Leshoyadut
-
Posts
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Leshoyadut
-
-
Yeah, even ignoring the dubiousness of the source, which is itself reason enough to believe it's false, the points changes are genuinely absurd. Neferata going up in points even after a nerf is a little silly, though possible since she's still a top pick in an overperforming army, but 40 is a lot. But more than that, Black Knights also going up 40? Blood Knights going up 50 points? Mannfred going up 60 points? Vhordrai going up 90? I haven't been paying the closest attention, I suppose, but I haven't even seen Vhordrai put up a single 4-1, let alone a 5-0. I could be missing some superpowered list with him, but he doesn't exactly scream "mega overpowered" to me.
That points leak from 4chan is patently ridiculous. The only thing I get from it is some amusement that someone is so clearly salty about being beaten by their friends that they want massive changes like this.
-
12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The big problem with Trueblades in my opinion is that Grave Guard are just more efficient. Trueblades get a 6" move, Grave Guard get deep strike. Trueblades get strike last, Grave Guard get to delete units. Trueblades get the Hunger, Grave Guard get SUMMONABLE. And on top of all that, Grave Guard are cheaper, too.
All Trueblades really have is the VAMPIRE keyword and their monster hunting gimmick. I think that makes them fun in Kastellai, but not generally worth bringing.
I think if they were cheaper, they could be used as a support piece for something else due to the strike-last. They wouldn't be the hammer, but they would allow you to attack with, say, your GG in one area and still keep your VLOZD safe for a later activation or something. But yeah, while they're cool, they definitely lack some oomph.
Also, realized I forgot to check them with Kastelai buffs. The first is +1 attacks, the second is +1 damage.
With +1 damage, they're actually hitting pretty hard. Considering that's only hero or monster, that's not too hard to get, but still unlikely to have it immediately. And also still not really worth 40 more points than GG, for the reasons you mentioned.
-
1
-
-
On 6/17/2023 at 5:24 AM, TechnoVampire said:
I don’t do number crunching, but the Trueblades (particularly in Kastelai) look like they could be a pretty choice recipient for the new GHB spell?
That's a really good suggestion! I'm actually pretty interested in Trueblades and think they're actually close to being good. They either need just a bit more damage to take advantage of their strike-last effect themselves, or a points reduction to push them to being better support for other units.
Just on the offchance, I did actually check the slavering maws and the champion's weapon, but they're, as expected, never worth buffing over the other 6 models. That said, like everything but the Blood Knights, the stat you buff is slightly situation. Against 2+ and 3+ saves, -2 rend is better than 2+ to wound. Against 4+, -3 rend is better than 2+ to wound, but that doesn't matter because you're not going to give them a 3 to wound or a 1 to rend, and a 2 is the same in either stat against a 4+, so it only matters what you roll. 2+ to wound is better for 5+ and 6+ saves.
Still not doing a whole lot of damage, and I think there are a number of better options to buff with the spell, sadly. I do quite like them and think they could have a place in the army, but feel they still fall a little short of being worth 40 more points than Grave Guard. They seem so close to being good and worth bringing, though. Strike-last is great, but just unreliable enough and they struggle a little bit to contribute outside of that for how expensive they are, imo.
-
1
-
-
Speaking of skeletons, I figure I can give them a round of calcs today. These are all with AOA when appropriate, and only looking at MSUs, but you can pretty easily multiply the numbers to get however many skellies are actually fighting.
-3 rend is better than 2+ to hit until 5+ saves if they have their baseline rend active, or until 6+ saves if they don't. Pretty solid at almost 5 wounds to a 4+ with just a unit of 10.
This is+1 attack from a VL. Vanhel's is basically the same, though negligibly higher since it also gets the extra attack from the champion twice.
As expected, the same result as baseline, just with higher numbers. Over 9 damage to a 4+ is getting preeeeeetty sweet for a VL/Necro + 10 skeletons. Bump the skelly count up a bit and you're doing some very serious damage, comparable to GG with GW for the points.
And finally, exploding 6s from a WK.
Same conclusion once again, not surprising since they don't really have any special things like the GG or zombie MWs. But also doing some solid damage still, even if it's not as much as the VL.12ish damage with 20 of them and a WK is not bad at all.
Also, some calcs with -2 rend because they didn't fit above.
A lot of in-between 2+ to hit/-1 rend and 3+ to hit/-3 rend for better saves. Seems like generally a better option than 2+ to hit if you roll a 2 until the same time -3 rend is worse than 2+ to hit: when they'd have no save without the extra rend.
Pretty consistent pattern across all of these calcs, which feels right. Honestly, almost feels silly to have done all of these because it feels so obvious in retrospect, but the general rule of thumb on buffing them with Hoarfrost is: Improve rend unless the improved number wouldn't actually change their save from what you're already doing. And also that they're a good target for Hoarfrost if you have some other buff on them as well (Vanhel's, VL, WK, whatever), and not a terrible option even if they don't.
-
2
-
-
Brain was tickled by the zombies getting the buff and decided to check. Corpse Cart included for all of them, plus AOA on the zombies without the spell. "Everything" is buffs from CC, WK, VL, and the spell, just for giggles.
Zombie hammer back on the menu? Probably not since the investment to get there is huge, but still.
