objectives shifting turn by turn.
Obviously they weren’t that dynamic but I was initially very excited by Hidden Agendas. My very first tournament game was against the White Dwarf Slaanesh battalion with the extra summoning points. By the end there were six KoS on the table. Before any units were placed or any dice were rolled I knew I couldn’t win the battleplan. My Hidden Agenda if killing his highest wound model gave me something to play for and I’ll admit a real sense of satisfaction when I took down one of the KoS.
But the reality is that Hidden Agendas seem largely to be used to separate out undefeated lists at the top. In addition, your opponent has nothing to lose pts wise if you achieve your Hidden Agenda. In combination this means that Hidden Agendas really don’t offer that true alternative objective I am looking for.
They did get me thinking though about potential ways this might be accomplished within the symmetrical battleplans that define match play today. One concept I am playing around with is Faction-specific Objectives. The idea is that based on its key traits and characteristics each faction would have six potential objectives they could be trying to achieve.
I’ve been doing a lot with Khorne lately so I’ll give a pretty simple example using them:
1) Skulls for the Skull Throne: collect half the skulls (e.g. half the models, rounded up) of your opponent’s army by the battle’s end
2) Blood for the Blood God: generate wounds equivalent to half (rounded up) your opponent’s starting total by the battle’s end
3) Khorne Cares Not: generate Blood Tithe equivalent time half (rounded up) the total combined starting units of your opponent and your own army
4) Hatred of the Arcane: unbind 8 spells and kill at least one of your opponent’s wizards before the battle’s end
5) Leave None Before You Alive: destroy all of your opponent’s units that are on the table at the beginning of Round 1 (e.g. excludes units in ambush/reserve and any units summoned during game)
6) None Left Standing: your army has displeased Khorne and must sacrifice itself. All units originally on table at beginning of Round 1must be destroyed by end of the battle. I like this one for going up against OP lists and it is something that could be modified for each faction.
Again, adapt objectives to each Faction’s specifics. Sylvaneth for example could have an objective where they need at least half their army to survive to protect the seed pods. Tzeentch could have spell based objectives. And so forth. The key is that they have to be big enough objectives that achieving them stands as a true alternative to the battleplan objective.
The way I’d have it work in a tournament setting is as follows:
- each match would be worth 10 potential points
- winning a major victory in the battleplan is worth 4 pts, minor victory 2, and minor loss 1
- achieving your own Faction Objective is worth 3 pts
- preventing your opponent from achieving their Faction Objective is worth 3 pts
The last one is worth going into a little more detail on my thinking. Like Hidden Agendas you would not tell your opponent what your objective was before or during the game. This reflects the reality that in war the specific objective of the other army isn’t always clear. But certainly you would be trying to figure out what it is during the game. In the above if you were playing Khorne you could be asking yourself if your opponent is just trying to generate some Blood Tithe by charging that unit into a bad situation or are they trying to sacrifice everyone?
To me this creates a win the battle, lose the war dynamic to even basic match play battleplans like Knife to the Heart (which seems to be everyone’s favorite intro to match play plan). Let’s say this is a Khorne v Sylvaneth match-up and the Khorne player is going for Skulls for the Skull Throne while the Sylvaneth player has chosen that preservation objective. Due to some very timely teleports and what the Sylvaneth player thought was a good job of dragging the majority of the Khorne player’s units off their objective and into the middle of the battlefield they win the battleplan and score 4 pts. But they lost more than half their models in holding that middle ground which means that they failed their faction objective AND the Khorne player achieved theirs. So Khorne scores 6 pts, making the Sylvaneth victory a Pyrrhic one.
-
1
-
-
The first option I considered was for 1v1 matches, as opposed to a tournament setting where multiple games will be played against multiple players over a day or to. Still, upfront it’s biggest drawback is the time requirement.
The first and simpler variant I’ve always been interested in trying is where any battleplan (symmetrical or not) is played through once with each player controlling the army they brought to the table. At the end of the first game the players then switch armies and play through the same battleplan. The appeal of this to me is that it can neutralize some asymmetries in lists (e.g, as was frequently created by older vs newer tomes when I first started playing) and get to who is the better tactician. In other words if I can not only beat you with my own army, but then turn around and under the same conditions beat my original army with yours chances are I am not just a better list builder than you but a better player. Playing an unfamiliar army of course raises the difficulty but both players should be facing the same basic difficulty. (The added appeal for me if this scenario is the ability to experience playing armies I may not otherwise have a chance to.
But as noted above this plan works equally well with the symmetrical battleplans in the General’s Handbook as it would in non-symmetrical battle plans. Given my focus on the latter an alternative variant would still involve two run throughs of the battleplan but instead of swapping armies (which I admit may create more issues than I’m addressing here for a variety of reasons) the players swap objectives. In other words if this battleplan calls for one defender and one attacker the players take a turn in each role.
