Ganigumo
-
Posts
1,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ganigumo
-
-
48 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
Can't help but feel those zombie horses for FEC always hinted at something bigger behind what they currently have. Like some kind of test subject for a potential new artistic direction to take the faction in.
FEC cavalry doesn't seem like a far stretch to me. (Ofc, we will never know until we get a reveal or a Whitefang react here).
even throwing ghouls on the back of the knights could work, since it would at least be visibly cavalry then.
-
4
-
-
The stabbas cover more space than 10 hobgrots too, and are cheaper than the 20 hobgrots you'd need to cover the same space.
Sometimes the stabbas fit into battalions better too so you aren't wasting as many points. -
3 minutes ago, Gothmaug said:
Oh glorious days! Ironjawz have not been forgotten about. My fanatical adherence to that army has not been for Naught.
So the next question is.... Individual kits, or all the new stuff locked up in one big box?
Unless its one of those new tome release boxes I think there'll be too much.
Ardboyz, ardboy boss, and big pig at least. with the rumors of two other kits.
although maybe a box with everything except big pig is possible? -
10 minutes ago, Copywolf said:
As long as the new 'ardboyz have some kind of shield+choppa combo and come in units of 10, I'm fine with them looking like mini brutes because the armor is very Ironjawz but the loadout and size would be enough to tell them apart.
I'm happy as long as I don't need to care about 2/5 shields anymore.
Played an event over the weekend with 30 ardboyz, and making sure each unit had the right number of shields, needing to pick out the dudes with shields to allocate wounds to, making sure to keep the shield dudes in the back, and actually rolling the 6+ ward saves 1-2 at a time to make sure I didn't roll any extras was a massive PITA.11 minutes ago, Asbestress said:I think 'Ardboyz having more "sophisticated"/rounded armour fits them better with the whole, strategy and battleline order thing they have going on. They probably hammer with, you know, hammers.
brutes canonically do it bare handed (p29 of the warclans tome).
Just now, Kitsumy said:ooor 4th could be seraphons versus skavens. with seraphon side full of kroxigors and new kroxigors heros!!!!! big minis and easy to paint in tabletop levels( really hard to pro paint then tho).
Its always all new models in those boxes and kroxigor got a refresh. if it was seraphon it would pretty much have to be skinks.
-
48 minutes ago, Ekrund Oath Splitters said:
How would you make the armour different? Going back to the black orc style? Same with the weapon. Which again doesn't fit in with the parent faction.
I think that's the issue, non ironjaw players don't seem the grasp the theme of ironjawz and thats not me trying to be rude or anything. They are very distinct in how they forge their armour and weapons, it a big part of their backstory the same way with why they don't have musicians and banners.
Ardboys currently are just drawn to the IJ waaagh, and are really regimented which IJs hate. This looks to be a total redesign of ardboys and gives us an idea of what it's like to be a basic orruk instead of your either a massive brute or a skinny lanky Gutrippa. Now it looks like ironjawz at their lowest start as ardboyz and grow and fight their way to brute status. To me thats perfect.
This dude and the new ardboyz will probably still be 32mm bases, so visibly smaller. Shouldn't be tough tough to tell.
In terms of the armor, and the look I am a fan of this guy. But Ironjawz forge their weapons and armor by smashing metal into the right shapes and sizes. Its incredibly crude. Something that would have been good for new ardboyz would've been mostly scavenged armor instead. So instead of having the same armor as the brutes, they'd have scavenged armor that tries to mimic the style. With the narrative reason being the ardboyz aren't strong enough to smash the thick metal into shape nearly as well as brutes.-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Tervindar said:
I personally would enjoy Strength and Toughness being added. You could make a real distinction between monsters, infantry, heroes with those.
59 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:I would love to see toughness and strength added to the game since it would add a bit more strategy. Would have to make more diverse list with anti infantry, anti elite, or anti monster options. Feels like the current system a little on the boring side.
Of course that feels like a major change to the whole system and maybe too much?
Just strength and toughness don't actually do this, you also need to block damage spillover.
