Sagittarii Orientalis
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sagittarii Orientalis
-
-
One thing I have noticed while playing both 40K and AoS during the last decade is that simply nerfing the most competitive units(or in other words, "must-haves") does not necessarily diversify list compositions: the players simply bring fewer "must-haves" due to points increase or performance nerf, but they do not suddenly take uncompetitive units which were overlooked before.
Just because Stormdrake Guard and Justicar units(particularly longstrikes and judicators) were nerfed does not mean celestar ballistas and stardrakes will suddenly become popular. Nerfing the best options do very little to achieve greater internal diversity. The nerf should be done in tandem with buffs to underperforming units, which unfortunately is what GW has failed to do at least for Stormcasts.-
10
-
-
So once-per-game Thunderbolt Volley has been nerfhammered, but 15 Blood Stalkers shooting in hero phase every turn has been completely untouched? Is there something I am missing?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2d6 attacks on rend -1 bow is never really an enticing factor anyway.
As long as Drakesworn Templar has the atrocious 4+ save, he will never be taken over Lord-Celestant on Stardrake.
-
42 minutes ago, umlaut31 said:
How do you find the damage output of the ballistas, and how many do you use? I have quite a few sat on the shelf and a lord ordinator - love the models but never thought their damage would match up to the equivalent points spent on raptors, so for competitive games always lean towards raptors and thunderbolt volley. But always interested in changing things up!
I regularly use 2 knight judicators and 3 ballistas in stormkeep list...for casual games, unfortunately.
Ballistas' damage output is too unreliable for their cost.
In fact, replacing 3 ballistas with 2 knight judicators is way more efficient use of points.
If you want to take competitive shooting unit that is also not vanguard raptors, do not take ballistas.
Big block of judicators or even multiple knight judicators would serve you better.
I use multiple ballistas only because I like the model and the lore.
-
1
-
-
My lists are hardly affected by the new battlescroll update.
Longstrike Raptors have absurd firepower, but their fragility is equally absurd.
In fact, I never used Longstrike Raptors since the new SCE tome was released as they are easily wiped out by even the most modest shooting or spells. They are as good as dead as soon as you loose thunderbolt volley on the first turn. I have instead relied on 15 judicators and/or knight-Judicators supported by ballistas.
-
1 minute ago, Carnith said:
They aren't. One's a prayer that I can't interact with. The other is subject to poor dice rolls and opponents usually having wizards to counterspell.
And translocation is far less impactful in terms of mobility. I honestly do not understand your message. Translocation has less "cost" involved, but also grants less mobility compared to Ironjaws trick. Ironjaws earn much better results for more costs involved, although some might argue that it's too rewarding for the cost.
I personally would like to see all out-of-phase movement and shooting removed altogether from the game to mitigate alpha strikes in the game, but it maybe too drastic a change for GW to handle.
-
3 minutes ago, Carnith said:
Also I keep seeing how busted IJ's teleport in when it comes on a fragile caster, or thorugh a warlord battalion with often no buffs to cast on a 7+ and spend CP to get a move. Compared to... a 2+. Yeah okay.
If I can make my hammer units to actually move after teleportation, then I would gladly pay those costs. You write as if the Ironjaw shenanigan you mentioned and translocation are identical.
-
3 hours ago, vinnyt said:
I haven't seen ANY battle reports with pictures and analysis in the stormcast subforum. Absolutely no attempt at actually playtesting alternative builds besides people just reporting "oh yeah i did this and it didn't work". The SCE community seems only united in their bitterness that not every unit is an absolute wrecking ball at all things. You want the other 62!!!! warscrolls in your book to be competitive? Maybe actually try them in fusion builds with proven pieces. Find synergies. Heck, you've got a podcast that's pretty darn good. Throw some batreps on there.
Also not sure what you mean by not being able to get foot units into combat. You may not be able to choose the exact combat, but Gotrek managed just fine with 4" movement and he doesn't even get a deepstrike or teleport. Oh, you can also resurrect them for free in a couple different ways to help mitigate chip damage.
"Maybe actually try them in fusion builds with proven pieces. Find synergies." is not a valid argument against posters who complained about internal balance of SCE battletomes. You are not providing any counterexamples. The argument is not too different from pointless "git gud" rhetoric which occasionally comes out in balance discussions.
Also if you think making an intact unit of paladins, which usually have 3+ save, across the board on foot to combat is similar to sending Gotrek, a model with one of the best defensive mechanisms existing in the game, into melee then I must highly doubt your capability to make fair comparisons between units.
