Enoby
-
Posts
3,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Enoby
-
-
13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I think Twinsouls are not a bad warscroll, but they are not really good as elite offensive infantry in a metagame full of 3+ and 2+ saves. Their overall damage is not terrible, but it falls off too quick because of no rend. On the other hand, they are quite tanky and fast by infantry standards. I think they would make a really nice generalist choice. But a generalist unit is not worth 165 for 5. Vindictors are 130, and they play at about the same level.
This is the thing I was talking about in the other post. These guys could definitely be "fixed" with point drops. Let's see if GW finally feels comfortable handing out a few of those in the GHB.
Twinsouls are a really weird one. If you look at their raw damage output, point-for-point, it's very high:
This is a unit of 10 rerolling hits, but with no further buffs.
The problem is that, without rend, against a 2+ or 3+ save, they're very swingy. Now those good saves are more common, they've lost some of their value. On one hand, they could just be considered elite chaff clearers, but on the other, they're priced like elites that can fight everything.
I agree that, in general, Slaanesh warscrolls are fine (for example, in Painbringers vs Chaos Warriors, I think Painbringers are a better example of what a Chaos Warrior should be), but they lack external buffs to make them more than fine but are priced very highly. Fittingly, Khorne has the opposite problem where they have very poor warscrolls but many external buffs.
I think a reletively quick fix for Slaanesh would be a command ability that could give rend. It would be pretty thematic too as Slaanesh has been known for its rend.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Wordy9th said:
Regarding internal balance I agree there are a lot of good choices, but those choices when it comes to external balance are definitely lacking.
Yeah, I think this is the big issue. We probably have the strongest internal balance in the game, but it felt like a lot of effort was put into balancing the book (probably because of 2019), but most other books don't get this scrutiny.
I think it's left us with very few (if any) "wow" units - everything feels as if it's had someone take a look over it to double check nothing can be broken.
In one hand, that's good and should be standard. On the other hand, it's bad because it feels like we're one of the few books that has been overbalanced so nearly every book ends up stronger.
-
10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I think the good news for Slaanesh is that between points drops and a White Dwarf update, the army is quite fixable. I believe Slaanesh's good summoning is the reason that points are so high, so a de-tuned summoning table plus an alternative way to use depravity points would really be all it takes to end up with an army that can at least play the game. A lot of the warscrolls in the book are not bad and have clear roles, so except for Slaangor there isn't even much need to update them.
Yeah, I do agree with this. I think Slaanesh mortals actually have some of the best internal balance of any book; there's a good chunk I like about the army, and this is a big one.
I'd like to see depravity be taken down a peg if it allowed the army to work on its own - a lot of people have gone off Slaanesh when they realised they needed daemons to play (and Slaanesh daemons aren't everyone's cup of tea).
At the moment, I think it's pretty evident that Depravity Points aren't strong enough to make up for the points handicap, so they don't absolutely need to reduce the power of Depravity if they reduce points. However, in the future, I'd like to see Slaanesh step away from being "the summoning army".
-
2
-
-
Just saw updated stats for AoS tournaments; I would share the image but the one I have is super blurry and would be illegible if compressed further.
We're currenty at the bottom, sitting on a 34% win rate. While it's not the lowest ever seen (I remember pre-book Slaves to Darkness at 11%), it's still pretty bad.
We at least know that GW looks at win rates. Whether they make the correct moves to balance is another question, but we can be confident that they know we're the bottom of the pack. We can only hope that means it's more likely we get a Beasts of Chaos style White Dwarf update (their win rate is now 45%).
I do wonder what the AoS rules writers think of our battletome. The one who wrote it has already left (not because of the battletome, mind), but I wonder if the others think it's sub par or if they think it's fine and people are just whining.
Let's hope for a very significant drop in the GHB. Maybe, if we're very lucky, a Slaangor rewrite.
-
Just now, Nezzhil said:
The Aspiring Deathbringer was removed from the store today.
To be honest, if I were part of Blades of Khorne I'd probably remove myself from the store too
(I hope he gets a remake, he's a neat model even if a little weedy at the moment - same as Exhalted Hero of Chaos to Chaos Lord, I like models that are directly under another one narratively and build themselves up)
-
1
-
7
-
-
10 minutes ago, Malakithe said:
Something needs to change cuz AoS isnt doing so hot lately.
