Enoby
-
Posts
3,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Enoby
-
-
3 hours ago, Lupercal said:
Reading the Goonhamer article on the Tome Celestial for FEC, they say FEC is "doing a lot better than some lackluster armies (Hedonites, Gitz, and most of the armies that only got their Battletome recently)" Didnt Hedonites just get their own Tome Celestial recently? Did it just not land? As someone who recently picked up interest in the faction due to the GHB22 points drops on the fantastic models in the Slaanesh mortal line, it's a little disappointing to think their own update was a wet ******?
As mentioned, our TC wasn't bad (and certainly better than most), but rather than a straight up 'buff' it was instead an alternate way to play the faction - allowing depravity to be used for something other than summoning.
I personally like it - it certainly won't make us much stronger on its own, but for casual games it's nice to not have to bring daemons, and for the future it's good to know that they've thought about reducing the reliance on summoning.
The points drops are definitely the biggest change, and we've yet to really see the impact from that.
-
4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
They should, yet we all know they are VERY hesitant when it comes to re-imagining Warscrolls. In fact it feels like they‘d prefer to do anything else but touching Warscrolls.
*Sadly sounds the Knight Heraldor’s trumpet*
I wonder why this is the case.
I would assume it's to try as best as they can to not invalidate print - it's one thing to tweak points, and another to totally change the rules of a model. Perhaps they're worried it may confused some players who are less involved with online AoS.
Personally, I'd much prefer if they just ripped the bandage off and admitted that most of the time when there's an issue, it's the warscroll and not the points that need the core change.
For a ridiculous example, if there was a unit that did 10 MWs to every unit in the opponent's army, there would be no points cost that would make that unit work. Either it would be so expensive it would be unplayable, or it would be unbearable to play against. There'd be no happy middle ground. There's no unit like this that exists at the moment, but the idea stands - there are some units that are too bad or good that points would never work for them.
I also think warscroll changes are great for players with good looking units that are too bad to see play (such as Slaangors). By that I mean, they make people feel good about the game.
-
1
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Reading the Chaos Mainres leaks, I've seen something that made me smile:
Marks of Chaos have abilities (again)!!!
I'm really curious if that will be the same for Slaves to Darkness units.
They kind of do in Slaves when a hero is nearby, but from experience, that can feel pretty finicky and disincentives mixed armies (because then the opponent only needs to kill one hero to stop a mark working). The thing S2D has thematically over monogod armies is that they can mix together to create a more versatile faction, but it doesn't really work in practice with the mark rules.
It would be nice if a mark on its own provided at least some small buff.
Unfortunately the 40k and AoS rules teams are totally seperate and don't talk, so one choice won't change the design of the other.
I am hoping that Slaves get a rethink; marks and Eye of the Gods are cool, but they both feel relatively low impact due to their reliance on heroes (and Eye of the Gods being more of a narrative rule). Most of the rules are cool, but something to make the army feel more imposing would be nice.
I am still sore about the Slaangor-level Daemon Prince warscroll
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:
Less cynical outlook - its an experiment.
Provide the faction with a couple of decent value options with clearly decent stats but few complications, and see if folks running those break the summoning mechanic/faction mechanic and if the faction balance is fine. If it does break, partially revert changes and back to the drawing board. If things look good, expand 15% discount across the board and open up options once the mechanics have been stress tested.
While the possibility of sales driven malice exists, personal experience reminds me that most folks are just plain folks, and the design team at GW has a lot of ground to cover (R&D plus maintenance of the entire range of factions, testing, etc.).
Most likely they're trying to get things right without making things worse.
In all honesty, I think this less cynical outlook is the most likely.
GW definitely likes money, but if they wrote and pointed Slaanesh in regards to money, they've done a very poor job of it. Despite the new release costing them a lot to create, the rules writers seemed to hardly have the time to do much of anything with the new book - and we're the second lowest win rate at the moment, well under older armies that GW probably care about less profits-wise.
