Jump to content

Andrew G

Members
  • Posts

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

539 profile views

Andrew G's Achievements

Decimator

Decimator (5/10)

163

Reputation

  1. Two questions, can legion of the first prince armies include incarnate despite the line, "units in this army must have the demon/chaos keywords" and if they can include an incarnate, would they gain the lotp keyword "as all units in this army receive lotp keyword" line.
  2. I think if you read over the initial exchange between Broche and I and you'll see that I do think there's a grey area in list building. The whole exchange initially was me mentioning taking out hand of gork from the list due to point increases on GGs and less need to counter unleashed hell with teleport/fast un' combo-- I obviously rate it highly. Now do I think the changes in the winter update are going to dramatically alter what has proven to be our most dominate build archetype ... no, not really. Do I think many have a misconception on why these lists are so much more dominate than others, very much so. That said, I wholeheartedly believe it's hard to build a "bad" IJ army unless you're trying to do it intentionally. My meta is basically me playing netlist, after netlist in preparation for GTs so my perception of what is best is obviously skewed with certain matchups in mind. Your mileage may vary if these prolific GT lists are not what you're playing against regularly.
  3. I have buffs to cast on the build I posted with bash ladz, for one. It's +2 to cast base, with potential +4 (much better than a reroll when you factor in unbinds btw!) You're not accounting for unbinds in your success chance of getting teleport off. I really don't know what to say about the "Chad wizards" you have not been encountering (which explains a lot), Kairos in tzeentch and legion, lumineth, seraphon ( the most represented faction at top tables in the last few months.) We're not talking about one list that won months ago. The vast majority of GT winning IJ players ran some version of double mk, warchanters, ggs. You can hand wave the data off based on your personal assessment of the vulnerability, but at that point we're just arguing about what we FEEL is good rather than what is actually consistently working. That said, I'll let this conversation go. I don't doubt your experience, I just have a very different one based on the gt scene and following the larger meta closely.
  4. I wouldn't day it more powerful than in AoS 2, not by a longshot. That said, I've been playing around with a big waagh list with manskewers, sludgeraker, wurgog prophets, GGs, Warchanter, foot boss, and 5x3 ardboyz with good success. Manskewers actually help the prophets gain a ton of value forcing the opponent toward you. GGs, warchanter, footboss don't need explanation. It's been pretty fun playing more of a combined arms list
  5. The list I posted is slightly altered version of a top 3 list at Austin open, most of the 5-0 lists since the book drop(vast majority) are double MK,GG, Warchanter lists. Master of magic doesn't stop actual Chad casters from stopping the teleport, it barely makes hitting the casting value reliable... That said, you're basically going with the "brute force" the spell through method which I've already mentioned. Since by nature the casting in IJ is unreliable even going with brute force, the argument is that you go with spells that have broadly general utility regardless of the board state rather than one that has higher utility, only in specific moments. What you and your group don't realize are these lists are not alpha striking with 3 hammers T1 unless the opponent makes a deployment mistake. They skirmish with the units of 3 ggs, peel screens , bloodtooth end of combat move to lock down mobile hammers, move back onto objectives after clearing screens and triple redeploy to avoid counter punches. put their hammers out of harms way and use MD/fast un to close gaps once they see an opening. You're attributing a play style used in these lists based on your experience, Im guessing, not the reality of how good IJ players play.
  6. I personally moved away from teleport now. It's situationally very impactful, but unless you want to have your wizard back-boarding with another unit the entire game to avoid unbinds (even then, this requires your opponent to basically back line castle himself) you'll need to brute-force it through with a Touched by the Waaagh caster (which is also not entirely reliable in this meta). Knowing I have little to no reliability in the spell casting, I rather have spells like Foot/ Bash Em' Ladz that usually net some type of value regardless of what turn they go off. Basically, while teleport has a higher peak value, you probably will not get off the turn that it actually matters. In an already high mobility army, and with the unleshed hell nerf... I'm just not seeing the value although it remains entirely viable. Not directed toward you, but I'd just say that I think people are not doing the math on how good Bash Em' Ladz actually is. The +1 wound is absolutely massive DPS increase that allows you to hit key damage thresholds on multiple units at once. For example, a unit of 6 pigs does 35 damage to a 3+ save unit reliably rather than just feasibly with Bash Em Ladz. In the era of the save stack, you're in very little danger of "wasting damage" if you can do some quick mental math. Point taken on the Rogue Idol, it's not worth it a straight comparison to Brutes or GGs. It's mostly there because it fills the one-drop neatly. I've been playing without battle regiments the whole edition, but it's undeniably powerful to choose who goes first. It can outright win you some games on certain scenarios. That said, I think I'll play around with some list ideas that stay 1 or 2 drops but drop the Idol. Thanks, as always.