I actually wonder if this is the consensus in the general community. Not that it necessarily matters for this discussion, but the general community is the one who buys so their opinion holds the most weight.
Personally I think AoS feels like it's on the backburner and that the rules writers don't/can't put that much passion into the rules of some armies, but when looking at some 40k groups, there were a good number of people saying "40k is an absolute mess at the moment, I'm moving to AoS" and others agreeing, saying that AoS was a much better game.
Now, that could just mean than 40k is especially bad currently, but I'd waged it's more that being a new or casual/less invested player lets you overlook most of the flaws of a game. That "blissful ignorance" (for lack of a better word) isn't always going to last, but from talking to new or casual players, their complaints are limited to "I don't like the double turn" and "I don't like how spread around the rules are". I've never seen any casual (e.g. not involved in the online community at all) player give some of the complaints that people (including myself) have shared here.
That's not to say that AoS isn't or is in a bad state, but I think that it's in a 'fine' state from a casual perspective. However, personally, I think it can feel frustratingly shallow at the moment when you try to get more deeply involved in the game.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Popisdead said:
This is recent?
I thought about a year+ ago he quit writing for BL. Maybe this is just royalties coming and and tempting him to write another BL novel.
I hope he does.
I think it's pretty recent (like this year), but I don't think it means he's coming back to BL. I think he just gets money when his books sell, and they're still on sale.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
have to be honest with you: If battletomes were only lore and hobby reference books, I probably would not buy them. Not that I buy a lot of battletomes as things currently stand, but I would probably buy even fewer.
Yeah, in all honesty, I think this would be the general perception. I really liked Broken Realms as a series (besides the disappointing ending), but I only bought the book my army had rules in.
The reason was because the lore was available online very easily, I didn't want four books sat around my house that I'd read once, and the narrative game content in the form of battleplans were very restrictive.
I think Battletomes potentially could sell if they were narrative only, providing they had a lot of strong narrative content including stories, expanded PTG, thought out Anvil of Apotheosis, and very high quality painting guides. However, that would take a lot of effort for likely less payoff.
I really like narrative games, no question, but they're harder to set up than matched play and quickly fall apart if the group doesn't gel (or if there isn't a group to begin with). In my experience, they only succeed when you have a group of friends who are all invested in telling a story, all are willing to play semi-regularly, and none of them want to try powergame (or just pick a faction likes Sons of Behemat innocently).
Matched Play (not competitive), on the other hand, is much easier to pick up and play. You can approach a stranger in a GW and have a matched play game with minimal difficulty, without worrying how to set up a narrative or trying to think of a good baseline. I think most people play the 'casual matched play' format and so the battletomes are primarily to appeal to them.
I'd love it if army rules could be officially free and battletomes were for narrative. However, I think GW would lose money compared to how it is now - not that I'd be shedding tears over loss of profit, but rather I'd be worried they'd stop doing them full stop.
Games like Malifaux, which have all the rules free, sell lore books (they do have rules too, but these are also free). They continue to produce them so I imagine they must be successful enough, however a big difference between Malifaux and Warhammer is that WH is much more popular and so the lore is much easier to find freely discussed (e.g. wikis). If you're curious about the lore of a particular Malifaux model, you're probably out of luck unless you buy the book or listen to hours of podcast.
That said, I would love a Path to Glory book to come out. Not a series of campaigns, but rather a book full of army specific narrative rules, example campaigns that were malleable, anvil of apotheosis for each army, and more battleplans - and whatever Outposts are.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, zombiepiratexxx said:
Blades of Khorne's WD update is terrible. It does nothing to solve the issues that Tome already has and actually puts them in a worse spot. As bad as I feel about Hedonites, I am glad we're not Khorne. Really does seem like GW just struggles with what they want the various Chaos factions to be which shouldn't be too tough really when they have their identity.
On the bright side, they've at least acknowledged that we're in a bad spot with the new update, which they didn't do for Khorne - if we get a bit dangerously optimistic, it may be that GW don't see a problem with Khorne (for some reason) and so didn't see a need to give them much help in the White Dwarf.