But even ignoring that, if these decreases were all in it for the money, I think they'd have also included Slaangors, Glutos, and especially the twins in these decreases/rewrites. I doubt they would have bothered with Sigvald as he's our best selling model already. If this was to make money, they've not done a good job about it (it would have been easy to give Slaangors -2 rend and 2 damage to sell more boxes, and yet they didn't). If 90% of HoS players already have Sigvald then this points drop won't boost his sales, if 75% have Painbringers/Twinsouls and Blissbarbs then the drop may have resulted in a few more boxes (as people may already own a good number), but a Slaangor rewrite (or mega-drop) would likely boost theirs by a significant amount as a smaller proportion will have bought them (especially in large quantities).
I think this is an earnest attempt at targeted balancing, where they're seeing what buffing the core units does so they can make better changes to the rest of the army. If we continue to perform poorly then I think most other units will see a similar buff in the future.
-
5
-
-
27 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:
I couldn't make out any details on the Bladelord warscroll card, but it was chuck full of writing and the weapon profiles looked largely unchanged.
Not exactly thrilling, as they're easily my favorite models in the range, but just aren't that good on the table. I'd like to think GW is pulling some kind of fast one, but it looks like the proper warscroll design for the new edition.
EDIT: I managed to get a zoomed in look at the warscroll. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same as the current one.
Regardless of what people think of a new Lumineth tome, I think the worst thing about it is that the tome itself won't bring a lot of new stuff for Lumineth players because the designers won't have had the time for any proper re-thinks of the faction. Warscrolls and allegiance abilities are likely to be very similar to before and just neatened up.
I think one of the worst omen for a new book is that it had a previous book come out only a year before - it means the writer of the new book wouldn't have known the likes and dislikes of the players when writing the book, and some 'obvious' changes won't have been made.
While waiting longer is a pain, I'd rather have a Sylvaneth 2 to Sylvaneth 3 glow up, than a Slaanesh 1 to Slaanesh 2 mish-mash book. I'm hoping this Lumineth book isn't just a plain copy and paste deal.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:
ruins almost any game for me. It‘s unequally distributed amongst armies, has a way too high impact on survivability and it creates feel bad moments the same way Mortal wounds do. The whole save stacking mechanic isn’t thought through at all.
I do think that lethality needed to come down in AoS from AoS 2 - in that, it felt like units just disintegrated to whoever attacked first which also sucked. However the problem with save stacking is that the most lethal models are also the tankiest - the mawkrusha wouldn't be seen anywhere as much if it was just 15 wounds on a 3+ save with bad attacks. It's the fact that its very tanky and can destroy pretty much anything that makes it so strong - you can't safely countercharge it.
I personally like weaker models (4+ save and worse) being able to up their saves and make themselves immune to rend to give them staying power. I don't like 3+ save cabbages of death with the ability to heal only being vulnerable to mortal wounds and rolling 1s.
I think it may have been a good idea if they tried to balance tankyness and damage together more - if something does super high damage, don't make it impossible to kill by making 4+ saves more common (or at least make it unique and cost half your army).
-
4
-
-
It does feel like AoS has a more cohesive vision than before - perhaps the new lead designers has had the chance to make their impact.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
That doesn't mean mortals shouldn't exist at all. But I question the wisdom of their current approach of putting more and more sources of MW into the game as a rock-paper-scissors game between wounds, armor saves and mortals
I may write a longer post about the topic itself a bit later, but I can attest to mortal wounds feeling like an uninteractive mechanic even when it comes from a poor model.
I was playing against Bonesplittaz and their shaman did 15(+) mortals wounds on one of my units - they rolled well, but a 4+ MW save meant they weren't in any real danger. The entire "encounter" was basically, "you take one mortal wound... you take two mortal wounds... I take three mortal wounds and save two of them... you take 2 mortal wounds..." until the unit was dead. The mechanics sound fun on paper, like playing Russian Roulette, but in this version your opponent shoots you two thirds of the time and has a bullet proof head. Definitely a rule that's cooler in concept over execution.
