[Archive] My ideas to "rebalance"� � the Destroyer, Ashstorm, and the Magma Cannon

Veshnakar:

Well never mind that then. Move along.

Da Crusha:

not a good idea. if you get rid of our good things we are just a poor army. we are typically outnumbered already. if chaos dwarfs arent dominating the tournament scene there is no reason to make them weaker. recently me and 2 other chaos dwarf players entered a 2 day tournament and only won 7 out of 15 games.

Barukh:

I like this proposal because it has some valid points. However, there are some flaws in each case in your rule changes.

K’daii Destroyer:

The K’daii is a 300+ point fire demon that’s whole goal is to burn everything in its path. It is made of fire and molten rock. Consequently, of course it is going to be hard as hell to wound. If it wasn’t why wouldn’t everyone just shoot the crap out of it turn 1? Cannons can still wipe it out. Same with all warmachines. You will miss your 4+ ward and they will deal there D3/D6 wounds to you. The re-roll to wound is much better more for the little guys than it is for the Destroyer, mainly for the reason of warmachines. Also, remember that you can hold up that 300+ point death machine, with a 60 point Cairn Wraith. All. Game. The Destroyer does 0 damage, and all’s the cairn wraith has to do is use its special I hit you and you take a wound attack. You will be stuck there.

Magma Cannon:

I believed this one had potential honestly, but your proposals to change ruin the warmachine. The first rule of change basically turns it into from a big monster killer to a scorch one at a time. @S3 and covering say 3 ogres, you will only wound one, then wreck off an average of two wounds…you spent 145 points to do that? Then the halving the range basically screws it over as most people will march more than half that distance, basically saying by turn two that cannon has lost its uses without risking your own guys.

Ash Storm:

Reasonable claim, it does have a lot of effects to it. However, it is pretty clear what it does, as it spells it out. You are -2 to shoot, and -1 to hit in CC. You are flammable. IF a wizard is amongst that unit, he can only cast spells on that unit. Moving counts as moving through Dangerous Terrain and must take a test. Just remember: you get it from one character (excluding our one special character), it is a Lord choice (basically you will never see it under a 2k game), and it costs you about 500+ points (combining lvl4 upgrade, magic items, and mount as Lore of Hashut has low casting ranges). I think if you are pulling out THAT much, you can have the spell do what it wants. It has to go off on a 12+ anyhow, so you throw an average of 3 dice at it, and it wouldn’t be hard to dispel either at that rate. This spell SHOULD be used to hold up elite units from making crucial movements or charges, allowing you a turn to essentially turn the tables if they were not in your favor. People should remember that it lasts for ONE TURN. Basically, you don’t do anything with one unit. Not a game changer. Plus, people play with more than one wizard, so you don’t lose all your spells to begin with.

Let’s not forget as you are from the US as well, the people who play this list, have forked out 75 dollars to have that ability along with the whole campaign rules and stuff. There will always be the reason that this list itself will be hard to accept on a wider basis. The cost is high (at least for us not in the UK), so this army will be a rare sight. For me, where I am still in high school, I can garuntee that I will be the only one in my GW store who owns the book and plays the list, so people will whine how broken the Legion list is, but it really isn’t if you can get around the weaknesses of it. It is actually quite beatable. You just got to KNOW what you are playing against. That can go for anybody playing against a fresh army. Not everybody plays/sees everything, so everyone will have bad luck with some armies along with good luck against others.

However, this is just my opinion. I am just a 17 year old kid who has enjoyed playing this game for a decade now, and is just sharing his point of view. Don’t let me stop you. I do indeed support the idea of trying to get the list more widely accepted, but I am not sure that small rule changes/point value increases will necessarily do that. I feel that taking a short time to explain what everything does to your opponent before the game might have a better chance at getting the army widely accepted, as more people will grow to understand how the army functions, and will be able to make such accomidations to their own army lists in order to beat it the next time they play.

Grimbold Blackhammer:

Chaos Dwarves are not a Tier 1 army.  In fact most battle reports I read show them losing more than 50% of the time even with a K’daii Destroyer.  So if one were to weaken the army, what is your proposal to balance those changes out?  If you’re going to take something away, shouldn’t you ask for something back?  Personally, I don’t want a Tomb King-level army so if something goes, something else needs to fill the void.  

I can think of no army that has so few deployment drops as a typical LoA list does.  Chaos Dwarves have the most expensive core of any army ever printed.  Ever!

We aren’t maneuverable and flanking our enemies,  as we are absolutely the least maneuverable army in Warhammer.  

