Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

swarmofseals

Members
  • Content Count

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

swarmofseals last won the day on July 3

swarmofseals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,217 Celestant-Prime

About swarmofseals

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The problem with this plan is that it plants the twinstones in your backfield. They only have a 12" range, and you are going to need to push in many battleplans. If it's a battleplan that enables turtling then this may work fine, but in many plans you won't be able to put the stones in your backfield and still benefit when you need them for your wardens (who need to resolve power on the turn that they plan to melee).
  2. One dice roll per wound allocated. Armor saves happen before wounds are allocated to models. Special ("ward") saves happy after wounds are allocated. So if you have multiple ward saves this rule affects you, but if you have an armor save and one ward save then it does not. Here are some concrete examples. Imagine you have a unit with a 4+ armor save and a 5+ ward save. Your opponent rolls a damage three attack, hits, and wounds. At this point no damage has been allocated yet. You have to roll your armor save to prevent the damage. You roll one die. If you roll 4+ you take no damage. If you roll a 1, 2 or 3 you take 3 damage. This is your armor save. Let's say you fail the armor save. Now you allocate 3 damage and roll 3 dice for your ward save. For each 5+ you negate one damage. Under the new rule things work exactly the same. You roll your 1 armor save for each successful attack and then roll 1 ward save die for each damage allocated. You lose nothing. If you had a 4+ armor save and two 6+ ward saves, however, you would only be able to take one of those 6+ saves under this new rule. _____ People should also note that under this new rule abilities that allow you to ignore the effects of a spell are different from ward saves. Hallowheart rolls to ignore a spell before the damage from the spell is even rolled. So if you have a spell ignore ability and a ward save you still get to do both under the new rule.
  3. This is definitely a way to get some damage out of your extra wizards, but it's yet another points sink, unreliable against armies with good unbinding and also can potentially backfire since LRL are so vulnerable to mortal wounds already. Utility spells like palisade or twinstones don't have the risk of backfiring so much, of course. Anyway, a big part of the problem with a slow army is that the onus will be on you to dislodge your opponent from objectives in many games. Turtling up may be viable in some battleplans, but across a long tournament it won't be reliable. Yeah, twinstones are likely going to be very useful. BUT they themselves are vulnerable to getting unbound, so they don't really solve much against an army with serious unbinding power already.
  4. I'm not familiar with the AoS Statshammer app but the math is off at least somewhat. Diamondpick Hammers are generally the better option for stoneguard, and it's actually better to not give the champion Stratum Hammers. I also think you probably want to skip the standard bearer, although that could be argued either way. Regardless, the math that I was referring to completely controls for the unit cost as it's a measure of damage per point. I don't deny that wardens are more efficient on offense, but that it's not that big of a difference. Defensively I showed the math in my post. You don't get hosed by things that fight at the start of the combat phase because Mountain Stance is triggered in your own hero phase or before the battle starts. I also don't see taking the battalion or Avalenor as a real cost here as you need to keep your drops low (and thus want the battalion), and you want Avalenor anyway as he's probably the most clearly good hero option LRL has. Some battleplans really favor having a tough hero and, well, Avalenor is the only option. He's also quite good in his own right. I don't think you need to be in Ymetrica to make stoneguard far far better than wardens on defense, although it does certainly help. Also, keep in mind that with the battalion you just have to be WW 12 of any hero. So if you take Avalenor and the stonemage you have two options for your 12" bubble which makes it much easier to pull off. You're absolutely right about model count for objectives though, although Stoneguard being able to push the opponent off objectives is also relevant here.
  5. Battlemage increase is nicely offset by drops for Lord Arcanum and Knight-Incantor, though. Really not much of a nerf for Hallowheart at all.
  6. If the posts on Chumphammer's Twitter feed are to be believed they will likely have some implications for us. Point reductions to Dracothian Guard are quite nice. Not sure what we will see for Sylvaneth. +20 to Scourgerunner Chariots hurts a lot though, so I suspect to see some movement toward Gyrocopters or Gyrobombers instead.
  7. So the rumor based on the Chumphammer twitter pics is that we'll see the following: Salamanders +30 Oldblood on Carno -20 Skink Chief Stegadon -20 Oracle on Trogolodon -40 If this is accurate then Kroak is still going to be solid and one might even consider taking an oracle in Kroak lists. I think you still probably take astrolith + balewind in Starborne lists but if you were to run Kroak in Coalesced then oracle might be an attractive option as a way of extending Kroak's range without forcing Kroak to sit in one spot. Oldblood on Carnosaur and Skink Chief on Stegadon changes are both nifty. They might be pretty meaningful or not depending on if they are allowing for a new combination of units to fit into 2k. I haven't looked at Thunderquake or Koatl's Claw lists in a while so I'm not really sure what this might enable. Salamanders to 110 is a beating. They're still good enough to consider using but no longer an auto-include. I'd bet Dracothion's Tail lists will still want at least 3 but fitting more than that could be hard. I'd still probably take them over Kroxigors in the behemoth battalion too.
  8. I have no idea if those leaks are accurate or not, but if they are then it seems likely that the Cities points in the book itself will have no updates and that the updates will be included in the followup PDF. One of the documents he posted lists Cities changes that aren't on the page that he posted.