I still won handily and the shaman died next turn, but it was a very boring experience to basically just take my models off the board. It was just against a random unit in range, but if it had been a big model like Skarbrand then it would have really sucked.
The point being here that I don't so much care of the 'meta' power of the mechanic, but rather how interactive it is when it sees play.
I think it's less on strength (bonesplittaz aren't exactly tearing up the meta and I won that game no problem) and more how much interaction you have around the mechanic. I think a mechanic is often deemed unfun when it can remove a unit without that unit having the chance to do anything (including saves).
I don't think mortal wounds are a terrible idea, but I'd prefer for them to be way toned down (and for saves/rend to be rethought to compensate). A mechanic whose sole purpose is to stop your opponent negating an offensive it is going to be, at least in some way, not interactive.
It's dissapointing from both a narrative and a gameplay standpoint when your Lord gets deleted off the board without getting a say in anything. I'd like if they utilised more spells in being attacks (as in "if you cast arcane bolt, you get this attack profile you can use once at the beginning of any phase") rather than it always being the same "take d3 models off the table".
-
4
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, xhaan said:
Hi, just to say in the french general hand book, sigvald costs 245 points and not 205. You can check it in this video. Dunno who's right tho !
Just to elaborate, the GHB was printed quite a few months ago and so is a few months "out of date" when it's first released. The new digital points are the most in-date versions - I'm assuming they did more testing/listened to more feedback and changed Slaanesh even further than the printed GHB in the new Battlescroll
-
2
-
-
It's hard to say who'll be top dog, but Slaanesh is certainly looking a lot better than before. Painbringers to 130 makes them a very strong option, and Sigvald is bizarrely cheap (not that I'm complaining).
-
For those who wish to continue the discussion, please post here:
-
2
-
-
Continuing on from the discussion in the Rumour Thread.
-
1
-
-
++ Mod hat ++
While the discussion of NPE is interesting, it should go on another thread
If anyone would like to continue the discussion, please create a new thread yourself or I will if enough people react to this post/reply saying they would.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Seems like the new points are officially confirmed - no mistypes with Sigvald's points after all
-
1
-
-
If I'm not mistaken, Khorne now doesn't blow all their Blood Tithe when they spend - so that's a pretty nice quality of life change!
-
6
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Rors said:
They'd need to sit behind a screen like archers then pile on through the gap once the archers are dead but causing mortal wounds to every model in the unit on a 4+ is crazy.
As @Wordy9th mentioned, they do MWs on a 4+ per Slaangor, not per enemy. They're not known as one of the worst warscrolls in the game for nothing
-
21 minutes ago, Jaskier said:
The app has been updated, and the points in that document were spot on. 205 point Sigvald still feels bizarre to me, but this update overall will likely push Slaanesh up a tier straight-out in conjunction with the White Dwarf rules.
Sigvald's points do seem a bit funky - not to say I'm unhappy with them, but if anything was to get a 60 points drop, I'd have expected the KoS, Glutos, or Slaangors.
My guess, also looking at the Twinsoul/Painbringer/Blissbarb drop, is that they looked at the okay-to-good units in the army and prioritised buffing them as a test. If they know how well Slaanesh can perform with its good units decreased in cost, then they can be more confident with future changes. Sure, they could bring Shalaxi down 60, but there's a good chance no one would use them anyway so it wouldn't help HoS that much or really tell the team useful info.
Sigvald at 205 may be an autoinclude, but potentially that was the plan - to be experimental and see how far they can push the faction. If so, I appreciate that.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Jaskier said:
Myrmidesh are finally punching at their weight level, as being roughly even with Slickblades for damage-per-point gives both a clear role (you trade durability for speed) and Symbaresh are just absurd at 26 points per model - seriously, a 10 block of this unit had good numbers for a 340 point unit, now it's 260
Thanks for the stats
Symaresh do seem very strong; while they have a weakness in no rend, their current damage per point is amazing.
