Jump to content

pnkdth

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Celestant-Prime

About pnkdth

  • Rank
    Prosecutor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mechanical advantage over lots of armies = high consistency and high tier army. Competitive builds therefore do not limit the army and can happily and reliably compete against the vast majority of other armies and builds. Mechanical disadvantage over lots of armies = low consistency and low tier army. Competitive builds rely on the right army to show up and has a very low probability of going 5-0 during a tournament. This goes neatly into the equation I posted earlier. Popularity, win/loss ratio, consistency in wins (going 3-0 or 5-0) which tells us what bad match ups are and how an
  2. Viable, which performs on good enough level in all metrics. A below-viable army would be an army which has a limited competitive build, has a lot of bad match-ups, and has to fight much harder than the opponent to win. Hence why I brought up the how you win as being important + the additional factors I detailed because they cut through the noice of good/bad players using X or Y army. I've also seen low tier armies beat higher tier armies, it happens, but that does not mean there is balance. Sometimes the better player and/or luck wins out. That is also why I maintain that win ratios can
  3. We also need to factor in popularity since the number of players matter when measuring outcomes. For example, an unpopular army is more likely to be used by a player who is stubbornly trying to make their preferred army work at all cost whereas a popular meta-chaser build will attract people who just want to win and will use whatever is the most powerful army. The former might inflate the number of wins whereas the latter will usually deflate the number of wins. In addition to popularity + win/loss ratio, consistency matter a great deal too. As in, you can barely snatch a win or you can
  4. I guess we were right in speculating that the release schedule seemed smushed together. Surely explain why there has been such rapid fire releases... Also, my jaw dropped when seeing this. Hope it leads to new exciting hosts and fun stuff for us to represent the return of the newborn twins.
  5. Glutos can be a real MVP. His effects and -1 to hit aura is useful (and it isn't 'wholly within' just 'within' so has quite a reach). Seeker Cavalcade is generally accepted as Hedonites most competitive battalion due to extra movement + it makes slickblades better. That 6" activation and pile-in is great, it really lean into our fast and furious advantage. Lurid Haze is arguably out most competitive host option with its powerful redeploy and stellar command ability (+1 to saves). Yeah, don't forget those DPs BUT do not compromise your battleplan just to get them. Objective play
  6. I don't think we're quite there yet. Watching a batrep between DG and DA and it was a lot of dice-rolling for very little returns. Then you also remember that the vast majority of armies don't have those rules and you end up in a pretty bad situation. That said, I agree, less is more and the rules needs to be more consistently applied with a design document every single battletome team must adhere to. The results have been pretty uneven. Then again, GW can't do major releases for everyone. However, the least we can expect is more sensible quality control and testing.
  7. Yes, like I said I don't want AoS to be dominated by elite units or pave the way for hero hammer. Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that. We've already seen units with coming in with transhuman always on too. That is why I think it is good a humble clanrat unit can pull down a BT under the right circumstances and prefer the way warscrolls are handled in AoS. As for which system is better, I left 40k because I got fed up with the direction it is headed (rules bloat for the bl
  8. That's what I don't want that for AoS. I want larger blocks and elite units to have teeth and to be able to drag down bigger targets. Without them all you have against big scary characters are other big scary characters/monsters. I'm also not terribly happy about how insane some characters are in AoS nor how obviously better some are than others. God-level characters should never had gotten rules other than for narrative games but it is what it is.
  9. Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincus
  10. 10 of them with whips + Lurid Haze CA could be pretty annoying to deal with or at least tie up units the opponent wants to be elsewhere. Not the tankiest unit in the game but speed helps with getting there before numbers dwindle too low. If we assume Seeker Cavalcades this could help you dictate the game further. The extreme choice being to cannibalise and kitbash them into a Slickblades. That said, it be hilarious if one of BR books then makes them more viable again.
  11. How about a low drop Seeker Cavalcade list with something like 4x5 hellstriders, 2x5 slickblades, Glutos, Bladebringer on exalted chariot. This should end up at around 2k points. If room, there's always room for more seeker chariots in the Seeker Cavalcade to maintain a low drop. A good mix of spears/scourges gives you a mix of utility and offence.
  12. I've been sitting and toying around with different kinds of lists (as I like to do... too much) and I haven't really looked past allies bar the obvious (warriors or even marauders). Previously in this thread there was a list with Fomoroid Crushers (which adds some muscle , MWs, extra ranged attack, and terrain disruption), Mindstealer Sphinx (for bravery manipulation), and so on. I've seen Archaon lists too but at that point I think the list becomes an S2D list. I believe someone mentioned Blightkings too. Have you all explored any allied units and how did you use them? If so, I'd l
  13. What I'm seeing with the Infernal Enrapturess is a story about corrupting a society or community. It can take different forms and has been responsible for leading many to their doom or on a path to glory as a hedonite. You can also make more individuals stories about <insert person here> follows X obsession into madness. Then either add a horrible twist of fate of becoming a piece of what that individual was obsessing about. I also don't mind hellraiser-fanfic if it is good but you can also have Glutos-style stories as the person in the story goes deeper and deeper. When it comes t
  14. Both Symba/Myrm are listed as Twinsouls/Twinsouls not Twinsouls/Painbringers.
  15. I'd argue our book is better designed than LRL. Our problems can be solved with a simple points adjustments and we're not saddled with impractical rules or bloated warscrolls. They've managed to create units with character without writing an essay. A concrete example, if the LoP/Shardspeaker gets dropped to 120-130pts alongside Blissbard Archers down to like 140 then suddenly the Depraved Carnival ain't such a bad deal which means we can combine it with a seeker cavalcade. Suddenly we're a two drop army. The shardspeaker is no longer a liability and the LoP can add in that wonderful CA r
×
×
  • Create New...