Our magic phase is average - we have no way to purchase additional power dice nor ways to mitigate miscasts which makes us below average.  However our spells are quite good so that bumps us back up to average.

Our shooting ability is slightly less than Dwarves which is pretty impressive.  While they can kill monsters better than we can, we have an easier time with rank-and-file.  That and they have troops that shoot 24+ inches.

The toughness of our units is balanced by our low damage output in hand-to-hand.  We win through attrition and hopefully thinning out the enemy as they cross the board to us.

So in the end, I don’t see how neutering our main strengths really helps us.  Or other players.  And when I refer to our “main strengths”, I’m referencing the few tools that actually make us viable.  Lastly I’ll remind folks of the good old days when the Treeman was released and the horrible cries of “broken” and “over powered” came out.  Then it was Speed of Anariun (however it’s spelled…).  Then it was the War Hydra.  Then it was the Hellpit Abomination.  Then it was Ironblaster.  Now it’s the K’daii Destroyer.  Tomorrow it will be something else…

Grimbold Blackhammer

eudaimon:

Excellent response Barukh.

In my local scene, Australia, i don’t really see a problem with CDs being “accepted”. Every recent tournament has allowed them. They are not breaking hobbies and normally, as Barukh says, it is unknown syndrome.

The K’daii is really good, but it makes up for others things in the list. The burning itself to death thing is very important in keeping it balanced. In two competitive games I have played I have killed my own K’daii without doing any damage to my opponent, or him doing any damage to me. That is 325 points I have to try to earn back through other means. Not to mention the sheer number of D6 wounding warmachines nowadays, and on that base size, it is a warmachine magnet.

The magma cannon is exactly where it needs to be in order to give us a decent artillery piece. Take three of anything good and any list can get stupid. That is why comp exists in competitive environments. In an environment with no comp then you should be expecting to face 2 x hydras, 2 x steamtanks, 3 units of mournfang and double helcannon etc in that case, you will need your 3 magma cannons!

Ash Storm. On balance, you probably have a point. The casting value should probably increase to 14/15.

tvandyke:

I think it’s silly to start talking about nerfing the few decent things we have in the army unless you also start talking about reducing the price of things that are way overpriced like all the weapons options for our Infernal Guard. So far, it looks like the army is already “widely” accepted. The complaints people are having are the same type of complaints they have with every new army that comes out. As it stands now, every tournament that’s been scheduled for 2012 in North America is allowing the list. As more people play against it and the won/loss record continues to hover around 50% to 60%, the complaints will move back to where they belong with Skaven, Daemons, etc. As long as I have to keep facing the filth I’ve been facing in 8th edition (Skaven, Ogres, Lizardmen, Daemons, VC, etc) you’ll get no apologies from me. Every time I pull off an Ashstorm/Flames of Azgorth combo or see my Destroyer decimate a unit Mournfang I’ll giggle like a 10 year old. As far as the Magma Cannon goes, I just don’t see where this OTT talk is coming from. I mean, it’s decent, but overpowered? Not in this Universe. I still say the Deathshriekers are a better bang for the buck.

CopperPot:

I would hate to be a forgeworld worker at the moment especially the person who has to come to work and read all the emails of people complaining and asking for rule changes.

I mean come on, your talking now about changing some of our best stuff it isnt broken so dont try and fix it.

Granted the Destroyer needs looking at again but after its complete overhaul I dont think we can expect another rule change for it.

Thorin:

I am new to CD, my army isn’t even finished yet, but I have to say i would disagree with your purposals.

I play now Dark Elf, who are overpowerd but not unbeatable, even uncomped. Yes it’s boring to “drive over” certain weaker armies with a hard or cheesy list, but it’s also sad and boring to be comped so hard that you can’t use all thats in the armylist together. The danger of nurfing ourselfs, is that the really good and cool things will be to expensive, and then left out

Yes the Destroyer is hard, but so is “the unkillable” DE lord, and that’s just how it is. Destroyer has it’s weaknesses, and when people know how to deal with it, they won’t shout so loud.

Pardon my bad “french” :sick

Btw, I am so looking forward to my first battle with my CD army:cheers

Discoking:

I think those amendments are awful.

It’s one thing to have the list accepted, and another thing to have it acceptable.

Your FAQ would make the list unacceptable IMO.

You could try house ruling them instead, or just not taking those units/lore…

Bitterman:

I don’t like any of these ideas I’m afraid.

