TechnoVampire
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by TechnoVampire
-
-
Spearhead won’t be for me. The joy of a table top war-game (for me), is playing my list that I’ve put (too many) hours of thought and craft into, against someone else’s. I’m not interested in playing a pre-made list, but I hope there’s something for other people to get excited about.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
I feel the point is that banishing them or killing them cost resources. In particular, one shouldn't underestimate what doing 6 damages means (i.e. more than what a chaff units with 10 attacks on 3+/3+/-1/1 will do on average). Are you using a mid-sized hammer or multiple units to kill a spell which can be recast next turn (whether it's your turn or you opponent)? What about 2 or 3 of them?
As for not having them not being a big disadvantage: maybe. The point remains that if you don't buy a box of these you're playing with less rules. It is as if you needed to have spell cards in order to access your faction lore. It's not the end of the world (proxying, kitbashing, 3d printing etc) but playing a "standard" game just became (a bit) more expensive for new players
I feel the same. No one will not take a lore if they a free, and I think most lists will have some opportunity for casting them. T1 being out of range of a damage spell or not having any significant buffs, attempting to bring an additional unit that can fight, move block, do mortals or any number of other things could be a big advantage. I think there’s potentially much more incentive to play with them now than before when there was a cost attached. As a result I think there will be much more pressure on players to buy them, even out of FOMO.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Yea I guess it also boils down to just how crazy some of these get. If all of the rest of the endless spell warscrolls are roughly close to the swords and palisade in terms of power level then it shouldn't be a problem.
But I just can't imagine them giving the Krondspine a derpy profile lol.
It was krondspine that made me think of it, but you’re right and I’ll reserve judgement until we know more. Regardless it wouldn’t be very fun to see nearly every army spamming the same endless spells. Hopefully there’s enough of a spread of power and themes that there’s a real choice. If the different lores lend themselves to a particular playstyle then that will make them much more interesting.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
I like the idea of endless spells you can actually interact with. However I think the success of them is going to lie on how well the universal ones are balanced.
Because if they are all free, then there won't be a points system to help mitigate stronger ones. So the highest performers will become apparent super quickly and potentially be in every army's list.
I guess the casting cost could be used as a balancing measure to some degree. I think Wizards with casting bonuses could end up being the power players this edition.
That’s definitely one of my concerns; if they’re not well balanced we may end up seeing the same few lores in every list and it becomes almost a necessity to get certain spells off to win.
-
Interesting changes and like @Neil Arthur Hotep said, impossible to evaluate without testing, or the complete set of rules.
Im assuming they will be much more ubiquitous than before, being free to every faction, but those with less casting potential might suffer.
I wasn’t a particularly big fan of endless spells before, as they kind of just felt like additional stuff to keep track of. I’m not sure if I’ll prefer this system, but I’ll definitely feel more obliged to play with them. The fact that they’re more interactive is probably a positive.
-
10 hours ago, Ferban said:
But they are getting rid of book tactics. I disliked those not only because of the disparity in difficulty (there were haves and have-nots), but also because GW used them as a balancing tool. Army underperforming? Here's an easy battle tactic. It's lazy and artificially inflates the data without addressing the underlying weaknesses or problems of the army. And if you're playing PtG, it does nothing to help the army.
Amen to this. I absolutely hated book tactics being used as a balancing measure for the same reasons. I’ll be very glad to see that become a thing of the past.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, OkayestDM said:
Replacing mortal wounds with auto-wound or 'becomes 2 hits' abilities would be much better to create impactful shooting that still has counterplay.
Mortal Wounds would work best with heroes, monsters, spells, and defensive units like Liberators (a unit that has few attacks and is meant to take it on the chin, but due to mortal wounds still has the potential to do some damage on the return swing.)
Offensive units should have more attacks, deal more damage and have access to abilities that improve their offensive ability, but no mortal wounds (the Kroxigor warscroll demonstrates this perfectly.)