Its just always better to have more strength, and a list built to take all comers just needs to take what is most efficient against everything. Unless that s3 hammer is balanced around wounding on 5's you're better off just taking the higher strength option.
In contrast Lack of damage spillover does the job of making those elite heavy attacks super inefficient against infantry, lowering damage by as much as 80% in some cases, which forces you to take those low strength options.
Without strength and toughness but with damage spillover 1 damage attacks are just the best, since they're never effected by damage spillover.
So if you make those damage 1 attacks low strength they become bad against elite stuff.
So you need both things to make it work. I'm not sure it would be a good fit for AoS though, as it seems like it would be less rock-paper-scissors and more "fighting fire with fire". Monsters would be bad against infantry, because multi damage attacks would be terrible against them, infantry would be terrible against monsters because of low strength. So you'd need to bring monsters just to fight other monsters, and infantry to fight infantry.-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:
I play both AoS and 40k and out of the two right now 40k is the easier/polished game to play. Personally, I find AoS has a lot of bloat in the wrong areas that just slow down the game and is a pain to run.
Characters joining units are a pretty good change since they allow armies to finally spread out more and allow units to do their own thing. Don't have to castle anymore with aura abilities. New Cities has this issue with every human army having to stay in a bubble around the warforger and pontefiex.............
The 3 inches away from a unit may be the middle ground Aos finds, but between a lot of the new rules and how a lot of how Cities work they do seem to be pushing in that direction.
To each their own.
From my perspective nearly the entire sections on aircraft, USRs, and strategic reserves are bloat. Like I get why they exist, but I'm not sure they add enough to bother with being in the rules.
The charging rules are pretty needlessly bloated too, needing to declare a charge target doesn't add much, but I'm fine with it. The multiple targets part is nearly pointless though, through clever positioning, and since engagement range is 1" but pile in is 3", you can just sit models 1" away from the second target and pile into them.
There are also generic stratagems that probably just shouldn't exist like grenades, and ones that seem made for specific armies like smoke.
Then I have more issues with the general layout, consistency, and writing of the rules in 40k than in aos. Stuff like important rules being in sidebars, instead of using them just for more detailed explanations or examples, shooting weapons being all the ones you're equipped with, but melee weapons not being that, pistols having a lot of complexity for one of the weakest weapon options, and the USRs interrupting the flow of the core rules, planting themselves at the end of the shooting phase, instead of just going to the next phase, which means you'll need to flip backwards anyways when you get to the combat phase.
Thats not to say aos doesn't have bloat, as I think most of the stuff added going from 2nd to 3rd constitutes bloat, but personally I find the 40k rules to be written at a lower quality (not necessarily the quality of the game, just the rules writing). I'm probably biased though, but I do find the 10th rules to be leagues better than the 9th rules.
Heroes being in units and giving buffs is nice, since it makes units more independent, but we can have that to an extent in AoS. It mostly comes down to book and army design. Cities of sigmar humans are very much a castle build, so it makes sense that they have a lot of aura buffs, but then theres stuff like ironjawz, or ogors, or even gitz that just work without buffs, or with buffs that apply and stick with them after they move. Heroes joining units helps alot with the issue of keeping the hero close to the unit though, as they'll get the benefit of many of the movement buffs and can charge with the unit, for the armies that care about those kinds of power pairs. -
8 hours ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:
To be honest some rules could be taken away if they change warscrolls. Let's for example take monsterous actions that probably was added because frankly monsters was often useless compared to the same amount of points in regular troops.
The problem with it is that it interferes just as you are about to fight which is probably the most entertaining part of the game and since different actions demands different role on the dice you can't just role a dice and see if you succeed with an action before deciding what action you take.
Instead you need to carefully think and then roll and then in 33-50 % of cases nothing happens. 5 minutes wasted and the pace of the game slowed.
My suggestion would be to instead increase the power of monsters (and not hero monsters that don't need to be boosted as much) with for example better attacks or specific abilities. The downside of abilities is of course to remember them so there need to be some kind of balance between number of abilities and the power off monsters.
Monstrous actions, and to a lesser extent heroic actions, seemed to be a bandaid to fix all those terrible monsters and foot heroes, but buffed hero monsters the most, when all they needed to do was write good monster scrolls and/or point them correctly.
