[Archive] K'daii Fireborn way overpriced?

Maetco:

Hello everyone!

I just found out that there is an official CD Army Book / Army List and I am very excited. I have been waiting for an official CD AB for years (ever since 2006 - 2007). I got a copy of the book and even though it’s not a proper AB and there are very few choises, most of the important unit types / roles are there. Unfortunately some of the choises seem badly overpriced and one of the most interesting units k’daii Fireborn seems to be the worst. With only 2 A and 2 W and the 1/3 chance of hurting itself every turn (except the first) makes the cost seem absolutely ridiculous.

What do you think? Are they overpriced? Have you used them, how and with what outcome?

Thanks in advance for helping me!

Malorndk:

Waaayyy overpriced for that statline. Same as Ironswrns. Never used neither, but some player in here have some good experience with Fireborns

Grimbold Blackhammer:

Actually for what they do, they’re a great unit. A little bit over priced but not horrible IMHO. One of the best unit-clearing units in the game and they’re quite good at stopping cannon balls from killing your K’daii Destroyer/Bale Taurus on turn 1.

Yodrin:

I like em to! Expensive yes, but have worked great in my battles. It’s important to chose your battles and never go less than 6 models, I go 8 or 9:)

Bloodbeard:

Remember to check out The Daemonsmith Handbook for some great tactics on k’daii fireborn.

They are a bit overpriced - for sure. Perhaps a few points cheaper. Or they could get another wound and be more expensive. But I think they work.

On the other hand we have a way to cheap k’daii destroyer and a very cheap magma cannon.

I’ve only had one battle where the fireborn has let me down - when I let a unit of grailknights and a paladin carge them…

Otherwise tey have always performed. Eating entire units of skeleton warriors, swordmasters, holding up chaos knights. They are great and really hard to beat.

Malorndk:

I always compare them to ogres, which is unfair as the fireburns surely have some insanely good special rules: reroll to wound, unbreakable, wardsave.

I just can get over 2W and 2A (which in turns makes their strenght 5 less important) for nearly the double point cost of an ogre.

In reality, I can’t really compare them as they fullfill different roles as models (and sadly: we cant access ogres), but if I want something unbreakable I go with Destroyers, Iron Daemons or Hellcanons

Grimbold Blackhammer:

I like to think of Fireborn as having 4 attacks actually. The Burning Bright rule is an attack that auto-hits (awesome!) but they don’t always get to stomp so half the time it’s actually only 3 attacks. But when they can Stomp, it’s another auto-hitting attack (so only half awesome?) They’re good and they have yet to truly fail me but they aren’t uber.

Maetco:

Thanks a lot all, especially Marlorndk for the link. I’ll go and have a look at the Handbook and hopefully I’ll find something I missed on my own. I’ll probably come back after I’ve had some more time to reflect on my findings.

Geist:

Seeing this thread just reminds me once again that ForgeWorld really needs to redo 3 units in the book so badly it hurts.

Fell Sworn 17pts for ws5 st5 (magic weapon) and parry rule. For that point cost they should have 2 attacks and stubborn built in.

Fire Borne 55pts for 2attacks and 2 wounds plus a break down check off T4? Change the break down rules so that they dont suffer as much as they do or drop there cost by 15pts a model. Need massive help for that bloated point cost.

Bulls 40 some odd points before you give them jack crap. St4 base?!?! 2 attacks wtf?? Ws 4??? Talk about another bloated point cost unit. Again a unit that needs help.

If I could just sit down with the boys for about 6 hours I could fix the entire damn book in one shot and increase sales of bulls and fire born. No I don’t say that to be egotistical, I say that because I have read the book many times played a crap ton of games with them won my fair share lost my fair share as well. I have seen it from both sides of the fence. I know the simple tweaks it needs to be a army that is not just a modelers hobby love army but also one that can kick ass while not being over the top.

ForgeWorld if you are reading this lets talk!!

MadHatter:

Seeing this thread just reminds me once again that ForgeWorld really needs to redo 3 units in the book so badly it hurts.