Completely agree. Mortal wounds should be given as specialist cases where they make sense and not as the standard form of dealing damage.
leaning into other forms of damage (as you suggested) opens up more specialised units and interesting interactions on the table which I’m all for.-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The new Skaven hero only has Crit(Auto-Wound), which is much better.
I agree, though with rend 2 that’s likely to cause damage. I’m ok with that as a specialised unit though. What I really don’t want to see is another iteration of 30 sentinels doing mortals from 30” and ignoring line of sight, or 12 bolt boyz doing 2 mortals on a 5 to hit or 3 on a 6.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
A more concrete idea of what reduced shooting range means would be nice. I would like to see if there are specific abilities on shooting attacks other than "shoot in combat", as well.
Would be cool to see them say something like "there are no more mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks" or "the line-of-sight system has been reworked" if those changes are in the game.
I pray that there is little to no mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks 🙏 and would generally like to see a reduction in mortal wounds across the board.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:
6 is to let you deploy either a pair of threes or a 5 in a single line. I do get your point about it perhaps being a bit awkward to have to double line 10 25mm bases, but equally if you allow other stuff that coherency rule. It’s not too much of a problem letting a unit of steel helms stretch out like that, they could make a line of about 14 inches. By the same rule, 10 liberators cover 20 inches and 10 dire wolves cover 28 inches.
I get your point about certain units being able to be used to cover a lot of area in 10’s. I have thought about it, hence the reason that I don’t think that a blanket rule for coherency works particularly well. Having to use 10 x 25mm infantry in 2 ranks isn’t the end of the world, but it feels at odds with what they’re designed for, and makes them less valuable. It’s something I was hoping they would have cleaned up in the next edition, but ultimately not a massive deal.
-
Additionally I do find a coherency number of 6 very strange when a lot of infantry units come in 10’s. Having to use a minimum size infantry unit on 25mm bases in 2 ranks feels particularly unintuitive and also overly harsh considering the new coherency range is 1/2”. I think they could have safely made the maximum number of models in one rank 10.
-
I find I end up mostly playing in base contact to make sure I’m getting the maximum into range for combat. It’s really screening that’s going to be affected. I do wonder how that’s going to pan out. Personally I’d have maybe liked to see coherency be a stat that makes sense for each specific unit. Having one blanket rule just doesn’t make sense for all (IMO)... Like small skirmishing units could be used in 10’s designed specifically as a screen, while other units such as those with spears and shields are designed to be used in tightly packed in ranks. Maybe that would add to mental load/ bloat but I think there will always be winners and losers with one rule and different base and unit sizes. The standardised weapon range should help a lot with that though.
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I don't know about you guys, but I am super excited to play 4th edition. Can't wait to see the warscrolls for my factions. What they have been doing for Stormcast is so good!
I meant to reply to this message with my last 😅
-
50 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Interesting. It seems so much more approachable to me than the huge blocks of text we had before. No more digging through the rules text for activation timing, casting values, your phase vs. any phase etc.
But what I am really excited about is the Anti-KEYWORD stuff. I'm super excited to see what new roles all those redundant units from past editions get.
Really exited about Ruination, too. I am already finding myself planning out colour schemes.
The last article got me excited and gave me a lot of hope. I felt a little uneasy after the subfactions preview that some aspects of the game might be getting oversimplified, but the combat phase looks to be cleaner and also more interesting than before.
I’m a big fan of the weapon specific abilities and more clearly defined roles that units seem to be given, such as infantry killers, objective holders etc. For me this adds an additional layer of tactics and makes things feel more flavourful and in keeping with the actual identity of the units on the table.
Like you I’m excited to see specific warscrolls and rules for my faction! (SBGL).
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Ferban said:
Today's topic covers battle traits and battle formations. Battle traits are more or less as we would expect them to be. Rules that give a particular faction special abilities. And they show off one that requires a command point. I'm not sure I'm super in love with additional command point abilities for each army, but if they are limited to one per army, maybe it will be easy enough to share the one with your opponent before each game.