  7. I've been out of the loop for a month, but I'm guessing the double MK meta may shift to something like this due to the amulet change (not drastically different than before mind you). I ran 2 MK/ double Warlord battalion (or my actual filth list of 1 MK and 21 GGs, but that list is out the window now) prior to the Winter update. Mostly with Amulet/Smell Un' MK and my general MK with Touched/Arcane Tome/ Fast 'Un. Points changes on GGs took double Warlord off the table for me - even if possible, I don't think it would even be worth now with the amulet change. Before, most people had their damage sponge MK and the "techy" MK with either Destroyer/Arcane Tome. I'm waffling on which MK archetype to include now. It was a no brainer with how Amulet worked previously, but I'm starting to think the "Tech" MK builds are going to be the way to go. You can mitigate a lot of the potential threats by just standing an MK 30"+ and still threaten charges/ big buffs out of unbind range. Bash Em' Ladz is ridiculously high value in IJ, and I'm leaning toward the Arcane Tome build. Especially with the inclusion of a Rogue Idol. That said, it will only take a few games of getting my single MK shot off by longstrikes or sentinels T1 or top of T2 to change my mind on that (will the 6+ ward even really help anyway... not sure). I've been able to play around the DOK double-tap fairly effectively, but it may be just because the local DOK players are not as strong as the SC/Lumineth guys in my area. Anyway, just some initial musings now that I'm back from vacation and had some time to consider the implications. Wondering what the consensus is for the rest of you (if there is one) for what min/maxed IJ lists are going to look like.
  8. Idk, SCE was on the rise in A-tier and they went completely unscathed. Wouldn't be surprised if they kept creeping up. Amulet change has bigger impact on IJ, Sons than most other top performing armies (they're still going to be ******-kicker armies, no doubt) ETC. ETC. I think we're mostly in agreement, really all this is doing is shuffling around the rankings of the top ~8 armies, but none of these armies are going to bumped out of the top spots and we won't have any new armies introduced into the ~55+ % winrate bracket. Meanwhile, we have like 6 or so armies at sub ~40% winrate and they will remain there.
  9. I'm skipping quite a bit of the discussion, but a couple things... How the hell did Fulminators fly under the radar? Foxes? This was advertised in the Warhammer Community previews as "Focused on bringing under-performing units/armies up", which clearly doesn't seem to be the case. For example, last time I looked at stats, Gitz was looking at ~30% winrate at GTs yet they got close to nothing to address that. Even if they have a book on the horizon, would it really be that crippling to meta to give some of these underperforming armies a 5% to 10% points decrease across the board in the interim? Anyway, definitely better than nothing, but I think all this did was reposition some of the S-tier armies to A-tier and some of the A-tier armies to S-tier.
  10. This so hard. Speed is our survivability at the moment, and is also why we are well positioned in this meta where half of the top armies are designed to completely cripple you in 2 turns from 24+ inches away (40k is fun!). Other armies do slower survivability per point, and synergy hero redundancy list way better (SBGL as an example) which is the only other melee archetype that fairs well on paper against longstrikes, bow snakes, sentinels, Seraphon, and tzeentch ranged projection lists. I'm just worried that the sentiment of, " Ironjawz and Sons are brain-dead armies, so if they're winning they must be broken" has been echoed enough that GW is going to be a little hamfisted with the points changes.
  11. Completely agree, you can slice it from a gameplay or hobby perspective, it would better serve the game better to change how LOS works. It's honestly not complex at all to implement (rules light wargames like KoW do it fine) and I do think it potentially adds a lot from tactical perspective as well. There's scrambles for archers to get to hills first to see over the enemies infantry lines to snipe support characters, distraction carnifexes can be arrow sponges for the little guys behind in a more meaningful way, you can mitigate damage against you slow foot slogging hammers with shield infantry in front, etc. Overall, I think it adds a lot to a wargame like this without a lot of rules bloat, it only benefits the hobby like you mentioned, and it also is just... cleaner, IMO.
  12. 1) No shooting unit should have more than 12" range unless it's artillery. Adjust points down to compensate. 2) True line of sight is stupid and they should implement a fixed height system for all units/terrain based on type, and better LOS determination rules so you can't claim LOS because you see under a models feet or their hand is raised.
  13. Pretty much lines up with common wisdom and my own experience as well. I personally only ever take 'ardboyz 5x3 to go Ironsunz. Very rarely just an odd unit of 5 to fill on points. 3 Warchanters is absolutely minimum for me, and I don't know how people play with less. It's especially perplexing when I see 1-2 Warchanters and they're not even shooting for a one-drop.
  14. Thanks for the post @Malakree. Seems like it's overwhelming consensus here in the US is very close to what you mention from the UK crew. Everyone is running some version of 2 MK, 3 warchanters, 12 pigs ( I prefer 1x6 and 2x3) in Bloodtoofs. Obviously, there's a lot of variation with artifact/mount trait set-ups. Here's the one I prefer: The General MK is staying out of threat range (literally back corner of the board against some lists), hopefully out of unbind range, and using Fast'un to jump in the fray once the opportunity arises( usually T2 w/ waagh after some skirmishing). That said, I'm sticking with my 21 GG/ 1 MK list because I like to think I'm a unique and special snowflake and arguably think it's just as good.
  15. Ok. I must have missed that there was any type of movement that can break coherency. If true, yeah!
×
×
  • Create New...