And resurrection does not come free in SCE, unless you meant to say investing 300+ points on Yndrasta with lackluster combat power costs nothing in already expensive SCE roster. If you were referring to Lord-Arcanum's unique ability, then you are vastly overestimating its utility.
-
As an owner of a battery consisting of 4 celestar ballistas, even 10 points discount per model would be appreciated.
Better solution would be increasing the consistency of the damage output. D6 damage for a single shot that has to hit, wound, and hope for the enemy to fail save is too unreliable for its cost.
Changing the damage characteristic for the single shot profile to 2d3 would improve ballista's performance in this regard. Or maybe d3+3, just like how damage characteristics of some iconic heavy weaponry(lascannon) in 40K are changing into.
In fact I'd rather see all d6 characteristics, which are not exclusive to stormcast warscrolls, removed altogether from the game.
-
4
-
-
All abilities allowing movement or shooting in hero phase should altogether be removed.
It gives too much importance to early phases(i.e. first two battle rounds) of the game and, combined with lack of tactically meaningful terrain rules, relegates the matchups into "who decides the priority". Removal of such abilities, along with improvement of terrain rules and layout, would help toning down lethality of the game; thus making later phases of the game more meaningful.
-
6
-
-
19 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Nighthaunt recently went 4-1 at Da Boyz GT and 5-0 at Little Bo Peep GT. I think Beasts of Chaos also recently went 4-1. Not to mention the other recent notable upsets, like Flesh Eater Courts, OBR and Slaanesh:
As far as competitive games go, AoS seems to have a fairly healthy number of tournament viable factions and a combination of skill and luck seems to allow even low tier factions to have a shot at winning a tournament.
I must first confess that I am no expert on interpreting statistics.
But isn't it "disingenuous" to conclude that the above table shows "fairly healthy number of tournament viable factions", when top factions are sporting 20 or even more(in case of SoB, more than 50) 4-1 Wins while Nighthaunt and BoC have ...... 2 or 5 4-1 Wins? And I am not counting 5-0 Wins, of which there are none for two factions(nighthaunt, BoC) you have specifically cited.
Unless you are assuming the faction is competitively "viable" as long as there is even a single case of 4-1 Wins for any faction, regardless of how great the gap between top performing factions and underperforming factions is.
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
Don’t buy dragons this weekend guys (unless you like the models). This from discord, same source correctly leaked a menagerie change and translocation nerf:
From sources:
Winter faq will bring:
point increase for:
- fulminators, dragons and longstrikes
- New scroll for dragonsIt would be ludicrously comical if the usual suspects of the meta(sentinels, morathi + stalkers, tzeentch archaon, sons of behemat) evade nerf bat while already costly vanguard raptors get point hike. Even more hilarious if GW leaves pile of underpowered SCE warscrolls untouched.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
As for Sentinels, I suppose we could argue that Covid and the edition change delayed their first balancing passes. Those two factors resulted in the AoS winter FAQ being skipped last year, after all. However, I suspect the real reason is that Sentinels are just working as intended. Their relatively mild point increase in the post 3.0 FAQ suggests this. They are probably just supposed to be an overperormer in their role. Since they can't be spammed effectively anymore, maybe the rules team thinks they are fine now.
Then all the more reasons for me to doubt their competence and/or "equitableness" towards various factions. I do not think I have ever witnessed massive points nerf on models that are yet to be released, let alone accumulate enough data on competitive scenes.
-
So the models that were not even released along with the battletome is found to be too strong, according to Studio's extra playtesting.
And the Studio bumped the stormdrake guards' point to 340 from 285.
Now, I do not totally disagree with the points increase on the stormdrake guard, although stunning 55 points increase might be debatable.
But their decision does make me wonder: if they were enthusiastic enough to drastically adjust points on models that have yet to see tournament plays, how come they are so slow to apply changes to factions/models that are already overperforming for months? You know, Lumineth Sentinels for example?
The rules designers maybe doing their best for the balance of the game, but what they have done effectively through this action is making me lose faith in their capabilities.
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
I can give anecdotes instead, if that helps? I went to a tournament on the 30th of October, and played against a Slaves to Darkness list with Archaon in Feral Foray. It was easily the most intense, hard-fought games I've ever played - it's a powerful army, and was piloted by a skilled player. Use of defensive resources was extremely important: I had to carefully sacrifice units and spend resources to keep Archaon busy while dealing with the rest of my opponent's army. Only after his support was eroded and his own defensive buffs spent and unavailable did I seize the opportunity to take him out (on turn 4).