To compare them to stormcast dragon knights on a charge:
And then +8 mortal wounds-ish from the dragons when you use their fire breath and slay a 2 wound model (common characteristic) with tempest.
The dragons are 4" faster and can fly, and also have +1 save, a 4+ spell shrug, and a weird move and charge ability.
So against a 3+ save, a unit of 10 Twinsouls rerolling their hits (nothing else) deals 12 damage on average, compared to dragons who do 8+8 (so 16).
Against a 4+ save, Twinsouls deal 19 compared to 18.
If damage was all that mattered, then per point, Dragons would pay 21.25 points per damage against a 3+ save, and 18.54 against a 4+ save.
Twinsouls would pay 20.59 points per damage vs a 3+ save, and 13.73 vs a 4+ save.
As mentioned, dragons do have a lot else going for them and I don't think Twinsouls will be as strong as dragons, however I wanted to use dragons as an example of a potentially underpriced very powerful damage unit. Twinsouls per point outdamage them even when accounting for mortal wounds (especially later down the save totem pole), and while they don't have the other tricks dragons do, it certainly suggests they're in a very good place.
4 hours ago, Carnith said:I will say that I am happy for these adjustments. The Slaanesh board here was pretty dead. But this has given a big burst of energy to the thread.
I think it's helped a lot - beforehand, list building felt pretty dry as you could hardly fit anything in and it didn't feel that powerful when you did. Now we at least have some cool units that are competitively costed, we can look into less gimmicky lists.
-
53 minutes ago, Swamp Trogg said:
About the Battlescroll update... Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we getting a tad too much enthusiastic?
Aren't we mixing "warscrolls", stats and rules for models, with" Battlescrolls", rules for battles?
It can mean both - the gods warscroll update was in a battlescroll, but in general warscroll updates are rare. I don't think they're coming, but I'd like them to.
-
2
-
-
I hope this means some warscrolls are getting changed - both good and bad, I think warscroll changes are the most satisfying way of dealing with poorly designed warscrolls.
-
5
-
-
Also, what do we make of this:
If I dare to be hopeful, it could mean warscroll rewrites, which may mean new Slaangors... or it could just be some slight tweaks to hunters and quarry. But I hope Slaangors.
I think these large changes may have been because the community kicked up such a fuss. Yes, the writers probably recognised Slaanesh's weakness, but compare our changes to Khorne and Gitz (which are arguably weaker), our changes are much bigger. I'd like to think the rules writers took notice of everyone!
Also, @AngryPanda, I know you liked Myrmadesh, so I'm tagging you to let you know they're probably good now!
-
1
-
-
I' very impressed with the new Slaanesh points drops. For those not familiar with Slaanesh, the big changes were (from pre GHB points):
- Sigvald 205 (-60)
- Blissbarbs 140 (-30)
- Twinsouls 130 (-35)
- Painbringers 120 (-25)
On a list I've been using well, it dropped 235 points. These are really huge changes.
-
7
-
-
Thinking about it, Twinsouls seem really good for 130. For the amount of damage they do, being able to take 10 for just 260 is amazing. Yeah, the lack of rend hurts, but a single unit is enough to much most units.
Even more so because we can expect more 4+ save models about with non-battline troops likely ruling the roost with bounty hunters.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Jaskier said:
I'm actually wondering if the online points are incorrect
I hope not 😂
I do think Painbringers are a bargain for what they bring. Compare them to Chaos Warriors (if you could bring them in 5s for 100).
For 20 extra points, you get -1 rend, +1 move, mortal wounds on 6s to wound in addition, and a permanent +1 save in combat.
The only thing Chaos Warriors have is a 5+ MW save and a +1 to save in shooting sometimes.
They're actually pretty good for their points, and not just pretty good for their points in Slaanesh terms.
-
1
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Looks like an easy bloodthirster conversion - very nice model, mind.