The battle formations (new subfactions) seem like a miss for me. I was excited that they would no longer be tied to lore or color schemes and would instead be based on how you want to play. But the ones they showed off aren't like that at all. They are tied to Stormcast chambers. They show off one for Warriors and one for Extremis. Both seem fairly bland. For me, that's really the first rules reveal that hasn't seemed like a dramatic improvement. If anything, it's a slight downgrade as it seems to have the same problem of focusing the player down one path (all Bladegheists get mortals!) while losing the fluff that at least gave you a narrative hook to play that style.
Oh well, they can't all be bangers.
I had the same reaction. It felt like a rebranding of the current system, minus the narrative intrigue. The new subfactions (“battle formations”) appear to have all the same kind of restrictions as before (relating only to specific unit types), however now there’s is no lore… which apparently allows us to paint them however we like for the first time.
I’m also concerned that there might only be a single trait for each battle formation, which to me would feel like dumbing down faction rules, while keeping numerous core rules I’d happily have seen stripped away. That’s the oposite of the kind of “streamlining” I’d like to see, but hopefully it’s not the case 🤞
-
5
-
-
@Leshoyadut I like your second list (LOB with vengorian lord). I’m similarly attached to blood knights, despite the fact they’re not considered overly competitive and run 5 in my list. I find them versatile and pretty tanky.
My list is similar to yours but still using VLOZD. This is what I’m going to try out post points increases:Army Faction: Soulblight Gravelords
- Army Type: Legion of Blood
- Grand Strategy: Lust for Domination
- Triumphs: InspiredLEADER
1 x Neferata (400)
- Spells: Waste Away1 x Vampire Lord (140)*
- Spells: Hoarfrost1 x Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon (460)*
- General
- Command Traits: Doomed Minions
- Deathlance
- Artefacts: Cloak of Mists and Shadows
- Spells: Vile TransferenceBATTLELINE
20 x Deadwalker Zombies (120)*
10 x Deathrattle Skeletons (100)*
- Skeleton Champion
- Standard Bearer10 x Dire Wolves (140)*
- Doom WolfOTHER
5 x Blood Knights (230)*
- Kastellan
- Standard Bearer
- Templar Lance20 x Grave Guard (150)*
- Seneschal
- 2 x Standard Bearer
- 2 x Hornblower
- Great Wight BladeCORE BATTALIONS:
*Battle Regiment
TOTAL POINTS: (1890/2000)
I think the points add up.
I also might try switching out the zombies for a second unit of dire wolves.
-
1
-
-
I feel like part of the issue with our book is how easy our book tactics are to achieve. They pretty much guarantee 2 VP every turn on top of our healing and resurrecting, which makes our attrition game even stronger. Personally I dislike book tactics. They seem to make the game harder to balance and have too much impact on overall performance. The fact that GW uses them as a balancing method, giving out easy to achieve tactics to struggling factions, I think just perpetuates the problem. Conversely I think having points increased on warscrolls to balance overly strong tactics feels backwards and not great.
Id like to see how we’re doing now with the points changes. I like our rules, but maybe some of them still need tweaked (reduction in hunger possibly, and more conditional resurrection sound feasable). I’m not a fan of running hordes so I would be sad to see the faction focus only on that and I appreciate the current diversity in lists and play-styles available.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Leshoyadut said:
For the subfactions that were over 60% winrate (Vyrkos and LoN), everything will be entirely fine. They'll probably drop, possibly into the fat middle, but they'll definitely still be quite powerful despite losing some units in their lists. The other subfactions will struggle a bit more, especially Kastelai and Avengorii which were already not exactly our top picks and didn't even make the 20 results benchmark for Woehammer's subfactions winrate chart. Given LoB was clearly better than the two of them, and it was already at 52%, they're probably kind of hurting at this point (though LoB is probably still okay).