My opponent made sure to keep defensive buffs available for Archaon as much as possible, but he also wasn't brainlessly buffing him when it wasn't needed and would use those resources elsewhere when he knew it was safe to do so. However, I do think that the emphasis on keeping a "safety net" for Archaon made him more hesitant to buff other units, and that eventually gave me the edge I needed to scrape out the win (it was something like 29 to 27 VP in the final tally).
If I'd just charged in against a fully-buffed Archaon I would have lost the game, no question. The list is way too strong for that. But recognising that, and having to work out how to survive and win without just taking Archaon off the table right away, led to the most enjoyable game of AoS I've ever played. Hence my position: save stacking makes the game more interesting.
That explanation is definitely more helpful. I really appreciate it.
However, I think you missed out the most important part: what army, and what roster did you use? There are still power discrepancies across the board, and some armies might lack the tools to achieve the goal you have mentioned and hence struggle even with right tactics. For example Lumineth Realm-lords and the new Stormcasts(which I play) might have little trouble removing enemy support piece from afar, whereas some other factions with older tomes do not have such luxury.
As many members have already pointed out, newer tomes and already powerful tomes might leisurely deal with 3+ save monsters with stacked saves. But I am not so sure about other numerous factions who do not have such privilege.
-
2
-
-
Of course the timing of save stacking is important. Question is, why would you not stack the saves for your Archaon, Vhordrai or Nagash when entire KO fleet or 6 vanguard raptors are shooting at your monster? How often does it happen, and how meaningful is it in actual competitive play?
However, let us suppose outmanouevring lists with save stacking powerful 3+ save monsters is far from problematic. As you have explained, removing objective holders and support heroes are valid options. Why then do multiple factions with access to such lynchpin models perform very well in competitive tournaments?
Stats provided by HonestWargamer show Slaves to Darkness or Tzeentch lists boasting winrate of 60% or more, with Archaon being a staple choice in large number of winning lists. There might be other examples such as soulblight lists with Nagash or Vhordrai too. Although as of now I will cite Archaon lists as an example since I haven't looked up tournament stats for Death factions.
Unless you want to argue that most players who played against Archaon lists at top tables were tactically incompetent, I think using actual game examples would be more helpful to demonstrate your point effectively.
Maybe there is subtle nuance of gameplay I overlooked. Or perhaps I misinterpreted statistics, or in the worst case I was referring to misleading statistics. Any in-depth discussion citing cases of actual competitive gameplay would be very helpful
-
3
-
-
What is so tactically brilliant about stacking as many saves on centrepiece monster model then? This does not seem more novel and advanced than the "classical" and "inflexible" tactic you have mentioned. All you need to do is include good 3+ save monster, supporting characters in your roster, and then just effortlessly apply buffs to the said monster. Might as well just play MTG at that point.
I think the issue is exacerbated by large number of battleplans with objectives clustered at the centre of the board. It basically degrades the game into melee brawl. Tactical manoeuvre becomes less meanigful than battleplans with objectives spread around the board. And winning is easier said than done without removing fully buffed 3+ monsters.
However If I were to change rules while maintaining save stacking, first I would remove all sources of re-rolling saves, including the ones so much favoured by many Archaon lists sporting winning rate of 60% or more.
Then change all out attack so that it gives extra rend to the weapons used by the unit receiving the command. OR change all out defence into giving -1 penalty on to hit rolls to enemy units instead. Save stacking still works, but players will have to become more considerate before throwing out extra saves wantonly.
P.S. I prefer Finest Hour giving +1 bonus to Hit rolls instead of save rolls, but that change might not be necessary.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, Phasteon said:
Dice rolls happen - he overall failed many saves, but he also saved many D3 and D2 shots and the KO player still had a unit of Riggers to shoot. (with potentially 6 MWs via drill launchers)
I don‘t claim that Kragnos was dead there a 100% in general but in this batrep for sure he was.
And my point still stands - how problematic can save stacking really be if a 700+ model with a 0+ save still dies in one round of focused fire?
Even if he took just like 8-10 wounds he would die as soon as finest hour went away.
As I said in my caveat, I do not have the full picture of that german battle report - there are moments where the uploader did not record the full process and instead skipped here and there.
Sure, Kragnos might have had average roll for his save during the actual game - or perhaps much less than average. Either scenario could be plausible.
Regardless, taking literally one example(of which we do not have full understanding) to support your opinion that save stacking high save monsters is not problematic seems to be at best ... hasty generalisation.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Can you share the Game? I'm really interested in this type of games because KOs have a really hard problem to kill things in this save-stacking season.
I am not sure if this is the battle report which Phasteon referred to, but it features a game between KO and SoB.