Just now, Nezzhil said:You can see the new Ardboyz on the Maw-Grunta
Are they 'ardboyz? They look exactly like brutes to me, and they look like they're the same size as the guy on top who's presumably also a brute.
I figure new ardboyz would look more like ironskullz boyz.
3 hours ago, Nezzhil said:I think we can say that the Weirdbrutes are an elite unit of 3 spellcaster models on bigger bases, or is it still too hasty?
Weirdbrutes sound like a bonesplitter unit to me honestly.
-
1
-
-
Just now, novakai said:
I mean if they where to implement some of the changes that people like from 40K 10th edition like heroes being part of units or something AoS player been wanting like reducing MW in the game as a whole, I can see them resetting every army into index form so warscrolls and allegiance abilities are all fresh at the beginning with these new mechanics and restraints in mind but of course this is just my hypothesis.
The problem with index rules is that even less time is spent developing and balancing it.
The last batch of tomes we had felt really rushed in the balance department, as did the warclan tome in the development department.
Indexes mean they have to write 25 armies worth of rules in the time it usually takes them to write a few battletomes, and its unlikely they'd double or triple the size of the team just to get them right.
40k is the flagship and the indexes were full of errors and poorly balanced, although possibly more balanced than the mess that came before it. There's basically no chance aos would be more balanced after an index treatment.
You basically give the bonesplitterz treatment to every army in the game, where you strip most of the rules because you need something you can roughly balance without testing much. Yes it will shuffle the balance of the armies around, and different armies might end up on top, but I doubt it will change that much. The top down design the AoS studio uses tends to lead to certain armies being created "greater" than others, as those concepts lead to more powerful allegiance abilities, and its often harder to point something abstract like an allegiance ability, than it is to point a statline. Its a big reason why certain armies fall through the floor too, often their allegiance abilities are often nearly worthless.
Now that we can't shoot heroes when they're near units, and so many heroes trigger units to fight anyways it wouldn't be a big stretch to just have them join units either.-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, dmorley21 said:
This is probably for the best too, honestly, While I love 3rd and find it vastly superior to 2nd; I know a few players who don't like it and have stopped playing AoS.
Do you know what they don't like about 3rd?
Anecdotally most of the complaints I've heard have been around things that don't need a complete rules rewrite. Mostly around secondary objectives, coherency, balance (forever a pain point but tighter than it used to be), and general complexity.
Most of those things feel like they were just tacked on to the game though, and we could lose or replace them without too much hassle.
Personally I'd be fine dropping heroic actions, monstrous rampages, grand strategies and battle tactics for a start.
I will say I've hated the release schedule for this entire edition though. Slow to start, releasing multiple tomes every couple months, with a mad dash at the end, and at the moment it feels like things have slowed down a bit again. Its always been overwhelming or underwhelming.
I think the 1 book per month cadence they kept up for a lot of aos2 felt like the right pace.-
5
-
-
6 minutes ago, Colonic said:
They say in the article there were not enough Bonesplitter players to make analysis worthwhile.
They're bad and don't have interesting lists because most of the warscrolls are trash, nothing but the wurgogg has an interesting ability, and they're pointed terribly. Most of those were complaints when the battletome came out, but some good players figured out that a big stabba spam list was pretty cheeky when you can ignore ward saves and nurgle was dominant, but it got promptly nerfed into the ground and got nothing in return.
Bonesplitterz aren't a popular army at the best of times, but combine that with abysmal rules, and no signs that things will get better and it isn't surprising no one is playing them.
They somehow also ate nerfs in the winter update, and everything except pig spam is awful without gally vets.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, novakai said:
It quite possible (given GW history) that 4.0 is a total reset of the game and battletomess and they are just letting the meta slide until then
I really hope this isn't the case.
Things aren't nearly bad enough balancewise to justify it, and honestly things are more balanced now than they have been for most of aos.
At the start of 3rd we had like 4 armies with 60% and a handful of armies that had fallen way below like gitz and BoC.