Fell Sworn 17pts for ws5 st5 (magic weapon) and parry rule.  For that point cost they should have 2 attacks and stubborn built in.  

Fire Borne 55pts for 2attacks and 2 wounds plus a break down check off T4?  Change the break down rules so that they dont suffer as much as they do or drop there cost by 15pts  a model.  Need massive help for that bloated point cost.

Bulls 40 some odd points before you give them jack crap.  St4 base?!?!  2 attacks wtf??  Ws 4???   Talk about another bloated point cost unit.  Again a unit that needs help.

If I could just sit down with the boys for about 6 hours I could fix the entire damn book in one shot and increase sales of bulls and fire born.  No I don't say that to be egotistical, I say that because I have read the book many times played a crap ton of games with them won my fair share lost my fair share as well.  I have seen it from both sides of the fence.  I know the simple tweaks it needs to be a army that is not just a modelers hobby love army but also one that can kick ass while not being over the top.

ForgeWorld if you are reading this lets talk!!

Geist
You tell 'em!

ThorAxe:

I feel as though forge world does not keep up to date with rules in general. Lots of examples throughout their 40k books. As this was their first fantasy book, some of their mistakes can be forgiven, but a lot of confusing choices regardless. The statlines of the bull centaur and k’daii are the best ones you pointed out, though I feel the fireborn only having 2 wounds can be justified for balance, as it encourages you to balance having a unit big enough to fight through burning bright tests and not spending so many points that the army suffers. Lowering their points cost too much makes them that much more superior to trolls, though I feel that they should at least gain frenzy so that they are more similar to their destroyer counter part and so that they could gain a 3rd attack (also would be good for monstrous support).

Bull centaurs really do not need that much of a change. Give them a 3rd attack and they are golden. At the same time, they would be so much more superior to ogre equivalents, and would need a small points increase for balance. Though the models do look crazy buff and huge, and do not really support this stat line. Always funny that they have stomp, but the lamassu model (which is smaller than them barring wings) can thunder stomp.

I feel that forgeworld should re-release their chaos dwarf army book in pdf format, similar to how they re-released their death korp seige regiment, tyrant legion, dred mob list, and how they occasionally leave out rules for particular units. This way, they could update the army book for problem units like the k’daii fireborn, change the engineer rule to reflect the current edition, and streamline rules like burning bright (current FAQ allows for 6s to always wound regardless of modifiers among other changes, burning bright should really be changed back to the way it was). Perhaps they are waiting for the edition to change in order to do so. I think it would be preferable for them to wait until edition changes, perhaps some time after the edition change, so that we aren’t stuck with army books like orcs and goblins or beastmen, who have not exactly aged well for this current meta. Time will tell

Admiral:

FW don’t keep up to date with rules that much. They’re more into the background and miniatures, which is fine by me. The best thing we can do is to point out to FW what need to be fixed in their rules. If enough people do so, it might give us results.

Maetco:

...current FAQ allows for 6s to always wound regardless of modifiers among other changes...

ThorAxe
Are you talking about BRB FAQ? This came up once in a match which didn't have CD, I can't remember what was the rule / item / effect that caused the to would penalty. Anyway, I couldn't find an official answer to what happens if a model which can normally would on 6+ suffers -1 to would rolls.

ThorAxe:

Are you talking about BRB FAQ? This came up once in a match which didn't have CD, I can't remember what was the rule / item / effect that caused the to would penalty. Anyway, I couldn't find an official answer to what happens if a model which can normally would on 6+ suffers -1 to would rolls.

Maetco
The BRB rulebook FAQ states that 6's always hit and wound and that 1's always miss or fail to wound, despite the rulebook stating otherwise in some cases. Fairly certain this is in that pink color they use to show most recent changes.

Maetco:

Are you talking about BRB FAQ? This came up once in a match which didn't have CD, I can't remember what was the rule / item / effect that caused the to would penalty. Anyway, I couldn't find an official answer to what happens if a model which can normally would on 6+ suffers -1 to would rolls.