Ultimately though this “balance” is external to the individual matches. (It’s probably an excellent way to identify unbalanced battleplans in fact through simply seeing if one objective almost always wins regardless of who is playing each side.) And my interest is far more in identify methods that would provide internal balance to non-symmetrical battleplans....
-
1
-
-
I know for many the idea of non-symmetrical match play is a bit oxymoronic.
But as my handle suggests I primarily come to Age of Sigmar from a perspective of having fun vs being competitive. The reality is though if you want to play frequently and/or play outside of your own small gaming group in order to experience the breadth and depth the game has to offer you’re going to play a lot if match play. And that typically means playing the mainly symmetrical battleplans in the General’s Handbook.
Why? Because symmetrical objectives has become pretty synonymous with “fair” for match play. And while I “get it” I also usually quickly get bored with it. In part because it is very repetitive and thus allows the gameplay to fall into some pretty basic patterns. But mainly because as a student of history I know that rarely, if ever, do two armies fighting each other have the exact same objectives. One army is defending a position, for example, while another tries and take the position. Or one army is attempting an orderly retreat while the other is trying to envelope and crush it. Maybe one army is trying to cross a territory and the other is simply trying to harass it and slow it down.
Now this is fantasy but that doesn’t mean we have to settle for the abstraction of symmetrical objectives. And in many of the battletomes we have some great examples of non-symmetrical battleplans that better reflect what I discussed above. But with many of them it is reasonable to suggest that they aren’t very well balanced.
By that I mean that the probability of achieving your objective and or denying your opponent theirs is not relatively equitable. This is fine for fun or narrative play of course but trying to get a more match play oriented player to agree to these conditions can be tough.
Are there good ways to balance non-symmetrical objectives for match play? I have a few ideas but I am really interested in learning what others have to say about the issue.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, rfkannen said:
If gristlegore is a bit much, any tips on a buying order for a diffrent 1k flesh-eater army?
Blisterkin probably your next best bet, and particularly good if you’re focusing on 1K initially.
Makes Flayers battleline so you’ll want to focus there fir initial build out post SC box. Abhorrant Archregent and Varghulf Courtier just as appealing in Blisterkin as Gristelgore.
-
Side note. Not sure whether you love painting small details (if so feel free to ignore) but when it came to the Crypt Ghouls I found contrast paints to be a lifesaver. If you start with a lighter tone for the body a lot of the details can be easily done using a darker tone. FEC was the first Army I completely painted on my own, and I doubled down on difficulty by having a tournament deadline I had to meet. Wouldn’t have made it without that little trick as it made the first base coat so much less stressful.
-
4 hours ago, rfkannen said:
Oh yeah I don't want to play something that would be annoying.
Would the army whiskeytango be unfun to play against? I don't really understand the rules of the game (I haven't bought any of the books yet, plan to do that next month), I mostly just want some fun models to paint lol.
Btw, is it a bad idea to build one of each type of thing a model can be? Like I would rather build 1 crypt horror, 1 cyrpt flayer, and 1 courtier, so I could have a variety of models. but it sounds like that isn't a good strategy and it is better to build them all as one thing?
also is there lore about how to paint them? Like is it tied to the courts? If it is, what do the gristlegore look like?
As far as building one of each type in most cases you will need/want to have the base unit size. For both Crypt Horrors and Crypt Flayers that will be 3 models each. That said if you’re just talking about your first Start Collecting Box it may be possible to build the two Courtiers (been awhile since I built mine so can’t remember if their parts overlap, sorry, but should be evident from instructions) and that’s more fun for you go ahead and have fun.
If the Courtier parts do overlap than I would recommend starting with the Crypt Infernal Courtier and two Crypt Flayers. Then look on eBay where a cheap 3rd Crypt Flayers can often be picked up to fill out the unit. In general I’ve found Flayers more useful than Horrors, though opinions may vary. That said I feel confident in saying Flayers are more fun to paint which seems to be something you’re into.
And yes, the tome does give different color patterns for different Grand Courts but no need to feel beholden to them. My FEC army is themed after Robinhood so forest greens and autumnal reds dominate my color palette despite running a Gristelgore list, which the tome suggests should be a bluish-grey I just wasn’t into.
Oh yeah, wholly agree that next piece after SC box is Abhorrant Archregent. Resin annoying but also think worth considering a Varghulf Courtier as they are both another fun model to paint and a good potential Courtier to summon.
Finally, at least one of your Royal Zombie Dragons or Royal Terrorgheists should probably be able to have an Abhorrant Ghoul King Mounted on them.
-
57 minutes ago, whiskeytango said:
Flesh Eater Courts are similar, all of their wizards are bringing a lot to the table besides just casting, even if you give a Courtier Dark Wizardry, even though i kind of feel like their lore is more mediocre, their warscroll spells are great.
Agree that @Frowny breaks it down well.