Plus the actual core rules are good, and players tend to agree, with the only sore points being coherency, core battalions, and secondary objectives. All of which are pretty fixable with minor changes.
The last handful of battletomes were overcooked a bit, but they're getting reined in based on stats, and at this point Gitz might even be underperforming again.
They just need to make a bigger effort to make balance changes, instead of just looking at the stats 2 weeks before the battlescroll and taking random shots at armies. Like I know they addressed one of the zombie warscroll issues, but who in their right mind thinks those things are remotely appropriately pointed, even with the change.
They also tend to just throw crumbs to low performing armies in the 45-48% range, when they should be a little aggressive, especially since even if they go higher than intended they probably won't break the 55% mark. -
13 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
I find this way to "help" underperforming armies really sad. You've a bad/outdated battletome, here, have some free points
The first battlescroll of the edition did that too. Remember "the hunt"?
-
1 hour ago, Rachmani said:
Kruleboys finally crept up to 45% =D
Clearly they're finally fixed and don't need any more help, and there is no way this could be skewed by a few recent results. 😃
Also I don't really know where they pull their stats from. I expected KB higher because they did have a few good recent results and not many overall results.
Ironjawz seem higher than they actually are, and BW seem way lower than I expected based on other stats. Gitz are also considerably higher than other stats show, and poor bonesplitterz don't show up at all. Feels like someone at GW was personally traumatized by BS being playable at the start of the edition and has it out for them. -
They probably drank all the blood and are out getting more.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:
Do we already know what this is from? It really reminds me of a gitz cloak. New Nasty Skulkers?
looks like a bray shaman robe too, or gargant patchwork.
I'd love if its gitmob though.-
1
-
-
Its basically a new isabella von carstein model.
Female vampire with a sword and a chalice of blood. -
4 hours ago, Gitzdee said:
Ok what if the last 7 RE's are all FEC?
Have my doubts with these 2 but it could be possible i guess.
These look like FEC for sure.
Edit: Cant seem to figure out which could be new Orruk models.
The second pic looks like blood bowl to me, although it could maybe be an armored troll? 4 & 6 could be on almost anything, as its just pictures of a base. they could even be the same model. wouldn't be out of place on a kruleboyz model, or just as terrain.
3 & 7 could be FEC or bonesplitterz I think.
5 looks like it might be FEC to me, mostly because of the candles, although it looks a bit like a bird foot so it could maybe be tzeentch?
the first image looks like a kruleboy arm to me, but its got a spike through it so I've got no idea. -
23 minutes ago, Doko said:
again you havent read well the book,excuse me for saying you that but is the true.
runelord as every dwarf on this book got nerfed,lost the +2 to dispell,lost the ward prayer,the rend was nerfed from +2 to 4+ and worse now its only for melle and not work with shootings
I guess it is only melee I missed that part, they still hit and wound on 3s and I did the math for them with no buffs so it doesn't really change anything. They bench pretty similarly to boltboyz, and have nearly the same offensive profile as blissbarbs and reavers for around the same points. They still have a role in dwarf builds, but don't have the same kind of buff stacking the fusiliers have access to. The problem with the dwarf stuff in the book (and elf stuff to a lesser extent) isn't so much the points as the lack of support. I'm not saying some of the stuff didn't get worse, just that the points don't feel off for most of the units. You can't fix bad allegiance abilities or incentives through points, and we have examples of this in stuff like kruleboyz and old BoC, spiderfang come to mind as well.
These changes really do solidify irondrakes as the dwarf shooting unit, since it matches their playstyle. The old buff and teleport strat was just something you threw irondrakes into any cities list to do. The armies around units have a big effect on their usefulness, and you really feel it sometimes. Marshcrawla sloggoth is a perfect example, absolutely useless in warclans, but tons of armies would kill for a big aura of +1 to hit, and dropping the points down to 90 or whatever to try to get kruleboyz to take it is bad for the game.