If we're lucky, we're viewed by the designers in the same way Beasts of Chaos are and they give us just as much of a helping hand.
While I don't think the most recent victory points update did much for us at all, what it did do is give acknowledgement from GW that we're in a bad spot. Like I said, Khorne don't seem to flash on GW's radar as an issue so we'll hopefully get better treatment than them.
-
As mentioned previously, GW has likely already written the GHB 2022 and so feel as if they can't pre-emptively write points changes before they're in the physical book, and re-writing warscrolls isn't much of an option if those warscrolls are being edited (or having their points changed) in the next GHB.
Now, it is GW's fault for tying everything to a physical copy, but this could well be the most rules writers are allowed to do.
It's better than nothing an it's an interesting promise that may allow for more diversity at the top tables, but likely won't uplift any poor factions.
I think, out of everything, it does at least reassure me that GW know what's performing too well or too poorly (besides overlooking Khorne). It gives me a small amount of hope that the GHB will bring meaningful changes to these factions.
-
6
-
-
I think most people seem to agree that warscroll rewrites are the preferred method of balancing, both for reducing power and increasing it. However, I do wonder how long it takes to rewrite a warscroll successfully - with how rarely it happens, you'd think it's an arduous process but I do wonder what the timescale is.
Looking at Malifaux, they tend to balance through slight tweaks to the model's rules (though sometimes more than slight); these happen alongside 'battleplan' updates in something called Gaining Grounds. They can change around 10-20 rules in these, and they're annual like the GHB. I wonder if AoS would be better served by annual warscroll changes to the best and the worst alongside points changes for lesser offenders, rather than Warscroll changes as the last resort.
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, novakai said:
Eh I am not sure about this new rule it basically stuff that currently OP, you gain a point for killing it, and if your army or units is UP, you gain another point for killing the OP thing.
it kind of acknowledging the imbalance but not really addressing it just giving some arbitrary up and down side
Edit: I don’t know, reading a few time it just rubs me the wrong way. Something like your army sucks so you get more points for killing OP doesn’t sound great when your army still bottom line sucks
I think, as @Neverchosen has said, it's a bandaid solution before changing points to see if it helps tide things over. Potentially it's more there to discourage spamming while still allowing you to do so - for example, if you had two units of max reinforced pink horrors and you were playing against a Prime Hunter list, then you risk giving your opponent 12 victory points to your opponent, which could well cost you the game. Of course, they might not manage to do that, but the threat of it being possible may do more to cut down on spam.
With points, you can cut down on spam by making something so expensive it's unviable to spam it - this can work, but it's a pretty black and white solution where you either can't afford it in your list or you can. This new way doesn't force anyone to change their list, but it does increase the risk of spamming a unit.
I don't think it will have an enormous impact on competitive, but I like the idea behind it. Potentially in the future the Prime Hunters will get different abilities, like extra command points.
-
5
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Talas said:
New Battlescroll with a completely new rule: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/03/14/will-you-become-predator-or-prey-in-the-latest-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-battlescroll-update/
I think this is an interesting rule to say the least, and I'm definitely looking forward to how it pans out. Happy that they've got penalties for taking the best stuff as well as bonuses for taking poor performers.
On the other hand, did they just nerf Khorne again? 🙃
-
1
-
-
A slight buff for us in a random update...
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, AngryPanda said:
I swear the inconsistency with GW rules team either means they’re incredibly incompetent, or they snort some sort of crack cocaine when writing the rules that gives them a mind numbing high or low, and depending on where they are in this roller coaster of a trip dictates how good the book is going to be.
But seriously, how do BoC get a rend increase across the board that makes Minotaurs hot harder than a sack of bricks, whereas BoK get this slathering of poop?
Yeah, it's a really unfortunate update. I do think that, no matter the spot that Slaanesh may be in at the moment, Khorne is in a worse place - I said a few pages back, but it just seems like GW can't write good Khorne rules for some reason.
-
2
-
-
Just now, AngryPanda said:
Rage incarnate: if a Khorne unit completes a charge that unit increases its damage and rend by one.