While I was typing this up, I realized they could get another attack in LoN or Vyrkos.
Since their mortal wounds are on the to wound roll, the bonus to attack from the spell is actually pretty great for them. I think they could be a viable death star target if you wanted to, since they're cheap and have a whole ton of wounds behind them on top of the damage.
-
Just messing around with some quick calcs on the new spell in the upcoming GHB. Looks like with greatweapon Grave Guard, you'll want to change To Hit if you roll a 1, but rend on a 2 against 2+ and 3+ saves, with a 3 against anything with a 4+ or better save.
Regardless of what you roll, though, that's a not-insubstantial buff to their damage that also scales super well with other buffs.
Exploding 6s to hit sees damage for both -2 and -3 rend be better than 2+ to hit against <=4+ saves.
Extra attack from a VL sees rend better at 2+ and 3+ saves, but worse at 4+ or worse saves.
Both together returns the inflection point to 4+/5+ saves again.
Was originally only doing that first calc, but then my brain just took off and wanted to see the rest as well.
As for other units, Blood Knights are slightly different in wanting to look at to wound vs. rend since they already hit a 2+ to attack with AOA.
That said, it kinda doesn't matter which is better against what save because you're never giving them a 3+ to wound or -1/-2 rend. It only matters what you actually roll on the d3 after casting the spell; still nice to know the damage numbers, though.
Fun honorable mentions: Zombies going from a 5+/4+ to 2+/4+ sounds amusing, especially with a corpse cart nearby. Skeletons going to 2+/3+ with their -1 rend if they have more bodies doesn't sound bad at all. Dire Wolves on a 2+/3+ might actually do noticeable damage. Still not good, but not laughable. VLOZD getting a 2+ to hit on the snapping maw sounds nice. Maybe a Vengo Lord getting -3 rend on their sword or something?
Overall, sounds like a great spell for us. Since we have so many wizards so easily, and we have a plethora of units that take good advantage of it, I think it'll be easy to find a place for it in lists.
-
10 hours ago, MotherGoose said:
I'm in agreement they're overcosted now, the nerf due to tournament LoB spam has made them suffer unnecessarily.
Chaos knights hitting on 4s is bad, but easily getting all of your attacks in outweighs that in my opinion. They can receive way more buffs in their army and also get eye of the gods. Blood knights are extremely limited in buffs now almost everything got subfaction locked and changed to only affecting summonable stuff.
My point being you can't really compare the two warscrolls alone, as Chaos knights can very easily be much more than that, compared to blood knights warscroll which is more 'what you see is what you get'.
Which is why I was comparing with some buffs for the Chaos Knights, and even dropped attacks from the Blood Knights in some of those calcs. While maybe not perfect, I would say that the Blood Knights still compare plenty well despite those issues.
Though I do agree that buffs can make a huge difference and warscroll vs. warscroll doesn't always make the most sense across factions. Which is why I also pointed out the superior independence of Blood Knights. Plus getting things (heroes and the like) to buff Chaos Knights increases the effective cost of them, so I avoided looking at buffs that would cost points to add. Still a flawed comparison, but it was the one being made, and I tried to disadvantage the BKs in some ways (like lowering model count on) to get a bit closer.
I will also say that being able to fly over small wound models is pretty sweet for BKs and isn't something I saw as an option for CKs.
Overall, though, my main point was that Blood Knights are genuinely comparable in strength to Chaos Knights, which I think is fair to say. Chaos Knights are more buffable, but that increases the overall cost for their strength, whereas the Blood Knights are more powerful baseline and thus more independent on the field.
There are also of course other factors to each army that mean they need to do different things for both. The relative strength and point values of other units increases or reduces the opportunity cost of a unit like BKs or CKs. It also matters what role(s) you need covered in the army based on what other options you have that can fill in. But there are only so many factors we can compare, and the topic of CKs vs. BKs came up (and not for the first time in discussions I've read elsewhere), so I did what I could to compare them on as relatively equal of a footing as I could come up with. As it was, I feel like my CK vs. BK post was overly long already, and I didn't want to make it even longer. 😅
QuoteLikewise, comparing warscroll vs warscroll damage output vs GG is fairly pointless. GG have some of the easiest access to the best buffs we have, with multiple ways of getting +1 attack, attack in the hero phase and 6s splitting. You can very easily give then +2 attacks (or more) and 6s splitting, blood knights again suffer more in that regard. Just with the 6s splitting the GG outshine the blood knights in pure damage, and also do way more mortals which gets through lucky or high armour saves.
In an army that has so many buffs and auras, the blood knights are left in the dust when you look at pure damage in a battle. GG can also effectively survive by deploying off the board, 'deep strike', can be resurrected and can come back once destroyed, meaning across a battle they're likely to get far more damage in.
I like them, and I think they're 'good' rather than 'bad' or 'great' (with some of the coolest models ever), but they are definitely a little overcosted now they've given a slight buff to attacks but stripped away their best ability and taken away almost every single buff they had in our previous book.
How are you getting more than +2 attacks on GG? Manny requires Legion of Night units and Chadukar requires Vyrkos units, so they can't stack on the same target.
