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

Sception

Members
  • Content Count

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Sception last won the day on October 12 2018

Sception had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

709 Celestant-Prime

About Sception

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm inclined to say that if specific battalions need exceptions from the allies rules to work, those battalions can include those exceptions within their rules explicitly, but in general that is the change I'm least personally invested in/committed to. Another more important change I'd like to see that I didn't mention earlier is that I'd preferr if battalion units still deployed individually. The AoS turn system is annoying enough, but one drop armies ramp that annoyance up to nigh intolerability.
  2. The whole implementation is a mess, and I'd rather see it completely changed. Make artifacts separately purchasable & give them their own points costs, take cp and artefacts out of batalions, make non-faction units in battalions count towards allies and faction units not, dramatically reduce price of all of them. Beyond those general complaints, my only complaints about legion battalions specifically is that there just arent enough of them. Well, that and I dont think deathmarch should need three whole skeleton units. Aesthetically, two skittle blocks flanking one gg block would look better, imo.
  3. Not enough in and of itself, but one minor change I'd recomend is making the minimum zombie unit size 20 rather than 10. That would emphasize zombies as a larger horde, allow for a bigger max size discount, match their box size, alow for bigger zombie units in meeting engagements, etc. Other changes to consider: drop the second extra attack in skeletons. Maybe give them something else in exchange, maybe drop their extra attacks altogether in favor of another large unit bonus, but at the very least dont let them have more attacks than grave guard or they risk outshining grave guard as an offensive unit. Per grave guard, they're kind of squishy for an elite unit, and the shields look pretty bad next to the great weapons. Maybe give them 4+ armor to start, and a better shield rule? Maybe give the regukar sjeletons better shields, too? I like the tomb kings shields, they were more reliable but also made the unit more static, which could stablish deathrattle as a more defensive undead subfaction. I agree that chain rasps operate more or less as I'd want them to.
  4. Yeah, but what's competitive play even for apart from tournaments & tournament prep? In tournaments the plauers don't choose & set up terrain, the organiser does. If you build your competitive tactics around rules that aren't in effect in the games that count, that's not going to do you much good in the long run.
  5. As already mentioned, it's only the d3 healing, not the deployment or unit resummoning, so it ism't /that/ big a deal. Three is maybe pushing it. In tournament games, the organiser is supposed to set up terrain, so, eh? The mausoleum is both fluffy and visually impressive, so there's that, too. As fir it being like our faction terrain, though? No. They may not have gotten actual modrls, but gravesites are our faction terrain, and in the upcoming errata I wouldn't be surprised to see them get the same restrictions in terms if distance from objectives & other terrain.
  6. The main body specifically requires at least one battle line. Between the various requirements and his staggering points cost, Nagash is sadly unfieldable in meeting engagement games. As for the comment of only one battleline, i didn't think the normal pitched battle 1k restrictions applied, just those for the meeting engagement subdivisions, where the only battleline requirement is at least one duch unit in your main body.
  7. Is the guardian of souls really worth it if your only summonable nighthaunt unit is 20 rasps?
  8. Grand Host meeting engagement, take 3: This time looking to to go heavy on morghasts to see how far their new price can be pushed. Of course, Nagash is too expensive to take in a meeting engagement at all, so morghasts not being battleline means at least one unit of something else. Since Nagash is off the table, and artillery restricted to the second half of the game only, I threw in arkhan as a stand in, leaving just enough points for a minimum squad of zombies. This isn't the max number of morghasts possible in a meeting engagement - two more could be fit in if arkhan was dropped for a cheaper general, but while a unit of morghasts might be usable, I don't personally view morghast spam as viable, at least not in this format anyway, so might as well be silly about it. In terms of performance, though, imo morghast spam doesn't leave enough units or models to really play the objective game, and while their offense isn't completely terrible for the points, at least not with the grand host buff, their defense leaves a lot to be desired and they don't even have the double edged sword of recursion to fall back on the way grave guard do. Still, it would be a pretty cool looking army on the table
  9. Id be inclined to run 30 if you run any at all, probably with cogs and careful gravesite use to try and get some surprise charges in, but they still compare poorly to any other elite infantry in the game at the same points cost, and skeletons are still a lot cheaper for pretty much everything grave guard are minus the rend. Grimghasts even at 2 points more per model still look better with reach and fly 8 and ethereal 4+, and grimgjasts don't even look very good to begin with right now. I'll still run them myself. Partially because I love the models, and because I'm not convinced that the legions even have a top tier competitive list under ghb19. Maybe not even a mid tier one. If I'm going to lose anyway, I might as well lose with what I like. Though by that logic maybe it's time to pull out the chariots and run some tomb kings...