Leave none alive: if a Khorne unit destroys a unit in the combat phase that unit can immediately pile into another unit and fight again.
Blood for the blood god: whenever a Khorne model dies it can immediately fight again on a 4+
Would this be it? I’m not sure b/c I found it on Reddit, which is occasionally questionable.
Honestly, it looks ok. It’s going to make my Blood Warriors Dmg 2 -1 rend on the charge, with a Dmg 3 -2 rend goreglave. It’s not going to steam roll tournaments, but it at least gives an alright bonus if a unit charges.
The pile in after killing a unit works in tangent with the Blood Tithe system (which needs a rewrite); it’s going to be very powerful on bloodthirster units, but not mortals.
The attack after dying is ok, but it m gates the Skullreapers rules. BoK really needs a rewrite, but knowing how incompetent GW is when it comes to writing rules, I have little faith.
No, this isn't it unfortunately - that would be good
The actual one (from a photo) is:
6+ save against spells (not mortal wounds) and a Blood Tithe if you save.
Then there was a small change to the Skull Altar:
- No more -1 to cast, instead all Khorne heroes on the altar can use invocations like a priest and miscasts do D6 Mortal wounds
So yeah, people are a little bummed out about it.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, AngryPanda said:
Any news on when the Khorne White Dwarf update is dropping?
I'm not sure when the new magazine itself is dropping, but the update itself is already in the public - it's not great unfortunately
-
++ Mod Hat ++
Please keep it civil. @Doko I totally understand you not liking the book, but constantly stating you don't like it isn't particularly helpful for people here to discuss the army and doesn't create an environment conductive to productive discussion on the thread.
You may think the new book sucks, and that's totally fine, but the book is out and won't change soon, so there's only really a point in discussing what you can do with it. People want to know how to play, not be told that they shouldn't bother even trying.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I think this recent White Dwarf Khorne update is a great example of why people may be falling out of love with AoS, so I thought I'd break it down:
- Khorne, for a long while, has had pretty substandard rules, often not portraying him as the Blood God should be, with weak attacks that aren't particularly becoming of his lore.
- Despite this, when Broken Realms came around, they updated every army except Khorne.
- Some thought this may be a sign that they'd be getting something soon, but that hope never materialised.
- Around them, other battletomes got stronger stats that left the Blood God's warriors on the lower end of the spectrum, close to bog standard skeletons in skill.
- Many people were upset with the state of Khorne, thinking that they didn't have the offensive or defensive capabilities to stand up to the majority of armies.
- Finally, they got a White Dwarf update. Unfortunately all it did was give them a weak spell shrug shuffle and around their scenery piece rules. It didn't make the warriors and more deadly, or make them significantly more defensive - those playing Khorne will be stuck with pathetic attacks for longer.
I think this suggests a disconnect between the rules writers and what many players want. This isn't always a bad thing as sometimes players' wants aren't feasible or thought out, but at the same time, it does leave the impression that there's not much to look forward to in an update. By this I mean, the complaints of Khorne players were ignored for some random ad-on abilities, and it means for future updates of any armies, there's a good chance that you'll not be helped that much.
Sometimes they get it right (like Beasts of Chaos) and everyone gets excited, but sometimes they get it wrong and it feels like no one tried to get it right, which leaves fans questioning the quality of the rules.
-
7
-
-
I just can't understand why the God of Blood and War is so hard to write fitting rules for
Surely "good at killing" should be easy to translate onto gameplay?
But at the moment, Khorne isn't the God of War, he's the "God of I-Don't-Like-Magic-Except-If-You-Call-It-A-Prayer" - it's really uninspired and just not very fun to play. To not go too off topic into the "state of the game" thread, I think rules like this is what cause people to fall out of love with AoS. You have a fantastic looking army with some visceral lore, only for that to be compounded by boring rules that just don't fit.
-
15
-
-
Just now, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Khorne could just be Ironjawz with summoning, and that would probably be all right.
Even as someone who doesn't play or even like Khorne that much, slapping a 6+ spell shrug on the army when Hallowheart and Null Myriad get the same on a 5+ (and are not even the go-to subfactions in their respective books) is just disappointing.