But yeah, if you spend 550 or 650 points and pile all of your buffs (one of the +1 attacks buffs also requires a hero to attack first, leaving the GG open to retaliation) onto a single unit of 5+ save GG (which also requires your GG to be wholly within 12" of the buffers), you can massively increase their damage, to be sure. And while the other heroes do things on their own, at least some of those several hundred points have to be counted toward the GG's effective cost if you're deathballing with them that hard, and then the opportunity cost is approaching the cost of Blood Knights that, again, do all of this on their own.
Now, I think they have different roles in the army, but my earlier comment about GG was just comparing hammer vs. hammer in terms of effectiveness. I also noted some other differences that mean they should be costed differently, but that wasn't really my point. Gaining at least one Kastelai buff and adding 2 damage for impact wounds to the Blood Knights puts them not far behind a unit of 10 GG and a VL. First one is 4 lances and 2 horses, second image is all 5 lances and 5 horses.
As you mention, there are other non-damage benefits and drawbacks to each. The BKs are faster, can fly over small enemies, and don't lose 33% of their damage from a 5 wound hero dying; GG can receive other buffs, too, can come out of the grave, and can return models/be re-summoned at half strength. They're not directly comparable in all ways, I just brought it up as a point of comparison in hammer vs. hammer.
I'm not trying to say that they're perfect in every way, I think they should get a little something after losing the pile-in wounds (a small points reduction is probably the right direction), nor am I trying to paint them as overpowered. I think we probably agree on them being good but not great, I just don't see them as especially overcosted for what they're doing in the army, and I believe the heavy kneejerk reactions a couple people had to their nerf was unwarranted.
QuoteAlso, what are these Legion of blood bonuses for blood knights attacks? Hitting on 2s on d3 units from a command trait? Just trying to make sense of the damage tables posted as some of them seem off.
I was being a dumb-dumb before and forgot that the LoB vampires buff was only heroes. Just a mistake on my end. Also just noticed that the +1 damage BKs in the calcs in my previous post was actually fully wrong because they had +1 attacks from my mistaken LoB bonuses. These are the correct numbers for charging/not charging with 4 models of lances and two horses.
And this is for all five getting everything in.
Less to make any new or different points and more to correct what I posted above.
All that said, I feel like I'm probably putting more words than I really need to be into this. Not to say that the discussion is wrong to have, but more that I may be coming off as defending them harder than I mean to be. I know I can at times come off as overly invested or especially stubborn about a point, and I don't mean to be if I am seeming that way here. I simply enjoy the analysis and tend to think about these things a lot/worry I'm missing something, so I have a lot of words to say. 😅
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:
Fair points. I’d add that with the lances they attack in 2 ranks which is pretty big, and with banners and mark of chaos they can be made more mobile, harder hitting or more survivable in any combination. Banners are a finite resource, so that’s probably not fair to include. On reflection “objectively better” is maybe misrepresentative when the warscrolls are read RAW, but within the army, they can be made into a power house unit that point for point I subjectively think are noticeably better than blood knights 😉
BKs also have the 2" lances, as I mentioned in my previous post. The only reach advantage the CKs have is the 1/2"-of-a-unit-within-1/2" thing, which helps their hooves, but those don't do a ton. Can also help in tight spaces, though I also don't usually have trouble fitting lances in for a unit of 5, at least.
The Marks of Chaos seem decent, though not much different than the Kastelai or LoB bonuses, just more versatile. Versatility is a form of power, to be sure, but not as direct of one, I think. But realistically, their 1 worse to-hit on the lances hurts CKs a lot.
(Once again, all profiles have AOA.) CKs with the Khorne mark are still behind BKs when both are on the charge, even when the BKs have no buffs from Kastelai. Even when I drop the BKs to only two models getting hooves in, they're still ahead.
Only after dropping the BKs to four models getting lances and two getting hooves do they fall behind CKs on damage, and even with that only when they have 0 Kastelai buffs.
On a turn when they don't get a charge, the CKs are still outdamaged by the 4-and-2 BKs with no Kastelai buffs.
And again, this doesn't include the impact hits that BKs get automatically (though Mark of Khorne Heroes can do that, too, at the cost of CP in your charge phase; this also gets back to my earlier point about BKs needing less support), or The Hunger which they also always have.
Honestly, after all of this, I'm almost feeling like BKs are the better ones here and may not be overcosted if CKs also aren't (don't know the prevailing opinion on that, though). They do more damage in the large majority of these cases, and always do more damage if they have any Kastelai buffs.
While they can't get the -1 to wound on attacks against them from Nurgle, they can pretty easily heal a few of their wounds over multiple combats; not as good against being alphaed, but still similar durability bonuses. Mark of Slaanesh is the only consistent buff they can just have that BKs can't replicate, and that is a pretty nice one. Both Tzeentch and Undivided seem pretty RNG-heavy to work out for them, and Tzeentch is pretty niche with them having to be targeted by a spell to even have a chance of working.
BKs seem pretty legit to me.
-
1
-
-
I'm not particularly familiar with the StD options, but I think Blood Knights compare pretty well against them. Same damage on and off the charge, basically the same wheel (bravery 10 vs. 7, but that's largely a non-issue), Blood Knights get one more hoof attack, Chaos Knights have a 5++ only against MWs vs. a 6++ against everything, the same weapon ranges (though CKs get the 1/2" of 1/2" thing for their hooves, I guess; 2" range with the lances makes this kinda irrelevant for them).
