My problem is I just can�?Tt make it all work because the points on most things is prohibitive, especially when compared to similar options in other books,
I think its a reaccuring theme... units are good... just not good for the points.
The more I think about it, the less surprised I am. Apart from a Fighter Lord (and the Taur'ruk comes close) the list has everything. Expensive and cheap heroes, 4 spell lores (5 if you include a lammasu), big monsters and small monsters, light and heavy infantry, fast cav and sort-of heavy cav, BS based shooting and war machines. The armies that it's closest to thematically (Dwarfs and WoC) are both lacking in some areas....speed and magical offense for the Dwarfs and Shooting for WoC. These armies miss out on whole phases of the game.
The other lists that, like the Legion of Azgorh list, have an even spread and large variety of units (Empire and O&G) are also lacking in some areas compared to Chaos Dwarfs. The Empire is mostly T3 and more vunerable to Psychology in comparison and O&G are unreliable.
What's our real weakness? It's cost. I don't think comparing points costs with similar units in other books is always a helpful thing as synergies are different and units may be over or under-costed as a result. Certainly in the case of the Legion of Argorh list this looks like a futile exercise as it's all slightly overcosted, but the potential still looks good.
I have a unit of 18 Blunderbusses, the most expensive IG option and I'm going to use them (once the 40K Throne of Skulls is out of the way) and I'm going to make them work. I think they'll work very nicely in conjunction with my Earthskaker Cann......sorry, Dreadquake Mortar.
Unfortunately cost is too far removed from the game play to be a balancing point for an army. Cost has to have some relationship to the models or its too arbitrary. If you really believe cost was purposefully inflated to balance our options, they might as well have just said CD always have 20% fewer points and priced everything normally. Maybe its a case of specific units being overpriced to balance out with others, but WF seems to have gotten it backwards by over pricing what should be the most common and underpricing some of the others. I think we just have to accept that the cheaper more cost effective units are the ones WF wanted to push the sales of more and they’ve seemingly tried balancing that by upping the cost of staple units like BC and IG.
You are right. But another drawbackof the iron daemon, not said in this topic, is the fact that he auto fails initiative test (such as they say that the initiative stat of the crew is used only during the close combat phase). And in the 8th ed, there are a lot of spells with initiative test... Enough to kill a pricey iron daemon on one spell...
And the skaven army does have one...:mask
Unfortunately cost is too far removed from the game play to be a balancing point for an army. Cost has to have some relationship to the models or its too arbitrary. If you really believe cost was purposefully inflated to balance our options, they might as well have just said CD always have 20% fewer points and priced everything normally. Maybe its a case of specific units being overpriced to balance out with others, but WF seems to have gotten it backwards by over pricing what should be the most common and underpricing some of the others. I think we just have to accept that the cheaper more cost effective units are the ones WF wanted to push the sales of more and they've seemingly tried balancing that by upping the cost of staple units like BC and IG.
aka_mythos
I don't think it is the cost of units people are upset with, it is the cost of the weapon options.
I think most of the units/war machines are priced correctly.
When you are paying 5pts for a fireglaive and 6pts for a blunderbuss on infernal guard that already cost 12pts it doesn't make sense. Why would I take a unit of blunderbusses for 18pts a pop compated to the basic infernal guard unit of 12pts.
Time of Madness
If you really believe cost was purposefully inflated to balance our options
I do believe this, but I'm reserving judgement on whether they've gone too far. This book has been a long time in coming, and hopefully a long time in playtesting.........possibly. I may well come to the same conclusion, that some units/options are too overcosted, we shall see.
Why would I take a unit of blunderbusses for 18pts a pop compated to the basic infernal guard unit of 12pts.
The only good reason I can think of is that I have a unit already painted and want to use all my toy soldiers. That's a good enough reason for me, now I just have to get them to work. Easy.....errr
Had another game, sadly against Empire again, since the High Elves are sold! The Empire army was similar to what it was before (2x50 halbardiers, flagellants, greatswords, shooting and artillery), with the exception of exchanging a small priest with an archlector (yes, that means 2 archlectors! speak of magic defense…).
I changed the Chaos Dwarfs around a bit, Prophet, Demonsmith, BSB, 33 IG, 50 Hobgoblins w/bows, only 3 bull centaurs, 2 shriekers, 1 magma, K’daii destroyer and hellcannon, light cavalry.