I have never yet taken a Destroyer, because I know with certainty that people would say “…what the hell do you mean most of my army can’t even hurt it!?” Now, since the FAQ, they can. Problem solved - it’s still a tough monster, but just look at the tough monsters in the game (Ogres have move-and-shoot-cannon-chariot-monsters, and move-and-shoot-stone-throwers-that-never-misfire-and-make-everything-nearby-strike-last-monsters. So we’ve got a tough, M9 monster? Boohoo). So I’ll happily take one in future.

Magma cannons are nasty. Yes, they are. Last game I played, it died in turn one to a cannon shot, before it could even fire. A lot of armies have got better war machines than us - why nerf our best one? S3, are you insane!?

Ash Storm is a good spell. Yes, it is. So is Dreaded 13th, so is Purple Sun, so are a whole bunch of others. I don’t like the current Warhammer theme of uber-spells, but there you have it. We’ve got one too? Fair enough then.

If - if - we’re to ask for changes, how about making some of our pointless units, actually usable? The Skullcrusher is never worth taking when the only attacks it can make are Stomps. (And Impact Hits, granted, but it is the hardest unit in the game with which to organise a charge). All they have to do is change it from “Stomp” to “automatic hits”, and it suddenly becomes worth taking - perhaps even an alternative to the obligatory Destroyer. If they’re going to change the list, I’d rather see more units become worth taking, than our best units not worth taking.

Thommy H:

Whether the changes are good or not is irrelevant - FW aren’t going to get some random guy on the internet to rewrite their rules for them. This thread should be called “my house rules for some LoA units” and be in Rules Development.

The Besieger:

Sry but i dont like to spend more time to reply on this post.

And i think thats clear how i tinking about this rebalanced thread

Far2Casual:

Honestly, I only have a problem with the Destroyer. I like the -1 to wound rule, and if it would be capped at 6+ then everything with this unit would be perfectly fine.

My opinion on the Magma Cannon is that people overreact to it. It’s a very good warmachine obviously, but as all warmachines it’s random. And the big difference with other gunlines like Empire or Dwarves is that CD are bad at artillery wars. If you play a CD gunline and encounter a Dwarf or Empire gunline, you’re toasted. The only thing I could agree with is to reduce its range from 24" to 18".

CD Magic phase is very average. No dispell dice generation shenanigans and very costly sorcerers make getting off spells not as easy as it seems. You are basically hoping for good rolls (like 4-4, 5-5 and the like) and relunctant to 6-dice spells with a model that is often worth 450+ VP. So having good spells just make up for that. Really, the magic phase looks fantastic on paper but is just “ok” in reality.

I mean, the same things could be said for the entire LoA army. Everything looks absolutely amazing on paper, as it should for a super-elite army like that, but in reality there are other factors that come into play like point costs, mobility and limited ressources.

Baggronor:

Thing is, if they’re going to make all those changes on top of an faq and a further rules adjustment after caving to complaints about Blazing Body, they may as well just re-write the entire army - the actual book will be way out of sync with the current rules. There is a list of problems with the LoA as long as my arm that are nothing to do with being too powerful anyway: Stupidly costed guns for IG, compulsory throwing knives for Hobgoblins, only 2 Attacks for BCs, ridiculous cost for Ironsworn, ridiculous cost for the Siege Giant, internal balance in the Rares section, and the ID (that thing has it’s own sub-list of problems within the list of problems). If they are willing to ‘fix’ other stuff, they should fix these too. But that would invalidate a £40 book, so that’s a bad idea for them.

Maybe just wait a few years and release an updated pdf. Hopefully with some new troop types and minis.

Bitterman:

Honestly, I only have a problem with the Destroyer. I like the -1 to wound rule, and if it would be capped at 6+ then everything with this unit would be perfectly fine.

Far2Casual
Check the latest FAQ. No more -1. Instead, successful wounds are rerolled. So yeah, IMO, it's fine.

Veshnakar:

Yike guys. Honestly these were just ideas that I had to help rebalanced the parts of our list that have gotten me the most complaints from my opponents in the tournaments that I have attended and the games I have played. They honestly weren’t even that terrible, but judging from your responses I take it that these are perhaps the only redeeming items in our list!

Along with my Chaos Dwarfs I have also played Dark Elves for my 13 or so years in the hobby. I was a major backer for the Druchii.net Dark Elf revision initiative, and I remember when the 6th edition dark elf book was terrible, and no one played Dark Elves, and they went from one of the wrost armies in the game in 6th edition, to one of the “big three” of 7th edition.

What I am getting at is… that was a pretty big heartbreaker for me, as I loved the astetics of the Dark Elf army, but everyone seemed to consider them a “cheesy” army.