In the Blood Knights' favor are a better to-hit (3+ instead of 4+), -2 rend baseline instead of -1, d3 impact wounds on a 2+, and The Hunger. In exchange, the Chaos Knights get...a better leader? And you can give one unit of them a neat banner. Looks like you can support CKs with some heroes, though that starts to add more effective cost for the CKs in this equation. 10 more points for the BKs doesn't feel like a bad trade comparatively for something that seems better on its own than the CKs are.
I could very well be missing something, however, and I'm open to being corrected here. Definitely doesn't feel like "objectively" better than BKs, though.
-
1
-
-
Blood Knights losing a d3 MWs a turn stinks, but I don't think it kills them. For 90 points over Grave Guard, they do about as much damage, have more wounds, have better saves, and move over twice as fast. This is a comparison of them vs. GG with and without a Vampire Lord buff. All of this is with AOA, as well.
This also doesn't count ~2 average MWs on the charge from the Blood Knights. ~24 damage to a 4+ is solid, especially considering how independent they are. They don't need babysitting by anything, they can just do this on a charge wherever they are.
So they could probably use a small points reduction, but I think saying they're dead or need at least a 40 point reduction is an exaggeration. They lose about 2 damage a turn from the pile-in change, which is sad, but not backbreaking. And while losing the retreat damage is sad, I have to kind of wonder how often two damage from your Blood Knights retreating is genuinely relevant. I admit I haven't gotten that many games in, but it definitely hasn't come up for me that it actually makes a difference in whether an important unit lives or dies.
I don't think Blood Knights needed a nerf outside of LoB, and it's unfortunate to see them get caught in the crossfire, but I think they'll still be fine.
The rest of the LoB nerfs, while again sad, hardly surprise me. It was doing very well, and probably needed a couple of things toned down. The army still functions the way it should, just not quite as powerfully. Can't have 2+ unrendable saves anymore, but that's probably better for the game.
Also, as a bonus, if you can get Blood Knights both Kastelai buffs, they fully slap.
-
2
-
-
Those look really good! I'm definitely gonna see about asking a friend with a 3D printer to make some for me.
-
1
-
-
On 5/12/2023 at 1:52 PM, N.I.B. said:
I just played a 1000pts campaign game and was easily beaten by Sylvaneth. Does anyone have a good 1000pts list to suggest? I had a hard time dealing with those teleporting hammer trees that has 5 wounds each and can go down to 2+ save with Mystic Shield. The fact that they can strike and fade from combat before I get to swing is bonkers.
My list was:
Legion of Blood
Grand Strategy: Lust for Domination
Core Battalion: Warlord (1 extra artefact)
Triumph: Inspired
Wight King on Skeletal Steed general - Cloak of Mists and Shadows, Command Trait: Doomed Minions, Warlord
Vampire Lord - Warlord, spell: Spirit Gale, Aspect of the champion: Tunnel Master
Necromancer – Warlord, relic: Amulet of Screams, spell: Waste Away
10 Black Knights, Standard bearer, musician. Warlord.
20 Skeletons, standard bearer. Warlord.
5 Blood Knights, standard bearer
1000pts
We played on a full scale table which felt like a mistake, big advantage to teleporting armies at 1000pts.
I feel like it might be better to lean into zombies with either blood knights or grave guard. Soulblight right now leans into wanting a lot of wounds on the table to work well, I think, and at 1000 points your best option for that is some zombies. And zombies also don't really care about strike and fade since their attacks are so pitiful and the main source of their damage is just being smacked in melee. Punish your opponent for doing that. Don't care about a 2+ save that also fades before you can attack if you just do a pile of MWs from their attacks.
Heck, they're even decent against shooting just because of the efficiency of wounds on them. And when you're bringing back 4 a turn, your opponent will struggle to wipe them as easily in a 1000 point game. Something like this, maybe?
Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Subfaction: Legion of Blood
- Grand Strategy: Lust for Domination
- Triumphs:
Leaders
Vampire Lord (130)
- General
- Command Trait: Master of Magic
- Artefact: Cloak of Mists and Shadows
- Lore of the Vampires: Spirit Gale
- Aspect of the Champion: Tunnel Master
Necromancer (90)
- Lore of the Deathmages: Waste Away
Battleline
20 x Deadwalker Zombies (115)
20 x Deadwalker Zombies (115)
Units
5 x Blood Knights (230)
1 x Corpse Cart (70)
5 x Blood Knights (230)
Total: 980 / 1000
Reinforced Units: 0 / 2
Allies: 0 / 200
Wounds: 86
Drops: 7
That said, I'm not super confident about the 1000 point meta, so take my advice with a grain of salt. It seems deeply unbalanced at that scale and kinda hard to cover your bases well.15 hours ago, Craze said:I have one question about our "Cursed Unlife" Battle Tactic. It says:
"You complete this tactic if any wounds allocated to your general or to 2 other friendly Vampire units are healed using The Hunger ability during this turn."
This means that if I just heal e.g. with Chadukar in a Vyrkos list, even if I didn't PICK him to be my general I will complete the tactic, because it doesn't say "...you picked to be your general", right?