Maetco
The BRB rulebook FAQ states that 6's always hit and wound and that 1's always miss or fail to wound, despite the rulebook stating otherwise in some cases.  Fairly certain this is in that pink color they use to show most recent changes.


ThorAxe
I just went through the Official Update 1.8 (Errata/FAQ) and couldn't find it. I can find it that 1s always fails but not that 6s always succeed. Could you please find the part where this is said and copy paste it in a reply or some other way indicate where exactly it is since I have now went through the thing twice without finding it.

Bloodbeard:

If you look at the “to wound chart” it’s pretty clear that 6’salways wound. Even with strength 1 vs toughness 10. And since 10 is the maximum stat, this can’t change.

To hit in close combat is always 3+, 4+ or 5+. Meaning in 8th edition strength/toughness is way more important for combat than ws.

To hit in shooting can be 7+ (roll 6 and then 4+), 8+ (roll 6, then 5+) or 9+ (roll 6, then 6).

Just check the warhammer 8th edition ref. sheet. No need for FAQ.

Dînadan:

If you look at the "to wound chart" it's pretty clear that 6'salways wound. Even with strength 1 vs toughness 10. And since 10 is the maximum stat, this can't change.

Bloodbeard
What happens when there's a -1 To Wound because of a spell, special rule, etc? Best you can get then is a 5, that's the issue being debated ;)

Bloodbeard:

Thanks a lot all, especially Marlorndk for the link.

Maetco
I guess all danes look alike.
If you look at the "to wound chart" it's pretty clear that 6'salways wound. Even with strength 1 vs toughness 10. And since 10 is the maximum stat, this can't change.

Bloodbeard
What happens when there's a -1 To Wound because of a spell, special rule, etc?  Best you can get then is a 5, that's the issue being debated ;)


Dînadan
Checked the rulebook and the erratta. The Erratta only says that "A to wound roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers". It says so under booth shooting page 42 and close combat page 51. So nothing about 6's always wounds. Not really anywhere in it.

So I really think the:
...current FAQ allows for 6s to always wound regardless of modifiers among other changes...

ThorAxe
, claim is wrong.

But lets solve the "what if" situations anyway.

Now the erratta doesn't state anything on the general use of dice.

So I think our answer lies in the little site note, rulebook page 10, "is it natural?". Only when the book states "a natural roll", do you look at the actual number on the dice, ignoring any modifiers there might be. "We sometimes want the dice scores themselves (without modifiers), rather than the total result (including modifiers).

So it would have been smart to write in the above mentioned erratta "a natural roll of 1 always fails..." Since it's basically the meaning. Still nothing about always wounds on 6's.

This brings us to in which order modifiers are applied.
Now, rulebook page 7, "Roll the dice and add or subtract the number given to or from the score (as appropriate) to get the final result." And the next sentence "For example, D6+2 means roll a dice an add 2 to the score, giving a total between 3 and 8".

So for k'daii (with old blazing body) that must mean a d6-1 to wound must give you a result between 0 and 5. And if the "to wound chart", states a 6+ is needed to wound - it can't be done. So fighting a k'daii destroyer with less than strentgh 5 would suck.

This must be why they changed the blazing body rule to the "re-roll succesfull wounds". Because the game really wants you to be able to wound on 6's, and the rules doesn't state anything about "natural 6's always wound". And forgeworld can't let a monster out, that's only killable be strength 5 and above.

That would be too much like 7th edition (to which thamurkhan was basically written, and that has caused so many problems with the book).

... And would you look at that, the birds are singing and the sun is coming up...

Maetco:

Thanks a lot all, especially Marlorndk for the link.

Maetco
I guess all danes look alike.



Bloodbeard
Sorry, I have no idea what happened there. I can clearly remember double checking who exactly was it that posted the link. I blame the raisin.

Malorndk:

I’m such a boss xD

This message was automatically appended because it was too short.