The Legion of Azgorh can be a “Tier 1” army. The potential is very much there, I promise you. It just so happens that many of us don’t have the aim of making nasty lists and instead focus on taking the stuff we like, rather than winning, but once the army starts getting into the wrong hands, people will start to see, and it will be hard for people to accept playing against a list that a few WAAC players have ruined for all of us.

So please understand where I am coming from. It’s so much better to have an underpowered list that takes a little brain twisting to win, rather than an army that plays the game all by itself. That’s where my frame of mind was coming from anyhow. Perhaps it was a pretty dumb idea.

Bitterman:

I’ve also played Dark Elves… for 23 years. I can live with people accusing me of playing a cheesy army, as I don’t run a cheesy list, so their words are just air. I wonder why other people’s opinions bother you so much? I remember those days when Dark Elves sucked (basically, every single book except the most recent one). It wasn’t fun playing a game knowing you had a 90% chance of losing - even though my main reason for playing wasn’t to win.

I’d rather have the option of taking a powerful list or a fluffy list, and choose to take a fluffy list, than have that decision made for me. Dark Elves have taught me that.

Even if we accept that CDs might be a tier 1 army (they’re not btw, but let’s pretend)… I’d still rather have the option of playing like I do now, winning some games, losing some… than nerf the army so I know I’ll never win, just because a minority of WAAC idiots might get us a reputation that we wouldn’t deserve. Who cares about “reputation” if you’re not going to abuse the list anyway? It’s just noise.

Baggronor:

Even if we accept that CDs might be a tier 1 army (they're not btw, but let's pretend)... I'd still rather have the option of playing like I do now, winning some games, losing some... than nerf the army so I know I'll never win, just because a minority of WAAC idiots might get us a reputation that we wouldn't deserve. Who cares about "reputation" if you're not going to abuse the list anyway? It's just noise.
Quite. And WAAC idiots are what comp is for (as long as it's used sparingly).
Even if we accept that CDs might be a tier 1 army (they're not btw, but let's pretend)...
I agree. The list has some nasty surprises for people who haven't faced it before and there are a few bent builds (and they are pretty bad) but the core of the army is still full of choices that are barely workable. Mild comp would solve them all (like putting a joint cap on Destroyers and Magma Cannons for example).

Veshnakar:

I wonder why other people's opinions bother you so much?
Because they are the opinions of people who are the very ones I am playing against. Some of us aren't so lucky as to have friends who endorse or support an environment where taking a fun and fluffy list is encourageable. My personal group, and moreover my local area game store scene tends to have a very competitive vibe to it. Initially they were very quick to disallow the Legion of Azgorh army, but over time they accepted it, mostly due in part to Chaos Dwarfs being my only army, and how large my army is.

Recently however another player who normally played Skaven has picked the army up, and he is what I would consider a WAAC player, and due to his winning the last tournament and the reputation he's been getting with them, they have now come to the consensus that the list is overpowered in it's current state, and it's jeopardizing my ability to use the army that I love within my local area, which is a problem as my next closest store is like 2 hours away, and only has about 5 fantasy players, as opposed to the 25 or so I have to play with right now. This is the army he's been fielding.
_________
(305) Sorcerer Prophet Level 4 w/Lore of Hashut and Enchanted Shield

(95) Daemonsmith Sorcerer Level 1 w/Lore of Fire

(140) Infernal Castellan BSB w/Charmed Shield and Luck Stone

(283) 19 Infernal Guard w/Standard Bearer, Champion, and Banner of Slavery

(202) 40 Hobgoblin Cutthroats w/Full Command and Shields

(202) 40 Hobgoblin Cutthroats w/Full Command and Shields

(104) 20 Hobgoblins w/Bows and Musician

(104) 20 Hobgoblins w/Bows and Musician

(100) Deathshrieker Rocket Launcher

(145) Magma Cannon

(145) Magma Cannon

(145) Magma Cannon

(325) K'daai Destroyer

(205) Hellcannon
______

That's the army verbatim from the tournament last weekend. He pulled off five 20-0 games and won first place.

It won't be long before this type of list trends.

Thommy H:

Sounds like your problem is with your opponents, not the rules. That sucks, but FW rules have always been a bit wonky and not really designed for competitive gaming - they’re model makers, not games developers. Perhaps you should just voluntarily comp yourself by not using the units these guys see as broken, or use your army as counts-as Dwarfs? Your dumbass friend can do what he likes, but your army will still be fair.