Correct. Just has to be a general, which the unique characters (except Cado) all count as in their factions.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, N.I.B. said:
What was weird to me was the Corpse Cart. Why was it in the list with no Zombies? Just to buff Spirit Gale?
I would assume because they just had some points left over (without it, they're at 1900/2000) and decided that +1 to cast was a nice way to fill in the last bit rather than 10 more skeletons.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gery81 said:
Good weekend for Soulblight
Love to see it.
That first Vyrkos list really confirms what I've been feeling about zombies. They're so cheap and give you a massive pile of wounds for your shooting to chew through, and they heavily punish alpha strike lists. If they don't get wiped, you're healing back four of each unit every round, which is an easy extra MW. With a Corpse Cart nearby, they're also doing enough damage to not be ignorable, and if your opponent decides to shoot your Corpse Carts, that's shooting that isn't going into your heroes or Grave Guard, and they're only 70 points apiece. Torgillius + an Ulfenkarni Phylactery on Belladamma means two good-sized bubbles of 5+ wards for all of your summonables, too. Top it off with being able to wall your opponent in with placing piles of 40 wounds 3" in front of them and they just seem good.
The first LoB list from the Really Good GT is very cool. Definitely going to be trying it out. Interesting to go Battle Regiment to get 2 drops. Unrendable skeletons seem like a pain for your opponent to deal with, especially with their new rend when they have more models than their target. Like zombies with a CC, they're not a hammer, but they do enough damage that you can't ignore them forever and they have enough recursion that they need to be fully wiped quickly to actually remove. Then you have a unit of zombies and a unit of Black Knights for screening, a VLOZD and two units of Grave Guard for hammers, Neferata as soft-hammer/solid support, and the Vampire Lord and Wight King for support. Love all of it.
The second LoB list from the Really Good GT seems fun, too. Mostly the same heroes, but leans more into having the battleline just be cheap screens and two big Grave Guard hammers. Fairly simple and straightforward. I like it.
Next, the Kastelai list in Ragnarok seems cool. Looks like it leans pretty well into thematically Kastelai things overall, except for the Vyrkos Blood-Born. Good hammers, good mobility, good screens. I like the Trueblades as anti-monster tech that are also decent enough against other things.
The Game Knight LoB list looks a little weird to me, but I'm happy it was effective for them. Some small screens, a couple of big heroes, and a big unit of Blood Knights. The Blood Knights are the biggest standout for me since a unit of 10 is just unusual. I can definitely see it working well, though, with their new reach on the lances.
The second LoB list in Game Knight seems to have a similar idea. Some small screens, big heroes, a unit of 10 Blood Knights, but this time with a unit of 20 GG, too. I'm into it.
Warpfire got a 5-0 LoB list, too. Interesting bringing the Mortis Engine. I like that a lot, I'm very interested in them right now. I like the aoe MWs paired with the mapwide MWs from Spirit Gale. Seems like a cool combo to just place a lot of pressure on your opponent the whole game.
The Swedish event having a three list format seems wild, especially given two of the lists by the winner were crazy. One with Neferata and three VLOZDs (plus three MSU skeletons), and one with Nagash. Their other list seemed a lot more standard, but I'd love to see how the triple VLOZD list did, because that sounds insane.
Finally, LoB in the Regicide in the Realms tournament. Double dragon, Neferata, some screens, a unit of 10 Black Knights (good for MW missiles and fast screening/objective grabbing, I guess), and two endless spells. Both Soulsnare Shackles and Suffocating Gravetide. Seems like this was supposed to be a very thematic list for the event itself, given THW's comments about it, but still pretty cool that it worked for them as well as it did. Two unrendable VLOZDs and no Spirit Gale. Very neat.
All in all, really happy with the performance. Some strong themes with the skeletons being used a lot, a unit of zombies being thrown in a lot of places, and Neferata + VLOZD(s) in LoB. Really common for Neferata to have Waste Away, as well, and a lot of Vampire Lords on foot with Spirit Gale. Outside of that, there's a decent amount of spice spread through the lists. The Vyrkos and Kastelai lists are both cool, I liked seeing the Mortis Engine and stuff, and there's a fair bit of experimenting with unit sizes.
Sad to see no Coven Throne/Bloodseeker Palanquin, just because I like the models a lot, but that's not unexpected. They both seem pretty bad. Slightly surprised by no Mannfred; I know he's not as good as he was in our 2E book, but he still seems decent. Sad about no Avengorii, not even a Vengorian Lord.
Enjoying these results overall, though. Looking forward to how it develops going forward!
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:
I think Kastelai's big disadvantage right now is that Blood Knights are overcosted. They have good options--multiple good command traits, Vhordrai being amazing, a great monstrous rampage, etc. And Blood Knights are in fact good. They're just not 230 points good. A 10% points cut on them in a faction that likes running big/multiple units of them would do wonders, and help balance the need for Summonable tarpits with the Blood Knights that could come along and clean enemies out of those tarpits (which I think would be a great strat if the costs get to where they should be--just clog the midboard with bodies you force the enemy to charge, then counter charge with Blood Knights. Resummon tarpits and repeat).