I agree. I watched the metawatch article and thought that the lead designer (forget his name) was misrepresenting when he claimed that all the sub faction are performing well, in order to justify the widespread points increases. They know that’s not true, but to address the real issues would take too much work/ rewriting rules and warscrolls, which they basically only ever do with the release of a new book. LON and vyrkros will still be strong. LOB feels pretty tight writing lists now, but probably still do well in certain matchups. The other two will continue to struggle. They should have at least reduced the costs of blood knights to help Kastelai. They don’t even see tournament play, and have seen nothing but points increases. I think our book has a lot of well functioning units, but the idea that generally everything over-performs is a myth.
-
1
-
-
I’m just checking back in here after a while away. Hope everyone’s hobby is going well. The battle scroll increases didn’t surprise me much, but I do think they weren’t well targeted. Everything “good” saw an increase because a variety of lists/ subfactions have been over performing, but from what I can tell, that’s partly due to quite specific reasons (zombies, battle tactics are too easy, the hunger is really strong in certain cases). Despite that I think we’ll still be a strong faction with lots of builds, and hopefully now the meta win rate will be reasonable enough that we can make lists and have them last more than a couple of months. I do find it odd that we’re supposed to be a horde faction and there’s basically no cheap chaff battle line option anymore. Fingers crossed these are the last nerfs we’ll see for a while… I didn’t enjoy being the top peroeming faction. It draws too much attention 😉
-
1
-
-
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?
Ps I’m also part of the AOS coach SBGL discord server and it’s very active. I would recommend: https://discord.com/channels/615105941079326721/828937779109953548
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Leshoyadut said:
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. 😅
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.
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. 😅
Wow… you are thorough 🤣 I agree with a lot of what @MotherGoosesaid generally about blood knights, but also appreciate your thorough input on the topic (I think we’re mostly all in agreement tbf). I didn’t take your tone as stubborn, you presented your data very reasonably and it’s helpful. Similarly I don’t want anyone to think I’m trying to claim blood knights are a trash unit now, or anything similar… I mostly just think the are in a bit of a weird place relative to the sub-factions and how they function. I think they seem to work great in LOB, but in order for Kastelai to be a bit more competitive they probably should come down a bit in points, maybe enough to allow another cheap chaff unit if you are playing multiple units of blood knights. I do maintain that the new riders of ruin ability is quite poor. It only affects units with 3 or less wounds and with the movement and base size of blood knights the chances of being able to move over another unit, or doing mortal wounds on a normal move are quite slim. They’ve kept elements of the old rule, but removed the core mechanic, which allowed them to move out of combat, so now it’s not nearly as relevant.
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, Leshoyadut said:
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.
Kudos for the thorough numbers break down. I definitely hadn’t gone that far, and based my opinion on overall warscroll; minimum 5” charge, 5+ mortal wound ward, attacking in 2 ranks, versatility of marks vs the hunger and 6+ ward. (You could add StD banners and Kastelai buffs in but they are quite situational) The 4+ to hit on CK’s is a big disadvantage though for sure… you can’t argue with numbers and yours show that the blood knights do more damage on average. I think the CK’s win on versatility, but I’ll probably have to revise my opinion that they are flat out better.
-
… Regardless I do feel blood knights were overpriced before the nerf, and are more-so now. As far as I’m aware their positive performance has mostly been in LOB as a 10 in combination with Neferata, but outside of that I think they cost too much for what they bring.
Riders of ruin is a really average ability now and basically reads: deal D3 mortal wounds to a unit with 3 or less wounds after charging. Compared to the old warscroll which cost 200 points with retreat and charge I think they are worse, despite the extra rend and reach, and they weren’t exactly breaking the meta before.
-
6 hours ago, Leshoyadut said:
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.
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 😉
Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I like the idea of unit upgrades. I used to play WFB way back when, but I’ve very little desire to return to rank and file. AOS strikes a good balance for me.