While the game was a “one in a million” game and the end result isn’t really important i still learned something about the list.
(Just to give you a short recap: Round 1, first magic phase - my prophet explodes in a spectacular fashion, panicking the 33 IG+BSB who fail to rally next turn and consequently flee off the table. First shooting phase: the magma cannon explodes, despite demonsmith reroll. First opponent magic phase sees an IF dwellers on my K’daii destroyer who - of course - fails his strength test and vanishes…)
3 bull centaurs are solid. Not good, but solid. The same way i include 5 naked cavalry in all my other armies. (Granted, in other armies this costs nearer to 100 points than 180…) They can take a lot of punishment and are amongst the few choices to actually threaten enemy heavy cavalry (of the not-deathstar variety).
I think these guys will see the battle field every time, maybe without champ and musician (although i feel the greatweapon upgrade is mandatory, to threaten dragon princes, or chariots, or inner circle knights, etcpp).
The 50 hobgoblins w/ shields + bows are solid, too. Enough bodies to soak up damage (mine stood directly in mortar fire and only broke after 2 rounds of added handgunner fire 20 strong AND 2 rounds of hellblaster fire) and enough “projected force” to kill off annoyance units like detachments, light cavalry or reduce larger units over time. In the game the hobgoblins took all the shooting damage while taking a 50 strong empire regiment out of the fight.
The demonsmith: ace. The more i play, the more i love this guy. Sure, he did miscast, too (on his first spell, no less), loosing all his magic levels in the process but despite being down 1500 points after just the first round he survived the game as well as holding up a (severely depleted) flagellant unit saving the artillery in the process.
The hellcannon is - in my eyes - a must-have. Just as the K’daii is the only HtH “oomph!” we have at our disposal the hellcannon is our only true “hold the flank” unit. Despite my heavy losses early on the hellcannon not only survived the game but held a single flank (around 900 points of Empire units) all on it’s own (a bit of mean terrain did help, tough). If my IG and K’daii would have been in the game past round 1 i think i could have swung the game around even with the loss of my prophet.
The wolf riders were - again - a disappointment. I think i’ll switch to a lone Khan (shame, i have the lovely OOP hobgoblin wolf riders from our first army book).
Still unhappy with my big main unit and the game exemplified all the reasons why. All eggs in one basket is kinda stupid when the basket isn’t even a deathstar, but a purely defensive unit, lingering at the back of the field. Two possible solutions: The prophet joins the artillery, still giving his LD while reducing the IG unit by nearly 400 points to more manageable levels. Or, Taurus. Small IG unit for the BSB to hide in and Taurus to wreak havoc in conjunction with the K’daii (12 IG buy one Taurus…).
...I keep hearing sad news about my wolf riders. What way do they fail?-And do you see any way to make them viable?
aka_mythos
They operate either at your own front line - where they are a bit wasted as light cavalry.
Or they operate behind enemy lines, which means a) animosity, and b) leadership fail.
On top of that, they are not really very impressive stats wise. They are cheap, that's what they have going for themselves. Unfortunately, a Khan on wolf is even cheaper... (or slightly more expensive but with better defensive stats, depending on magic equipment).
I used wolf riders as screens for the BC and war machine hunters or re-directors.
As a BC screen they are not needed, the BC are tough enough (i'd rather take another BC than a wolf rider regiment). As war machine hunters they are just too unreliable (-> a) animosity, b) leadership/panic, c) combat prowess). As re-directors they are ok, but a bit expensive. A single naked Khan will do the same for 10 points less.
I personally think 12 pts for IG is perfect (11 was too cheap, i was one of the people who said they should be 12). I mean compared to Hammerers they strike at initiative and have a +2 armor save (very important) in addition to the parry.
It’s the weapon prices I think which are the issue.
Practically everything will seem overcosted compared to the Magma cannon simply because the Magma cannon is completely broken. It’s effectiveness for the pts cost is ridiculous given the template and massive range.
Very interesting to read people’s opinions on the new Centaurs.
What is everyone using for these on the table?? I’m not going to rebase my classics. Is anyone just using them on the cavalry bases?