You can't just point irondrakes at 120 because the dwarves can't buff as well as the humans, because then you just end up spamming them because of the raw warscroll efficiency, and they start warping the entire army around them. There have been a few times in the games' history when this has happened and it is always a disaster. -
19 minutes ago, Doko said:
in specif these units.
yes ironbreaker can have 3/4 but you need pay the heroe tax and isnt something on the scroll,that ward 4 is costed paying for the hero and not paying for the unit.
also it is only for melle and only in enemy turn and also attack last,is imposible compare to a phoenyx guard that dont need hero,work against shooting or magic and also every combat phase, really is imposible compare it,dwarf ward is a 3/10 against all time wards.
now speaking about irondrakes and because they have been deleted and are overcosted by 40 points. they changed his skill and now you cant use special setups as bridges or deep strike to count as dont move.
oh also lost +1 save vs shooting,also lost the +1 wound from longbeards and the +1 rend of runelords.
so yes a unit that in old book could enter with living city and do full damage now only makes 4'4 rend1 damage for 160 when blisbarbs archers for same cost make 8'8 rend 1
oh and before with the bridge+longbeards+runelord they could have 20 attack 2hit2wound2rend damage1 and teleport and do full damage.
now read better his scroll and tell me again that irondrakes onky lost 1" range lol
irondrakes have been deleted and they are the worst unit in entire book and need a new scroll with two shoots baseline and delete the stupid rule that cant move
130 points for 10 1 wound models on a 3+ is fine, and the potential for the 4+ ward is really good at those points. 100 points for 10 dudes on a 4+ is pretty standard for dudes who get in the way and stand on objectives, and you pay a little extra for the higher save and potential ward. Sure you need a hero to stand near them, but thats how the army works, and you don't need to give orders to your ranged dwarves since they are both melee focused. Its only during the enemies turn, but during your turn you control combat priority, and the army has a bunch of fights first/last, and you can just retreat if you need to, so you don't really need it on your turn.
Irondrakes are still on 3+/3+/-1/1. The runelord still has a +1 rend prayer, it just chants on a 4 now instead of a 2 for some reason, and there are tons of ways for dwarves to get +1 to hit.
The loss of the teleport shenanigans sucks, but they seem to be making an effort to kill that game-wide with the changes to bridge and lauchon, so while they're worse if you play them the way you used to, the book pushes dwarves into a playstyle where you support durable dwarf units with irondrakes and blast anything that comes near you, and if they don't you advance slowly, and I think the warscroll works for that.
They're pretty comparable to 6 boltboyz actually. 6 boltboyz using hasty shot do roughly the same damage as 10 irondrakes with 2 attacks, the boltboyz do a little more but cost 80 more points. 1 shot irondrakes do about half the damage of those 6 boltboyz using aimed shot. 20 Irondrakes cost the same as 9 boltboyz and do more damage with the 2 attacks, and only slightly less with the 1 attack.
8 minutes ago, Doko said:the median are blisbarb archers and idoneths reavers that make 8'8 rend 1 damage for 160/170
the fussilers make only 5 rend 1 damage,so if we compare to thosw units the cost of fussilers must be 30% less than those.
i havent read thunderers but if you really want know and isnt only irony i can do the math for his real cost
Fusiliers are on 4+/4+ vs reavers and blissbarbs on 3+/3+.
But with the command trait your all out attack also gives +1 to wound, so if you're building into fusiliers they'll be on 3+/3+, which is slightly worse than blissbarbs and reavers who can get AoA to be on 2+/3+. That said fusiliers have a much better threat range, 24", with an order to get +3 move and still be fortified, giving a threat range of 32", which is further than blissbarbs running 6", and there are 2 ways to increase the shooting range on top of that, and they can shoot back in the enemy shooting phase if something gets shot, or apply strikes last (maybe). Also if you really want the damage you can take the dirt cheap alchemite warforger who you'll be bringing in multiples anyway to hand out orders and +1 save auras and try to cast his spell for mortals on 6's, which pumps a unit of 10 fusiliers up to 10 damage, or 30 up to like 30 damage.
So they do slightly less damage, with better range for less points than blissbarbs, plus they actually have a frontline to protect them.
Thats not to say blissbarbs aren't too powerful either, which they are, in large part due to the allegiance abilities letting them spam CA, the bonus mortals from temptations, and the blissbarb seekers shredding armor for them.