And yeah, the Abhorrant Archregent gets right to the point about bang for your buck casters. At 240 pts and two spells you’re paying 120 pts per. But that of course ignores the summoning (worth up to 200 pts on its own) and a great spell (d3 extra attacks for a Terrirgheist can be huge). And oh yeah, he’s got a decent save (4+), potential to negate wounds on a 6+, and heals himself. So he’ll probably stick around. Not to mention I’ve done very well with him when he’s gotten stuck in combat.
Would have to look deeper into it but that sounds like as good or better a deal than the Gaunt Summoner...Regular Ghoul King no slouch either.
As far as the actual non-war scroll spell lore agree not great but never had a problem finding enough options to fill all my Heroes’ options.
-
1 minute ago, whiskeytango said:
then you've got like a Fungoid Cave Shaman, who for 50 points less is casting (once per game casting twice), generating CP, and has a save after the save so is surprisingly resilient for his cost and wounds characteristic, along with having a pretty awesome spell lore to boot.
Before it got squatted have to say the Fungoid Cave Shaman was frequently a “Star” in my Braggoth’s Beasthammer list. Won a friendly small tournament with that list and couldn’t believe how much I was getting out of those 90 pts (especially given how few low cost options there were in old BCR). When I had the points to spare it was worth getting him up on a Balewind Vortex which made him even more resilient and effective.
-
On 2/13/2020 at 1:05 PM, Frowny said:
Price Point. Not really of the lore, but of the army in general. Cheap casters make or break spell lores. For example, the Ogor Mawtribes spell lore for itself is quite good, but in most of the allegiences, you are paying 140 points for a single caster, and so wizards are mostly ignored. People just play a beatstick or more troops instead. Then in the suballegience where you get 2 casts and spells per wizard, suddenly you see 300 points of wizards/spells in almost every list. 60 points per cast feels about right for a support wizard. Stormcast fail here hard, as their cheapest wizard is 140 points for a single caster, without much extra value. Skaven do incredibly well, with several 120-140 pt double cast wizards. Gaunt summoners are incredible at functionally 20 points per cast after they've summoned their horrors. If Bloodwrack medusa were 3 cast wizards, you'd see a lot of use out of the Daughters of Khaine spell lore, even though the spells are mostly meh just because it is so cheap to cast.
This is a great point. We’ve seen this exact issue with Mawtribes where your cheapest casting option is an ally (and thus doesn’t have access to lore). Love the Voracious Maw spell though from a lore perspective (fits the Gutbuster’s perfectly) and from how much opponents have come to hate having it really go off on them. We’re often playing two tables simultaneously but after someone has had a unit chewed through (on admittedly some lucky rolls) they’ll often stop their game when someone on the other table gets the spell off to see how much damage it does. The sense of relief opponents have when it is satiated after first gulp is palpable. That said if I understand correctly Arkhan has an even better version of it? (One of the Death characters at least...)
I guess though the other factor is are you getting anything else with the caster? I’ve been amazed at the variation, even at similar price points between Heroes that are only good for casting and ones that offer you so much more bang for your buck. Some to the point where the cast can almost feel like a bonus.
AoS 2 - Ogor Mawtribe Discussion
in Destruction
Posted
Vs a more traditional SC box Feast of Bones a bit of a tough spot to start out with. Simply put, you’re going to need some Ironguts and yes, converting one of the Tyrants to a Butcher a good choice. But focusing on what you have you might as well start with the Tyrant’s Gutguard Battalion.
Tyrant (160)
4x Ironguts (220)
Ironblaster (120)
Ironblaster (120)
Battalion (120)
Definitely not my favorite battalion but only requires you to buy 1 unit you don’t already have and gets you to 740 pts.
Next you could try Butcher’s Band Battalion:
Butcher (converted) (140)
4x Ironguts (220)
4x Leadbelchers (160)
12x Gluttons (400)
Battalion (140 pts)
So for the price of another box of Ironguts you’ve added 1060 more pts taking your army to 1800 if my mental math is accurate. Another butcher and an Endless spell and you can call it a day with all your battle line requirements taken care of. If I’m reading Website right you’ll be out ~$120 more.
Not per se a top of the line list but takes advantage of everything you already have and is only three drops so depending on your local meta you could be fine to get started (and Gutbusters absolutely great to learn with). After a few games you’ll have a much better idea of what you want and with only a limited amount invested (and eBay to resell on) you have minimal opportunity cost to going a new direction.
The other low cost alternative (and ignoring drops and Battalions for a moment is to buy the BCR SC box to add to what you have. Build as a Frostlord on Stonehorn. That will add 680 pts to your existing 1360. (Again all mental math at moment so apologies if off anywhere.). So drop 2x leadbelchers or 3x gluttons and tweak from there. This will give you some flavor of both sides, again at minimal cost. Play a few games and tweak as needed.
But Ironguts probably your safest next purchase either way.