KOs removing Kragnos in a single turn can be seen from 19:09 to 24:34, although It seems that controlling player of Kragnos rolled 1's for his saves suspiciously often - he rolled 1 for every 2~3 dice frequently.
However the uploader did not seem to have recorded every moment of the game, so this might not be the full picture.
Edit: Phasteon already uploaded the video before I did.
-
1
-
-
I prefer applying rend characteristics after completely resolving save modifiers. So that no matter how many positive save modifiers are applied, save increases by 1 point at maximum. And then the rend modifiers come in. In this situation rend will become more relevant in the meta.
I wonder if save stacking issue will be addressed in the rumoured winter FAQ.
-
3
-
-
Hard to judge without seeing full comment, but sounds like no more than hyperbole to me.
-
26 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Man, I hope Knight-Judicator spam does not become the standard. That would be unfortunate.
To me it's actually a very reasonable choice in competitive games. While I do not wish to beat the dead horse by mentioning the latest FAQ, I think Knight-Judicator spam list perfectly epitomises post-nerf Translocation Stormcast lists. Stormcast melee hammers lack mobility, so many competitive lists are shoehorned into using shooting as their "hammer" instead.
-
33 minutes ago, Phasteon said:
Let‘s be real here.
Stormcast are in a VERY good spot again, most people talking about actual game experience are more than happy, some dude at warhammer world even pulls of victory after victory it seems and every batrep I‘ve watched so far they made a very good performance + in my own games I‘ve never experienced them to be such a potent force before.
Everyone talking trash about the army is either exaggerating massively, which is nothing new on the internet, especially in this forum (Which has a VERY negative atmosphere all around), or just tries to troll other people, ruining their fun for the army / game in general.
If someone like @Ragest called the Lord-Imperatant a marketing trick to force me to play Annihilators at the LGS I‘d literally shut him down, telling him to annoy someone else.
The internet is the only place people are anonymously allowed to talk such nonsense without any real consequences, in reallife people would either shut them down and put them in their place or avoid them.
I partially agree with your comments on the overall improved state of the Stormcasts. I have heard of several tournament winning lists this month across Europe, and I personally feel current Stormcast is still a solidly improved version of the last book; even though the latest GW statistics show Stormcasts being fourth lowest performing faction in 37 events held during the last two months(https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/10/21/metawatch-meet-the-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-armies-upsetting-the-meta-at-the-warhammer-open/).
But your general tone does not seem to differ that much from the negative hyperbole which you are now criticising. Your own anecdotal experience(e.g. "most people talking about actual game experience", "every batrep I've watched so far") can be dismissed as easily as you dismiss other players' varying degree of experience.
While Ragest's comment does show generally negetivity attitude towards the tome, I do not think his comments on Lord-Imperatant and Annihilators are far from reality. While using Lord-Imperatant does not necessarily force players to use Annihilators, he does grant significant bonus and hence potentially make people consider running both him and the Annihilators. After all, all models are essentially part of GW marketing "trick" to be brutally honest - why should Lord-Imperatant be an exception?
Yet you are disparaging such comments by using caustic expressions such as "I‘d literally shut him down, telling him to annoy someone else" or "anonymously allowed to talk such nonsense without any real consequences". To me your comment actually rivals, if not transcends, the very same comments you are so vehemently blaming in terms of toxicity and hasty generalisation.
-
6
-
-
I still cannot believe Lord-Aquilor and vanguard-raptors are missing VANGUARD keyword.
That, and both Celestant-Prime and Yndrasta not being able to issue Holy Command since they have neither the HERO or LORD keyword. 😠
-
2
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Sagittarii Orientalis
Most of the units you have mentioned were already appearing on well performing lists, albeit overshadowed by Stormdrakes and longstrike raptors. The "uncompetitive" units I have mentioned in my comment are far, far more abysmal than those you have listed.
For example anyone riding Stardrake, Lord-Celestants of all kind, most of Lord-Arcanums, Lord-Veritant, Lord-Ordinator, Knight- Arcanum, Knight-Azyros, Knight-Venator, Knight-Relictor, Knight-Questor, Knight-Zephyros, Sequitors, Celestar Ballistas, Evocators on Foot, Castigators, Vanguard-Palladors, Prosecutors, Vigilors, Hurricane Crossbow Vanguard-Raptors...and so on.
I can confidently assure that these units will never, ever be used in competitive games and even most of the casual games.
In other words, I think latest balance update do almost nothing to considerably shake up Stormcast internal balance. Maybe some more vanquishers due to Galletian Veterans rule, but not strictly because of Stormcast balance update.