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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


swarmofseals last won the day on June 19

swarmofseals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

958 Celestant-Prime

About swarmofseals

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @BaylorCorvette I don't think we have enough recent data to confidently break things down to a really fine degree. I think @l1censetochill's list is vaguely reasonable, although I don't think Slaanesh is that far ahead, and I'd likely move Gloomspite, Stormcast, Nighthaunt, and Nurgle down and move DoK and BoC up. Something like: A: Slaanesh, Skaven, Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, DoK, FEC B: LoN, IDK, Khorne C : Sylvaneth, Gloomspite, Stormcast, BoC D : Seraphon, KO, Nurgle, Nighthaunt F: Gutbusters, BCR, StD I'd speculate Cities of Sigmar at the "A" tier and Orruk Warclans at either A or B (I'd lean toward A). IDK is very close to A tier, and it's possible that Sylvaneth belongs in B. Seraphon is close to C tier and possibly belongs there. I'd loosely interpret the tiers as A: regulars at the top tables B: commonly seen at top tables but not as regular C : puts up mixed results, perfectly capable of placing highly D : Rarely if ever in the top standings but can definitely get a winning record F : Non-competitive, will be a huge uphill struggle. Do note that some books struggle with internal balance. IDK is probably the poster child for this, leaning super heavily on one or two builds that are very competitive, and basically every other build is something like a low C or high D.
  2. With the recent release of Cities of Sigmar there has been a lot of talk about using units as "counts as" for other units that are visually or thematically similar (for example, re-purposing Swordmasters as Freeguild Greatswords or Skycutters as Scourgerunner Chariots). I was hoping to get a better idea of how major tournament organizers (GT level tournaments, including both indies and official heats etc.) deal with this. I'd love to hear from anyone who has either been involved in running such a tournament or attends them frequently enough to have experience with this question. Do major events typically allow these kinds of counts-as? What about a more extreme case -- say someone making a Legion of Azgorh army that "counts as" Cities of Sigmar, with correct basing and sensible counts-as?
  3. This probably isn't the best place for this, but I found a pile of OOP LOTR stuff and I'm only getting 1-2 eBay results for many of the items (and a few no results at all). Are any of you experts in LOTR mini valuation? or know someone who is that might be able to help me out?
  4. Definitely watching this. Those Crypt Horrors are NASTY. Poor gryph hounds!
  5. Are you forgetting the bajillion other kits that they have already previewed? Clearly you will be able to get bonereapers without buying this set. This set is the week 1 release only, there are certainly more to come over the next week or two.
  6. Another thing worth noting is that this boxed set looks to be HUGELY imbalanced in favor of the death side, cost-wise. 6 Ogors, 2 Leadbelchers, and an Ironblaster = $95 MSRP, plus the tyrant We don't know the costs of the Death side yet, but I'd be surprised if the Mortek Guard are any less than $50 for 10 and the Necropolis Stalkers probably are $50-$60 per 3. Morghasts are $60 for 2. So I'm guessing the Death side will have an MSRP of something like $160-170 plus the hero. Our most recent comparison, Looncurse, has the Sylvaneth side coming in at $138 plus hero and the Gloomspite part coming in at $95 plus the hero. So that's a total value of $233 plus heroes. Carrion Empire had a total box value of $275 plus the heroes. Blood of the Phoenix has a value of $185 plus the new units and heroes. I honestly don't know what the Incubi and Howling Banshees would cost at retail, but I'd be shocked if they were more than 40-50 for 5 models. So that puts the total box value of Blood of the Phoenix at $265-285 or so plus the heroes. Feast of Bones looks to be something like $255-265 plus the heroes. I'm guessing we will see a $230 USD MSRP for Feast of Bones just like Blood of the Phoenix.
  7. Wow, I'm pretty stunned on multiple fronts! I wasn't expecting them to sneak in Mawtribes concurrently with Bonereapers, and I really wasn't expecting them to come right out with a discount box for a newly released faction. I know the hints strongly pointed at bonereapers vs. ogors for that box... but I'm still surprised that they are actually doing it.
  8. Hi all, I'm looking to build my cities collection with the following: Hammerers/LongbeardsIrondrakes/IronbreakersSisters of the Watch/Sisters of Avelorn Eternal Guard Darkshards Black Guard Nomad Prince Freeguild General on Griffon Demigryph Knights Lord Arcanum (on foot) Freeguild Pistoliers Only interested in most recent versions, unbuilt preferred but I'd consider any condition. I've got cash or tons of things to trade. I'm in the US but if buying I'm happy to pay for international shipping if it makes sense (and it often does).