  9. Yeah, you absolutely need the battalion and the mountain. But if you want to keep your drops down you are taking a battalion anyway, and the Alarith battalion gives you everything you want to support the stoneguard. Take a look at the defensive efficiencies (here represented in effective wounds per point against r0/r1/r2/mortal wounds): Stoneguard vs. ranged damage are .2/.2/.12/.1 and in battalion vs. melee are .4/.4/.225/.1. In Ymetrica just replace the r2 number with the r1 number. Wardens are .2/.136/.1/.083 with battalion bonus and .167/.125/.1/.083 without. These numbers are improved by about 33% by Shining Company. In the context of the game at large, a defensive efficiency against r0 of .3 is at the top end of the spectrum with very few units exceeding that mark. A rating of .2 is OK but nothing special, .15 is mediocre and .1 and below is outright bad. When you look at it this way, you can see that Stoneguard stand out. .4 is excellent against r0 and even moreso against r1 or r2. The gap is closed some when Shining Company is active, but it's not even close to enough to even things out. The only situation where Wardens and Stoneguard are even of defense is vs. r0 shooting. In every other situation Stoneguard are far better -- about 20% better against mortal wounds, 100% better against r0 melee, 220% better against r1 melee and 300% better against r2 melee (if Ymetrica). My offensive numbers are more complicated and I really don't want to go over the details. But if you're willing to accept that, wardens at baseline are a .0989 that goes up to .1404 with Power of Hysh. Stoneguard have a baseline of .0803 that pops up to .1205 with +1 attack and a bit higher with Stonemage Stance (which I think is a bonus that will be difficult to use). So wardens are about 23% better at baseline and 16.5% better when buffed. The stoneguard buff is easier to achieve though as it never fails and can't be unbound. Yes, Avalenor might die but he is really quite hard to kill. Power of Hysh will only succeed about 72-83% of the time (depending on Zaitrec or not) and that's not factoring in unbinds. Against some opponents (Nagash, Kroak etc.) you'll have very little chance of resolving it. Stoneguard are a bit slower but they can at least run while keeping their defensive buffs up while wardens can neither run nor really change formation easily while keeping Shining Company active. Getting around terrain will be a problem for larger warden units. Stoneguard also have the additional utility of pushing. The main point in favor of wardens is their wizard status. Their unbind is nice, especially in Zaitrec. The fact that they can cast a lore spell is very good, but most of the lore spells are utility spells that don't help you deal damage. And if they are casting a lore spell they aren't casting Power of Hysh. TL;DR - Stoneguard are far better than wardens on defense in most situations while wardens are only better than stoneguard on offense by a small margin (and worse in some matchups where Power of Hysh is unrealistic). PS - Wardens behind Stoneguard could be a nice way of concentrating damage, but again I don't know how to make it all fit into a list. Between drop count, wanting sentinels, and wanting dawnriders something has to give and I'm not sure how to give something without breaking the list.
  10. I'll send you a PM about this that answers your question more directly, but I want to be clear that I'm not intending my post to be a review of the army. I have no illusions about my take being definitive and even if I were a world class player I wouldn't suggest that my take is definitive as it's really not plausible to have enough actual play experience to have a definitive take at this point (barring maybe actual playtesters). I'm honestly hoping that someone with high level experience (like yourself, perhaps) will chime in and make a counterargument because I really would love to be wrong.
  11. I've now got my own copy of the battletome and have been trying to wrap my head around it. I really, really want these guys to be good but the more I try the more frustrated I get! Disclaimer: all of this is from a competitive perspective. I think these guys are going to be perfectly viable in almost any configuration in a casual or semi-competitive environment. ALL of the warscrolls are good enough to use, and now that I've crunched the numbers I'm fairly confident that I was wrong about too many warscrolls being redundant. There's very little redundancy in the book. First, here are my brief thoughts on all of the warscrolls: Thoughts on Great Nations: So this leads me to the following frustrations: Stoneguard are the only warscroll that is good enough at what it does to form a viable core to the army, but they aren't battleline and they aren't good enough all around (like Mortek Guard or Hearthguard Berserkers) to actually carry the army. Wardens are probably the worst non-hero/monster warscroll, but also the only battleline option outside Ymetrica. Sentinels and Dawnriders both seem necessary, but neither can really form the core of the army as they are also niche. They (especially Sentinels) also really want to be in Zaitrec. The army has no screening unit. Wardens can't really screen in Shining Company (and are too expensive for the role anyway), and Stoneguard who could screen are bad at it because they are 2W per base instead of 1. In the end I can't figure out how to build a legal list that will actually do what I want it to do reliably. If I go Ymetrica, my Sentinels become much less reliable. If I go Zaitrec I don't have enough points to keep my drops to a reasonable level, get the support units that I need and get enough Stoneguard to form a core. I don't really see how any build of Lumineth beats Deepkin, Tzeentch, or a ranged heavy Cities or Seraphon build. If you go too heavy on sentinels, then I think you can add Orruk Warclans to that list. So yeah, I feel pretty stuck.
  12. Ossiarch Bonereapers are definitely the most extreme version of what you are talking about with Mortek Guard as one of the best defensive units in the game backed up by solid artillery. Cities of Sigmar are a bit less extreme but more versatile. There are several good defensive infantry options and loads of good shooting. Seraphon can be built like this with Engine of the Gods and Bastiladons as shooters but they aren't naturally defensive. Lumineth Realm Lords can definitely play this way with a line of Stoneguard backed up with Sentinels. If you are crazy rich Legion of Azgorh has this playstyle as well, but they have less support as they are a forgeworld product line. Personally if you want newer models I'd go with OBR or Lumineth (if you can wait for the full army release).
  13. If you've got cash to burn the Alarielle model from late WHFB would make a great cathaller.
  14. Dude how can we not support you! I don't know if I've ever seen anyone as enthusiastic about anything in my life. GW should send you copies of the kits and battletome right now so you can write or make a video promoting them XD -- I doubt if anyone could make them sound better than you will.
×
×
  • Create New...