  10. My second thought on a meeting engagement is to max out grave guard specifically: This version takes the max 2x20 graveguard, taking advantage of the Grand Host allegiance rules to put them in the main body, which is never the last subforce to arrive, along with a necromancer general. Dire wolves are used to meet unit requirements in spearhead & rearguard. The spearhead wolves are accompanied by a mounted wight king to allow for gravesite deployment of one of the grave guard units in missions where the spearhead arrives before the main body, which happens slightly more than half the time. Ideally, I'd put a fast hero in each subfaction to maximize gravesite deployment options, and take the chronomantic cogs to maximize charge success out of those gravesites, but the price of 40 graveguard makes those options difficult to fit in. The up side of this list is a reasonable amount of damage output with rend. Downside is relias a lot on recursion for staying power, which, again, seems likely to hemorrhage victory points on most-wounds-inflicted. You also have to deal with the fact that building a list on elite infantry power isn't exactly playing to our faction's strengths. Grave Guard may be a bit more efficient than they were two weeks ago, but they still may not perform well when pitted against the more-elite elite infantry in many order, chaos, and destruction subfactions. ...... On the matter of battleplans and the order of arrival for subforces: Center Ground: spearhead, main, rearguard Death Pass: spearhead, main, rearguard Changing Priorities: spearhead, main, rearguard Borderline: main, spearhead, rearguard Raid: main, main, rearguard, spearhead Rearguard Action (player 1): rearguard, main, spearhead Rearguard Action (player 2): Spearhead, main, rearguard
  11. Nagash is a touch problematic. In a lot of casual games he feels unbalancing in all but the largest games. At 2k points, a lot of games are going to come down to 'can my opponent deal with nagash?' - if no you win if yes you lose. These days there are more armies out there that can deal with nagash than there were, so he might not be as 'unfair' as he once was but he'll still lead to a lot of lopsided games. In general, I'd recommend checking with opponents in advance to make sure they're cool with it before running Nagash in casual games. In more competitive spheres people found ways to try to play around Nagash, and had to expect to come up against him regardless, with plans to try to play around him if they couldn't beat him directly, so while his presence still led to lopsided games - as any 800 point unit would in a 2000 point game - but they were still actual games. If you are looking at a competitive sphere, nagash was a staple for a while, but the nagash meta is in a bit of turmoil at the moment. Recent books have added a ton of shooting power to the game, which had already successfully knocked nagash lists down several pegs, but then the general's handbook 2019 points changes came through, and well, let's take a look at a relatively typical Nagash list before GHB19: Nagash Necromancer Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass 3x5 Dire Wolves 20 Grimghast Reapers 30 Grimghast Reapers Umbral Spellportal Soulsnare Shackles In 2k games, that list would have 50 points left over for an extra command point under GHB18 points. But in GHB19? Nagash is up 50 points. Necromancers up 20. Dire wolves up 10 points per 5. Grimghast Reapers up 20 points per 10. Spellportal is up 10 points (despite Nagash lists being basically the only lists in the game to use it), and Soulsnare Shacles are up 20. All told, that list went up 230 points, which is simply brutal. Nearly all of the typical Nagash list's staple units have gone up in price considerably, and it's not unreasonable to think that they went up *specifically* because they were part of the typical Nagash list. Again, post errata you basically never saw spellportal /except/ as part of a nagash list. Anyway, the point is that Nagash lists were hit hard, both by the re-introduction of serious ranged power to the game and by points value adjustments that hit basically all of the lists key units from Nagash on down. It's too soon to say whether these lists will be able to adjust to the new meta, or whether a largely different Nagash list will arise in their place, or whether Nagash is just going to mostly sit out this season's tournament scene.
  12. What are everyone's thoughts on meeting engagement lists for Grand Host? a briefish summary of meeting engagements (working from memory, so some of this might not be right, check the ghb19 for exact rules): Ok, so right off the bat, I think the Legions in general and grand host in particular start off on poor footing. In general we like to play the hoard game, and that's just not available to us here. None of our units can be taken above 20 wounds in a unit. Basic skeletons will never get their third attack, and will lose the second after a single casualty. We're also priced out of effective us of most of our detachments. The next issue is that our units tend to be relatively fragile, relying on recursion to stay in the game - which can be quite effective in normal pitched battle games, but in meeting engagements you're going to end up feeding your opponent victory points on wounds-caused. Objectives are worth more in meeting engagement missions, but since taking objectives from your opponent can be quite tricky, a lot of games are likely to come down to wounds caused. Finally, a number of our staple units have seen points increases - in particular grimghasts, necromancers, and dire wolves - making small point lists tricky for us even before contending with all the other restrictions. On the other hand... We have seen small points drops for Morghasts and Grave Guard - and an increase to minimum unit size for the latter, which is a good thing in meeting engagements - more elite units not dependent on numbers for their offence. These decreases probably aren't enough to make these units /good/ in my opinion, but they are a bit better, and they're units that the Grand Host in particular