I think this is a big part of it, for sure. Blood Knights feel about as powerful as they were before, though slightly different. Lost some versatility in the retreat and charge, but gained extra mortal wounds from being able to impact multiple times in a turn, which I think mostly levels them out. And then they went up 30 points for...some reason? Which just makes having 3-4 of them (potentially more, depending on your exact list) way harder to fit into your army, and that's what Kastelai is supposed to be about.
I think Kastelai and Avengorii could be in much better spots with some small-to-moderate points changes. LoN, LoB and even Vyrkos all seem like they're in decent places, with LoB being the clear winner as the new "default" dynasty that's kinda just generically good (except for the CTs which are...awkward).
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, N.I.B. said:
Question about Torgillius 5+ ward save aura, shouldn't it stack with the Ulfenkarni Phylactery to a 4+ ward save?
Nope.
Torgillius gives them a new ward save that is different from Deathless Minions, whereas Ulfenkarni Phylactery specifically states it only gives the +1 "for the purposes of the Deathless Minions battle trait."
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, KriticalKhan said:
I only play very, very casually so I can't speak for how well received these particular changes might be (and I'm too lazy to check the threads older than this one :^) ) and I really only pick up armybooks for the funny words and pretty pictures, but it looks like Lauka Vai and the Vengorians lost their rampage, Anika doesn't have a heal effect on her sword, and Kritza doesn't respawn anymore? Were those errata'd out before this release? Kinda disappointing.
Annika now just has The Hunger, which can still full heal her (though it's unlikely to since it's based on her damage), and Kritza is now a summonable unit and can thus come back from Endless Legions. Kritza lost his -1 to hit thing, too.
In exchange, Annika can now deep strike, and Kritza can de-power an artefact for a turn and retreat during combat. Their attack profiles are also slightly better.
Overall, I'd say they're probably about the same. Maybe slightly worse. Still about as usable, though: fun for casual play, not terribly competitive.
-
1
-
-
So, as a thought experiment, fully (and probably overly) maximizing Spirit Gale: Belladamma with a Corpse Cart nearby and Cogs. +2 to cast and re-rolls. .05% chance to miscast, 2.78% chance to fail it, and an average of 1.45 wounds to all of your opponent's army every turn. Grab Umbral Spellportal, too, just for giggles to have some better range on everything else so her second cast each turn doesn't go to waste? 390 points for the buffiest of pieces you could ever get, though, which does not feel super worth it.
I think the aforementioned Corpse Cart + Vampire Lord in a corner is probably the right call, but if you have a grindy enough army to make Belladamma work, it could be funny.
-
1
-
-
Spirit Gale seems very good now, for sure, and it's going in every list I've come up with so far. Soulpike is fine, and Vile Transference is alright, but Spirit Gale is great. Even if your opponent doesn't have many units it's at worst a couple wounds over the game into priority targets to make them just a bit easier to kill. When your VLOZD has taken a little damage but you still need to kill your opponent's hero, it's nice to just get that little wiggle room for getting the kill.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Also, I think shield Grave Guard start looking better when you move down a level of abstraction and start considering what you want the unit to do instead of comparing just raw damage numbers. It's easy to calc them with all kinds of buffs stacked onto them and get super excited because they kill a mega-gargant dead from full health. But then again, if a unit of shield grave guard with a vampire lord giving them all out attack can one-shot units with 20 wounds on a 3+, it really becomes a question whether the extra damage is necessary or even worth it.
This is something I've been trying to keep in mind, as well. As funny as it was to calc out that 30 GW GG do ~49 wounds to a 2+ with AOA, a Vamp Lord, and a Wight King on foot, there's no situation where that would actually be useful in reality. That being said, having overkill built into the unit can be useful in situations where we're fighting opponents with shooting, which is fairly common right now, because then you can lose some to stuff and still potentially hit important damage numbers. Even putting them in the grave, they then have to make a 9" charge, not a guarantee even with re-rolls, making them potentially need to weather a turn of shooting or being charged into before they can attack. Having spares means they can still potentially hit important calcs when they need to.
I think it's also worth considering our more consistent recursion here, too, because Endless Legions meaning a half unit coming back potentially makes you want to have some overkill in the base unit for the same reason. When you have 10 come back after the 20 were killed, you want them to still hit hard (which GWs certainly will, and shields will less so). This obviously shouldn't be your primary concern, but it is definitely something to think about with the army. Adds layers to the consideration of listbuilding, which I love.
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:As our army already has a lot of anvils I‘d have preferred if GG with shields would have gotten a tanky-offense buff in addition to the 4+ save meaning: Rolling an unmodified 6 for a save causes a mortal wound. Now call it cursed shields and they’re good to go.
While I can see the appeal here, this would just make them start stepping on the toes of the new zombies, and I feel like they'd honestly just be worse than zombies for it. As they are now, they provide a step on the anvil-hammer spectrum between Deathrattle Skeletons and greatweapon Grave Guard. They can take defensive buffs well, and they can take offensive buffs well, they're summonable for recursion/healing. They're slow, but otherwise a pretty versatile unit, I think.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Here are the calcs for 20 Grave Guard:
Save Grave Guard Shield Grave Guard Shield +1 attacks Grave Guard Greatweapons Grave Guard Greatweapons +1 attack 2+ 10.63 15.81 12.53 18.64 3+ 13.67 20.33 17.08 25.42 4+ 16.7 24.85 21.64 32.19 5+ 19.74 29.37 26.19 38.97 6+ 22.78 33.89 30.75 45.75 - 22.78 33.89 30.75 45.75 In my opinion, it really is just a choice you need to make. No option is clearly better.