I think this is why it's so confusing - Ironjawz and Daughters of Khaine do ultra-violent murder crazed lunatics much better than the God of Blood's forces even come close to.
It seems to be a common theme with Chaos, where despite them having lore that would suggest they're extreme in one particular area (e.g. being the coalesced form of Blood and War), they perform pretty middling in that area. This is especially true compared to order. That's not to say Order is OP and Chaos is weak, but rather the design philosophy of Chaos as a whole (besides maybe Nurgle) often means they're not the best at anything, and they're just 'okay' at a lot.
I think this is nowhere more clear than Khorne. When the God of War's chosen warriors, who have their bodies and minds altered by coalesced anger and their armour is made of the blood of their victims, have 2 attacks at 3/4/-/1 you know something is wrong. Even Chaos Warriors - who should by all rights be less accomplished than a Blood Warrior - are better at fighting.
I just don't understand the design philosophy. At least with Slaanesh, you could tell that they were overcompensating for the ridiculous power of the last book (even if the new book is uninspiring) but Khorne has never been great, so there's no excuse as to why his army is so disappointing.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I've just seen the Battle Trait and Warscroll rewrite - they're okay, but don't really help killing power at all
The new battle trait is a 6+ spell/endless shrug - this isn't a mortal wound shrug and is all or nothing (you ignore the full spell on a single roll of a 6). If you roll the 6, you get a blood tithe.
The Skull Altar now no longer gives a -1 to cast, and instead causes D6 mortal wounds to anyone who miscasts.
Any Khorne hero 8 wounds or less can garrison in the Altar and can use Invocations like a priest, and benefit from the Words of Hate ability.
---
Personally, I think these are fine (as in, they're technically a buff but nothing exciting), but they still don't do a good job of portraying Khorne as the Blood God. They seem hyper focused on making him anti-magic and praying a lot, which isn't why most people like Khorne.
A little bit of a rant, but one of my least favourite things they've done with Khorne is make him the prayer god. It just feels so... cheap? As in, Khorne doesn't like magic because it's cheating and sneaky, but he's okay to throw 'totally-not-magic' axes from the sky because I guess that's different from a wizard summoning the pendulum? I'm certain they'll have justified it in the lore, but from my perspective it just comes off as a bit uninspired.
I really wonder why GW can't get AoS Khorne right...
-
2
-
-
I really hope this update helps Khorne; despite their numerous model releases in AoS, on both a rules and lore front they're up there with Beasts of Chaos in how poorly they're presented. I've mentioned it loads, but I've never seen a battletome put so many people off AoS as Khorne's many attempts.
Though I have a sinking feeling that the change to the Skull Altar will be something ridiculous like "+1 to prayers" rather than the current reroll 🙃
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
People dislike the Tome Celestials because they are a pretty bad delivery mechanism for rules updates, but they are really succeeding at at least bringing some of the older books up to speed. That's really a lot better than having to wait several years for every army to get a new battletome, in my opinion. If GW absolutely needs to sell us rules updates in physical form, I prefer it this way, because at least it means most armies will be 3rd edition compliant in a little over a year.
I agree. While in an ideal world, they'd have all of the matched play updates for each army in a General's Handbook (like in the good old days), if that's not possible then I'd prefer White Dwarf updates were released. It's much better than being stuck for years with an outdated book
-
5
-
AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion
in Hedonites of Slaanesh
Posted · Edited by Enoby
Addition
Yeah, coming down in point would help them a lot. I'm assuming in your calculation you didn't including the reroll and/or the exploding 6s? I always include the reroll just as it's built in (though not every turn) and the exploding 6s as it's the allegiance ability.
Edit: Not that you'd be incorrect to look at them without buffs - I was just wondering why our numbers were so different! I personally prefer with the basic built in buffs as I see it as a more 'realistic' performance, but I understand that some buffs aren't guaranteed so including them can give false power.
Extra rend would do this to their damage (when rerolling):
As you can see, it does massively boost them - I'm not sure if it'd be too much even, considering they'd end up with twice the damage of Greatswords vs a 2+, 3+, 4+ save.
I'd like them to get rend, but if they went down to around 140 points and got rend, maybe they'd end up too good? Or at least too damaging.