gets extra benefits with. We also have gravesite deployment. It doesn't get units on the table early, but it can save your later units a turn of running up the field to try to get into position. Blood Knights, probably the legions' most elite unit, have also seen a hefty points drop, but while they're potentially a strong option, they're also probably better used by legion of blood or soulblight. And while the restrictions are difficult for us, they also hit some of our most difficult opponents. In most meeting engagements you won't have to deal with warp lightning cannons in the first two turns, and won't have to deal with more than two cannons, jezzails, or warpfire throwers each. Here are some of the meeting engagement lists I've been tooling around with - keeping in mind that my competitive experience is limited so there's likely a lot of room for improvement take one: you can't be sure when any given group will arrive on the table, so make each one self-sufficient have some other ideas (gg spam, morghast spam, etc), will post later
  13. No problem. All that said, to take my commentary with a grain of salt. My competitive experience in AoS is limited, and my tournament experience in 2e is so far non existent. Definitely test out both units a couple times before committing to see how they work for you against your common opponents.
  14. They were kinda baddish, but they're a fair bit better since they got an extra attack in the legions book. Still kind of fragile, but they hit reasonably ok on the charge, especially with a few buffs on. Tack on +1 attack from a vamp lord's or wight king's CA and another +1 for lord of nagashizaar and suddenly they've putting out a rather respectable 8 attacks each. Respectable against hordes of chaff at least - good armor saves still present serious problems for them, and any amount of rend in return cuts them down like they were skeletons. I've heard of people having some tournament success with big units (15+) supported by a mounted wight king in a deathmarch. A fair number of wounds, extra fast with the formation bonus, they have an easy time getting that bravery debuff banner in range if you're running t-gheists or the like to take advantage of it, tolerable offense out of the box, stack buffs pretty well, and the same battalion wight king who buffs their speed can also carry a couple attack buffs. I personally view them as usable but not exactly great. I generally saw them as better than hexwraiths, but that was before the recent hexwraith points drop which may or may not tip the balance between the two units a bit. Hexwraiths don't have the banner or musician, but between rend and frightful touch they have much better attacks, with fly they have better movement, and with a 4+ ethereal they have much better durability as well. No good formations for them, not in the legions, anyway, but if you're not running deathmarch you might be better off with the wraiths these days. I'd reccomend putting just the horses together and play testing a couple rounds for comparison purposes before making a final decision on which unit you want.
  15. It's particularly frustrating for players trying to chase the tournament scene with "optimal" unit selection. When the units all do the same things and the only significant difference is points efficiency, tournament players spam the most efficient choice. Then ghb time rolls around and gw looks at tournament usage stats and says, 'woah, this unit is used constantly to the exclusion of everything else, better hike their points and lower the rest', so now there's a new most efficient choice and tourney players & trend chasers are left ferling like they wasted their money and now need to go out and collect a whole army of the new most efficient unit and the process continues. If the units all did something different, you wouldnt be able to just slot in the obvious most efficient choice. Different players would take different units for different jobs in different builds. People would run a variety of units instead of spamming just one, and relatively shallow points variations like we're seeing here wouldnt hit so hard. I mean, if you ran a varried nihthaunt army with only one unit of grimghasts before then their current price hike would likely have been more than compensated by the discounts to other units. For a contrary example, take dire wolves, a fairly unique unit for the legions. faster than all the other battleline options. operate better in small units. Even in large units don't have the potential hitting power after buffs of 40 skeletons or the screening coverage of 60 zombies. Nothing else that the faction has access to is quite like them, especially in battle line, so even though they're getting hit with a points hike, I havent personally felt inclined to ditch them, nor have i seen too many others complaining that they're trash now as some are with grimghasts. Same with necromancers - no other hero does what they do for you, so while 130 might be (read: definitely is) an unreasobable points cost, they're still going to see use. Their points cost can go up or down a fair bit without rendering them unplayable or causing them to eclipse other options. Even if necros were unreasonably cheap instead of unreasonably expensive, people would still have cause to also run one or more faster, tougher, killier vampires with their reliable cp buff and different soell selection. Because of their uniqueness, there's a wide margin of error on necro pricing, in a way that there wouldnt be if the legions had access to several dedicated casty heroes with similar spells & lore access, the way that nighthaunts have access to several other elite ethereal melee infantry that now threaten to supplant grimghasts entirely. ... Again, though, the kinds of changes needed to fix that situation are outside the scope of a yearly GH points update, and taken for what they are I still see more to like than to hate here. Though my tune may change once i get some actual experience with the new values under my belt.
×
×
  • Create New...