  9. I think that people in general are pretty bad at recognizing when they hold internally conflicting viewpoints. We largely go about life acting as if we need to have one clear take on things, but internally that's often not the case. The way we talk about identity is very categorical and only serves to compound the problem. There's pressure, for example, to identify as a "casual" gamer or a "competitive" gamer which typically means lining up with a general perception of what that term means. And if you don't present yourself as if you line up in the way you are supposed to, you open yourself up to gatekeeping. A person might aspire to be casual and legitimately care more about the hobby aspect, but if they have a somewhat competitive personality they still might get frustrated or feel bad when they lose. Local culture also plays a role. If being competitive is looked down on in your area, you might position yourself as casual to fit in. But that's not going to magically change how you feel about winning and losing. Similarly, if your area is super competitive and talks down about "casuals" you might position yourself as competitive and act competitive, but that won't magically make you enjoy tournament style gameplay.
  10. Personally if I were to do a Skaven Battleforce I'd focus on Verminus. I'm not sure of the total value in these boxes, but I'd imagine it'd end up being something like: Verminlord 40 Clanrats 20 Stormvermin Plastic Clawlord Maybe a Hell Pit Abomination? Without the HPA that's $250 on the nose, which IIRC is around where these boxes fell last year.
  11. I'm really surprised that the Mortek Guard are on 25s. I would expect 32s if not 40s. If they are indeed on 25s or 32s though that bodes really well for conversions using Tomb Kings bits. I'm very sad though that the Gothizzar Harvester is as small as it is. I was hoping it'd be huge enough to be on a 100-130mm round as it's the perfect fit for a very complex conversion that I've wanted to do for a long time, but I need more space than a 105x70 will provide.
  12. I think that the overall premise here is a bit dubious. I wish I could cite updated results from The Honest Wargamer, but he hasn't updated his page in a few months. Look at the London GT results though. 11 different factions scored 4-1 or better, and 17 different factions had winning records out of 25 factions that appeared in the event (note: I am counting things like "Legion of Blood" and "Legion of Sacrament" as separate factions. If you don't do this, then the numbers are actually even better). I absolutely agree with you that there is a perception that balance is poor, and I'm sure if you look at the game purely locally it will appear that way in some places. But overall I don't think the facts agree with perception. Even before GHB2019 I think balance was better than people gave it credit for. There were a few factions that were clearly a bit ahead of the rest, but the vast majority of battletome factions were +-10% of a 50% win rate. Considering how many factions exist and how much control TO's have over the way the game is played I'd say that's pretty remarkable. Are there tiers in the game? Yeah, there certainly are. If I had to make a guess, I think it's something like this right now: Top Tier: FEC, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, Cities of Sigmar, Orruk Warclans, Skaven, DoK, Idoneth Mid Tier: Legions of Nagash (including Grief), Blades of Khorne, SCE, Sylvaneth, Beasts of Chaos Low Tier: Nurgle, Nighthaunt, Gloomspite, Seraphon Garbage Tier: Slaves to Darkness, Ogors/BCR I'm really not sure where to place KO on this list. I would have thought low tier but they've had enough buzz since GHB2019 that maybe they should be higher. I think an argument could be made for moving Gloomspite up too. Basically you've got a mix of recent and older books throughout, although not having a 2.0 battletome (or any battletome at all) is a pretty strong strike against a faction. That said, everything outside the garbage tier is perfectly capable of winning a tournament. I think that level of balance is quite good. It could definitely be better, but it's quite good. So then why is the perception that balance is bad? I think there's a bunch of reasons: Historically, GW has not taken game balance very seriously. It's only really in the past couple of years (as far as I know) that GW has been moving in a positive direction on balance. You mentioned that you aren't familiar with how things were in WHFB. While I certainly don't know the full history of competitive WHFB, for the time that I played it was far more unbalanced with usually only a couple of factions being tournament viable. When a company has decades of not caring about balance driving the narrative, it's going to take a while for perceptions to shift. Confirmation bias is massive. Imbalance is a great excuse. People are generally quite poor at taking responsibility for their failures, and there are loads of players that will blame anything but themselves for their losses. In my experience, the loudest people on forums tend to be low to mid level competitive players. In my experience, these are also the players that tend to be most vocal about games being imbalanced. Top level players tend to be a lot more circumspect. In other games (such as Magic) the top players have a pretty big voice in the community. Magic pros tend to be pretty prolific in their writing, and those articles have a big impact on