So fusiliers are like Reavers+ in an army that better supports a gunline strategy. -
9 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:
😲 You mean a new expensive model coming out may have overly powerful abilities and is undercosted!!!??
🤔 Hmmm. This may help sales. Someone should contact Geedubs and let them know as obviously that's not what was intended.
Yeah I'm still having nightmares about how broken those kruleboyz were when they came out.
1 minute ago, Doko said:we also can speak about over costed units that are more than the undercosted by the way.
irondrakes 40 over
gyrocopter 50 over
gyrobomber 30 over
ironbreaker 30 over
runelord 20 over
dwarfking 30 over
dreadspears/bleaksword 20 over
darkshards 30 over
black dragon/gryfon melle 80 over
new kimera 100 over
steelhelms 20 over
new artyllery 30 over
humans gobapaloza 50 over
marshal on foot 20 over
fusilier on ogre 70 over
fusiliers 30 over
while the undercosted units are:
ejecutioners 30 under
hammerers 30 under
metal mage 30 under
sorcerer 30 under
pirates acourges 20 under
so the list of undercosted units is way smaller than the overcosted
I hugely disagree with this assessment. Units aren't just pointed for the warscroll, but also for their potential.
Ironbreakers are 130 for 10 wounds with a 3+/4++, sure they only get the 4+ ward half the combat phases, but they're also 40 points cheaper than phoenix guard with a better armor save.
Irondrakes are 10 points cheaper than they used to be, and only lost 1" range, and they saw plenty of play
The dreadlord on dragon can be built to slap, but also has a 14" flying move and access to an ability that makes units attacking it take a mortal wound for every missed attack. There are units that will just immediately die when they attack that thing, and its fast enough to get into those fights.
The human stuff is probably almost entirely undercosted too.
The foot marshal is 90 points for a free command on each of your turns, which seems pretty fair, and you need heroes for the armies' orders. The kruleboyz killaboss is 90 points and he only helps with battleshock on paper thin units. Savage Big boss is 80 points, and does literally nothing but carry a command trait he doesn't need to survive to use. Megaboss on foot is probably a closer comparison, having similar CP efficiency, but is 140 points and slaps harder.
The Command squad is overcosted, but you're bringing it for the battle tactic I think, so its a tax on the BT. Its bad design but it is what it is.
Steelhelms are appropriately costed for 10 1 wound models on a 4+, but have access to a 5+ ward and a ton of save stacking potential.
Fusiliers are fantastic, and you can triple all out attack them, and get +1 to wound, with a mid game reroll ability.
some of the points you're suggesting would be gamebreaking.
Although I do agree that some of the older elf/dwarf stuff doesn't do much, and the warhulk seems pretty bad.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doko said:
i dont wanna sound hard,but math dont lie never.
this model cost 150 and only makes 1 mortal to each mage/priest of median.
so gonna need full 5 turns(entire one game) to kill them.
yes i know many persons gonna cry when this hero kill his heroes in two turns doing 3 mortals each turn,but then in maths that gonna means that the same number of people gonna get 0 damage of this skill for two turns and do nothing.
dont get me wrong,this hero is good,but she is very far of being overpower or undercosted because his skills are too much random and she is named.
even inside of cities,a hurricanum can kill heroes more reliably and fast than this hero.
of course againsth lumimeths or tzenth this hero can be better,but against the normal 1/2 mages of every army this hero isnt good
The average damage of the pontifex (d3 mortals on a 3+) is 1.33.
That's ignoring the fact that it hits multiple targets, and can easily spike damage, or that you can bring other long range effects that don't target, so you can finish things off if you do spike.