I calculated these values with just +1 attack from the vampire lord. But of course, you can easily add +1 attack to that from AAO.
Another use case I see is to put Great Weapon Grave Guard in the grave with a Wight King. Even though the Wight King buff is weaker than +1 attacks, with the naturally higher damage of Great Weapons it's going to easily be significant. I even think 10 Grave Guard with Great Weapons on their own are a good unit to just have in the grave to threaten the deep strike.
If you want you GG to contribute to holding points, though, I think the shields make sense. And if they are already sitting on a point, you might as well support them with a hero that can't deep strike but gives a better buff in the Vampire Lord.
To expand on this a little: you get about 15%-26% more damage with greatweapons (with the largest difference at worse saves) in exchange for about 25%-33% damage reduction depending on if you AOD them, not including incoming rend. Even a single point of rend (not terribly uncommon) changes that to ~20%-25%, and two points of rend changes it to 17%-20%.
This also doesn't include the hard-to-numerically-describe value of being able to fight in three ranks with greatweapons, which can make it easier to get all of them in to fight. While I haven't typically had a ton of trouble doing that with 20, it's not an unheard of situation for that to give you more models fighting, and does make a big difference if you bump the unit to 30. Also also, the best form of damage reduction is just killing a unit so it can't attack you, and extra damage makes that more likely to happen.
I think I'd lean more toward greatweapons if you just want a big hammer. If you want something a little more anvil-y, though, shields genuinely seem like a decent option. The army may not lack anvils, but having a heavy hitting summonable, but slow, anvil makes for a decent contrast to the faster but similarly heavy hitting Blood Knights who aren't summonable. I may very well try some shields in a TTS game I'm playing later, in fact, because that sounds pretty sweet.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, N.I.B. said:
Thank you. How do you make your army lists - battlescribe, pen&paper, something else? I'm mucking about in battlecribe, Grand Strategy: Empire of Corpses doesn't show as an option.
Personally, I typically use BattleScribe, though it usually takes a bit of time to get updated. I'm also looking forward to the other couple of listbuilders that are in development, though last I saw neither of the ones I was looking at were open to use quite yet. The WarCom listbuilder is also fine for just getting your points right, though it includes nothing about the actual rules of the army on there, and both takes time to update and can at times just be wrong as WarCom sometimes is.
Right now, I'm using Notepad until I get digital tools for listbuilding on my PC.
44 minutes ago, Causalis said:Thanks for the pointers!
Sad that VloZD is pigeonholed into LoB. I don't think he's all that good, honestly. It's not the intrinsic value of his Warscroll that is nice, it's the Boni LoB gives him that make him playable. Take him in any other Legion and his damage is just sooo bad for his points and even in LoB it takes an artefact + CT to make him good. And even then he can only fight 1-3 enemies and only if they are neither heroes nor monsters.
Ich
So taking him in LoN is probably a bad idea.
I like the look of Black Knights with the Wight King on horse. Taking a reinforced unit will put 10 Mortals into something plus their attacks which is a good deal for 220p (+ Wight King).
As @RocketPropelledGrenade said, I think the VLOZD has space in other subfactions, for sure. Making one your Kastelai general for Undead Bladelord, plus having Vhordrai on the field, means you can get three units their upgrades by killing models with some Blood Knights. Ramps up your power very quickly with your hero hammers. Even just +1 damage and AOA on Vhordrai brings him up to over 13 damage to a 2+ on the charge. +1 damage also puts a sword VLOZD in spitting distance of LoB damage, plus you still have the chance to get +1 attacks.
Comparing lance VLOZDs also doesn't place them too far apart, though the LoB VLOZD does pull a little further ahead. Combined just +1 damage and just +1 attack since they have the same effect for the Kastelai lance vamp.
...Except when you have both attack and damage from Kastelai, then it puts the Kastelai VLOZD ever so slightly ahead of LoB. Kastelai seems like a fully legit choice for VLOZDs with the levelup stuff.
For Avengorii it's slightly more complicated because it comes more down to the monstrous rampage, which only matters after you've done your Roar for the turn, and isn't exclusive to the VLOZD. So while Avengorii doesn't specifically help VLOZDs much, they do fit in with the various monster related bonuses you can get (fighting with top profile, the rampages, once per battle strike first, etc.).