perception. In Warhammer, the top players are mostly pretty quiet. There are a few infrequently updated podcasts and some post on twitter. As a result, their voices don't provide a counter-point to mid and low level players complaining about balance. Broadly speaking, humans are awful at accurately perceiving the results of probability. This fits in with the confirmation bias point above. It doesn't take all that many coinflips before it's likely that you'll see a string of four or five of the same result in a row. If you're looking for a streak to "prove" that the coin isn't random, chances are good that you can find it. Even a perfectly balanced game will have small sample sizes where one side appears to dominate. Perception quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If people think that you have to run one of four or five builds to be competitive, then the metagame will quickly become skewed towards those lists. The fact that you are seeing them more frequently will then reinforce the perception of imbalance. In general, people love to complain. As to your last point, consider who those livestreams are aimed at. I'm guessing the folks who watch that kind of coverage are much more likely to be competitive or at least aspirational-competitive players. You talk about what you think your audience is interested in hearing about It's the same reason you don't see Duncan talking about game stuff during his videos. Those videos are aimed at a hobby audience, so they stick to hobby content. The initial claim here is flat out factually incorrect, and the claim that you have to meta chase to maximize winning percentage is questionable. Mediocre players vastly underestimate the importance of having experience and practice with an army. The same thing happens in Magic: The Gathering. There are hordes of OK-at-best players that will buy into whatever deck just won a Pro Tour and then get surprised when they can't just cakewalk through the competition with it. In contrast, you can also observe truly great players who can and do win with decks that are off meta due to their level of experience and knowledge with the deck. A lot of those mediocre players would actually be better served sticking with a deck and playing it consistently rather than hopping from list to list. You see the same phenomenon in Warhammer. Some people meta chase thinking that they have to play the new hotness in order to win, only to see the real top players come in and crush the tournament with some army that they have been playing for the past eighteen months with minor tweaks.
  13. In retrospect I think the wording here was a dead giveaway. If they were going to be available for purchase in October they likely would have said so, thus "pre order in October" all but confirms that it'll be the last week in the month.
  14. Is it just me or does Adrax Agatone sound like a citadel paint color?
  15. We really don't know what was buffed or nerfed until we have the entire book in front of us, but just looking at the warscrolls aside from allegiance and point changes, I don't think it's fair to say that IJs got nerfed overall. It's definitely a mixed bag. The Weirdnob Shaman is probably the clearest nerf with the loss of the casting bonus. The other major nerf, so to speak, is the way the command abilities were changed. Rather than stacking an absurd number of different sources of bonus to attacks, the three command abilities all provide the same reliable +1 hit with no ability to stack. It certainly does make Gordrakk stand out a bit more though as his CA is now simply a better version of the Megaboss one as opposed to a once per battle gimmick. The Gordrakk/Maw Krusha melee profiles are slightly different, and destructive bulk is a bit worse but overall the changes are relatively small. Brutes are also probably a little worse. The klaw boss lost a little damage, and Duff Up Da Big Thing is probably a bit worse now as well. There are a number of clear buffs though. The most obvious one is the Warchanter, which is absolutely crazy now. Adding +1 damage to a unit of Ardboys or Gore Gruntas is absolutely ridiculously strong. The previous bonus of +1 to hit is typically a 25%-33% boost to a unit's damage output. +1 damage on any unit with a damage characteristic of 1 is a 100% boost to that unit's damage output. So yeah, the Warchanter is now dishing out one of the most powerful buffs in the game and it can't be countered and can't fail. Gore-Gruntas are also improved. Before, a unit of Gore-Gruntas would deal an average of 8.91 rend weighted damage, or 11.91 when making an 8"+ charge. Now choppas do 10.68 rend weighted damage when not charging and 13.02 when charging, while gore hackas do 8.91 when not charging and 14.57 when charging. That's strictly better, and there's no longer any reason to attempt long charges. Ardboys are also nearly strictly better. The new weapon profile is not just simplified, but it averages more rend weighted damage than any of the old weapon profiles. And now you get to take 40% of your unit with shields without losing any damage output. Not counting the boss bonus (which is improved on the new warscroll), the new scroll gives you 18.22% more offense and 8% more defense than an offense-optimized unit of ardboys using the old scroll.
  • Create New...