Also this is in addition to an 18" 5+ ward aura, which is the primary reason you bring it, and the pontifex would still be undercosted if that is the only thing the prayer could do. A prayer on a 3+ is more reliable than a spell on a 7.36 minutes ago, Doko said:sentinels were hates because they kill our heroes each turn,but this model need 5 turns to kill the hero.
zelestra 150 for 1 mortal and cant be spamed because it is unique
sentinels 160 for 3 mortals that can be spamed so we can bring 20 or 30 sentinels to do 6/9 mortals and kill one or two heroes each turn
i think numbers speak by itself.
if zelestra were a prayer with 1+ to cast i could agree with the people,but a 3+ and then other 2+ makes her horrible,time gonna tell who was rigth but i think she wont be used and if she is used is only for the ward
Mystical terrain can bump her up to chanting on a 2+. Sentinels are a different kind of unit. This ability is more akin to comets call from seraphon. The core rules were basically changed so sentinels can't shoot heroes anymore, and sentinels are kind of good against everything.
3 minutes ago, Mutton said:The Pontifex is exactly like Skragrott when their latest book released. She's going to be taken in every single list until she gets bumped up to around 240--and even then, she'll probably be in most lists because her utility is bonkers. Her unlimited wizard nuke is stupid, bad NPE by the way.
And if we're going to talk about under costed Cities units...that Alchemist Warforger is at least 50 points too cheap for having a free mystic shield every turn and one of the best prayers in the game.Warforger is ridiculous. Just compare him to the Swampcalla shaman. Warforger is cheaper, has AOE STACKING mystic shield, and a spell for mortals on 6s in addition that works on ranged weapons, meanwhile swampcalla hands out mystic shield, but the unit can't be in combat, and neither can the swampcalla, it doesn't stack, even with the offensive buff option, and the warscroll spell is much worse.
I think pontifex might be better than skragrott if you don't take points into consideration at all. Skragrott just has the unique effect of being a bad moon aura, so if you want to reliably have allegiance abilities you basically need to bring him.3 minutes ago, novakai said:I be more iff about the 5+ ward to be honest
comparing to the lady of vines 5+ ward it has
better range
Is a pray not a spell so your opponent doesn’t get the option to stop it
maybe slightly more reliable to get off (3+ on one dice over 7+ on two dice of course there are ways for sylvaneth to reroll the casting roll)
only downside is you have to be in your teritory to use it.
but then again this is only one of her three ability and she much cheaper then most named character in this weight class
Pontifex can still chant in your opponents territory. You get to pick 2 of the 3 effects if she's within your opponents territory, but only 1 if she's in your territory
-
1
-
-
The pontifex is absolutely cracked, and the points only make her more so.
Mass aoe mortal wounds are great, and the fact it targets many of those little support heroes is great too. The ward will usually be the best option, but she can pick 2 of them depending on position, and some armies run a lot of small wizards, and/or have wizard units, like lumineth.
If you combine it with any other amount of splash mortal wounds, like the stormcast with the banner, you can snipe a ton of little important heroes.Just now, Doko said:i dont like this miniature style and even being a cos player i wont buy it,so i dont care if they nerf or even remove this skill.
but as it isnt fun this skill and dont have interaction?if you says this about this skill then you can say the same about the 90% of others damage skill of every book.
as dwarf player i could say the same about every overpower spell that kill my units without interaction by me,as the new spell that makes 4d6 mortals and insta kill my magmadroths without save or interaction so every mage is broken because kill my army without interaction?
The problem is that the prayer multi-target, and has no range or sight restrictions.
Merciless blizzard requires you to get within 12", so outside of a few gimmick strategies like hero phase moves or teleports, means you can position to be out of range. Even when combine with things like hero phase moves and teleports you can do a lot to avoid it on a valuable piece.
With this prayer there is no avoiding it, and most of the targets have 5 wounds.-
2
-
-
exciting, hopefully there's more than just ironjawz, I'd love for bonesplitterz and/or kruleboyz to get a little love too. Although I'd be fine if KB got some rules updates and no new models.
No clue what to expect from new IJ units though, they aren't really lacking for anything. Maybe a named foot megaboss? Then da Choppaz can get the foot boss, and bloodtoofs can have a unique big pig variant.
AoS3 - Kruleboyz Discussion
in Destruction
Posted
Hobs are perfect as they are.
I'd happily take a point drop to 60 or 70 though, or a change to be unconditional battleline.
Them going to 120 for 20 is probably worse for us overall?
Most KB lists have the same 1600 points, so upping them to 120 for 20 eats into our already slim flex spots.