An idea list I have for Kastelai could be something like:
Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Kastelai Dynasty
- Grand Strategy: Take What's Theirs
- Triumphs:
Leaders
Prince Vhordrai (470)
- Lore of the Vampires: Vile Transference
Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon (440)
- General
- Vampiric Sword
- Command Trait: Undead Bladelord
- Artefact: Fragment of the Keep
- Lore of the Vampires: Spirit Gale
Battleline
10 x Blood Knights (460)
- Reinforced x 1
5 x Blood Knights (230)
5 x Blood Knights (230)
10 x Deathrattle Skeletons (85)
10 x Deathrattle Skeletons (85)
Total: 2000 / 2000
Reinforced Units: 1 / 4
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 112
Drops: 7Gives you the double dragon that a lot of folks wanted to make work previously, plus a bunch of Blood Knights and a couple skellie screens/objective nabbers. Probably things to improve with it, maybe you don't actually want the double dragon, but I like the idea of leveling three units up every turn when one of your Blood Knights gets some skills. Also considering the Blood Knights can fly over small troops all the time now, you can more easily strike a hero in their backline for the +1 damage.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, mmimzie said:
Looking for thoughts on this list
a meme twist on what folks say is the 'best' cav list of soulblight lol
Vengorian lord, General: doomed minions (maybe master of magic), Spirit gale
Wight king on steed, artifact: amulet of screams
Necromancer: Fading vigor
Necromancer: waste away
battle line:
10x black knights
10x black knights
5x black knight
10x dire dogs
mortis engine
mortis engine
mortis engine
Just a fast mortal wounds celebration. Thoughts?
This...genuinely seems like it'd be some very silly fun. Master of Magic on the Vengo just to get the 9+ on Spirit Gale more often would be pretty cool. Four casters to charge up the Mortis Engines even seems decent. Might split things up more to provide extra layers of screens so the Mortis Engines can stay within 6" for their blasts easier, but I'm not sure how necessary that would actually be.
-
11 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:
Wondering the same. I think there’s a place for a block of 30 (am I right in thinking on 25mm bases with 2” reach they should technically be able to attack in 3 ranks?). Sometimes you’ll lose models early to shooting or magic in a unit of 20 before getting into combat, and if you want to guarantee killing something then 30 could be a shout, especially if you’re putting points into buffing them via V-lord and WK.
I was asking about the Deathrattle Skeletons, not Grave Guard. 😜 But I do agree that 30 GG have a place, especially with being able to fight from three ranks. I was already consistently getting 20ish into fight with just 1" reach, so I think getting all 30 in won't be too hard with 2" reach. That said, I wonder if that's not, like, overkill levels of damage against anything short of a gargant.
42 wounds to a 2+ save does feel like it's probably a bit more than necessary. Hell, even 18 wounds feels like almost more than enough. (Also, it's 28.65 average damage for the buffed vamp vs. a 2+ save target getting AOD to ignore the rend.)
Adding a 6+ ward still leaves them nearly one-shotting a 2+ save gargant when buffed. Do even a smidgen of damage from zombie dragon breath or a spell, and it's dead, Jim. (And 23.87 vs. a 2+ save ignoring rend.)
And finally, just because I frequently play against a friend who plays Nighthaunt, a target that's ethereal with a 5+ ward.
Multiply everything by 2/3 to get what a unit of 20 does instead, don't feel like pasting three more images for that. I think a 30 block of GG is worth it if you play into a field where there's a lot of shooting to pick them off before they get in, or if you really just enjoy straight up deleting enemies. Personally, while I do enjoy the Timmy factor of deleting things, I think the shooting problem is the bigger factor here, especially since we don't have much in the way of anti-shooting other than just regenerating models that they shot. Also given that shooting is a menace in the entire game, it feels worth consideration depending on your meta.
Definitely something to keep in mind.
P.S. One more for the road:
Exploding 6s to hit since you also need a WK for your general. It could be on steed, but you could also put it on foot to get the exploding 6s on them for giggles. Changes to 40.73 on a 2+/6++, and 26.68 on an unrendable 2+/6++. While it's basically only ever going to happen against zombies, and will still be absurdly massively overkill even then, 116 wounds against a 6+ save is funny to me.
Ich 
Soulblight Gravelords Discussion - 3rd edition.
in Death
Posted
I will say that while I generally like the points changes for us, the part of me that wants to run 60 skeletons is sad at that 15 point increase on them.
All of the drops seem good, though I'm not sure how much they'll truly end up helping those things. Manny going down in points helps him, I think he was borderline as it was, and this could make him a real pick again. Coven Throne and Palanquin dropping a fair bit is nice, too, though they're probably not good enough still; they just don't do much. Similar problem with the Zombie Dragon and Terrorgheist: love to see the points drop, would really prefer it if they just did more instead.
As for the increases, the large majority seem fine to me. Sad to see them, of course, but given the winrate of the army (even after nerfs), it was pretty expected. The only one that truly confuses me is Black Knights going up 20 points. Like. I could see 5-10, but 20 seems like too much. But none of the changes seem unwarranted, it's mostly about reducing our massive board control and preventing us from being able to have both an enormous horde of bodies and big damage units at the same time.
Lastly, the Endless Legions and Zombies changes. Outside 9" on opponent's turn for EL is sad and I would have preferred it going to 6" instead to start, but I can understand why they decided on 9. Zombies needing to be within 3" of the attacking model makes sense and seems like a decent nerf to them without making them useless. Obviously time will tell how hard these hurt, but I think they'll be fine.
Overall, I don't think these changes break the army by any means. Gut reaction is pain, but we definitely needed some nerfs given our performance, and I think they did a good job of aiming the nerfs mostly where they needed to go while still buffing a lot of things that needed that, too (though points changes aren't enough for a lot of them).