To Zhorn that sounds like horrible luck in that game lol.
I personally think 12 pts for IG is perfect (11 was too cheap, i was one of the people who said they should be 12). I mean compared to Hammerers they strike at initiative and have a +2 armor save (very important) in addition to the parry.
It's the weapon prices I think which are the issue.
ChungEssence
totally agree, but IG have a 3+ save.
Practically everything will seem overcosted compared to the Magma cannon simply because the Magma cannon is completely broken. It's effectiveness for the pts cost is ridiculous given the template and massive range.
ChungEssence
at least one unit that is undercosted ;P
Very interesting to read people's opinions on the new Centaurs.
What is everyone using for these on the table?? I'm not going to rebase my classics. Is anyone just using them on the cavalry bases?
ChungEssence
I´m using mine on cavalry bases, since 5 in a row don´t make a difference compared to 3 40x40mm, 2 2nd row, and using more in a unit is just to expensive. besides, as opposed to the k´daai destroyer,
there is no comment in tamurkhan about base size, so technically and RAW cavalry bases are absolutely legit.
Good to hear re: centaurs… especially if FW aren’t doing new ones! However
"I´m using mine on cavalry bases, since 5 in a row don´t make a difference compared to 3 40x40mm, 2 2nd row"
This does make a difference with regards to flank attacks (on you) and also with 3 front and 2 second row you lose 2 stomp attacks don’t you?
I mean i’m fine with it but i can see some WAAC people kicking up a fuss.
Any other opinions?
"totally agree, but IG have a 3+ save."
I mean +2 save over Hammerers who have a 5+ save. So yeah, 3+, same as Ironbreakers who are 13pts a pop with only +1 WS to show for it really
"at least one unit that is undercosted "
yep lol. Magma cannon’s are ridiculous for the price and poop on both the external and internal balance of the list (ie, Dreadquake vs Magma cannon). If the range wasn’t so damn long they’d be fine but given they can pump from first turn with the massive flame template (affect more guys than the Dreadquake which is a joke) it’s too much and a hinderance for CD’s trying to get mainstream acceptance imo. Magma Cannon is Hydra level good for the price… possibly better.
I´m using mine on cavalry bases, since 5 in a row don´t make a difference compared to 3 40x40mm, 2 2nd row
That will definitely cause problems. Monstrous Beasts are 40 or 50mm, War Beasts are 25x50. I know the book doesn't specify but that is what everyone expects. There is no precedent for cav based MB.
You will also be gaining stomps if you're on 5 wide cavalry bases as all 5 will be in contact, which will annoy people, and you'll be able to allocate more attacks onto enemy characters which also won't go down well.
why do you anglo-saxons always have to have a precedence? we germano-bavarians always go strict by the rules
clichés and joking aside, i know this is a problematic issue, especially for tournie-goers. it is something wf should definitely clear up if they do a FAQ. i only play with my group, and they are fine with it since
a) the army is pretty expensive anyways
b) they know im not a power or WAAC player and am just to lazy to rebase them, even more since
c) even wf doesnt seem to have a clear stance on this.
but i will be the first to rebase and follow the rules as soon this is set by an official written statement accessible to everyone.
Which seems an odd troop type classification for them as they have the exact same stats in the 8th Ed Ogre Kingdoms Sabretusks and are War Beasts - the SoM ones, however, have a few extra upgrades they can take, which I guess makes them more 'beastly'... I guess it' still makes sense for them to be on a 25x50 base for OK, SoM is just an oddity and perhaps just 'one of those things' where we won't get any clarification on base size for them.
Which seems an odd troop type classification for them as they have the exact same stats in the 8th Ed Ogre Kingdoms Sabretusks and are War Beasts - the SoM ones, however, have a few extra upgrades they can take, which I guess makes them more 'beastly'... I guess it' still makes sense for them to be on a 25x50 base for OK, SoM is just an oddity and perhaps just 'one of those things' where we won't get any clarification on base size for them.
Nicodemus
Yeah, I was actually a bit annoyed when I saw the Ogre Kingdoms book reverted them back to War Beasts. I was quite pleased to see some Monstrous Whatevers on cavalry bases precisely because of the Bull Centaur situation, and the "real" Sabretusks doing such an abrupt reversal just muddies the issue further.
