Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thank you very much
Wanted to make sure I was taking the right one.

The silver tower gaunt summoner can quite easily nuke large units so I can see why his points are high aswell.

Running a 2.5k game tonight so I'll throw in some feedback
I'm running tzeentch daemons/mortals and my opponent is running skaven, so could be an interesting one.


Thanks again.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Loving this Comp so far, but I do have a quick question.

I appreciate the terrain warscrolls being pointed above, and while I may have just missed it.... is "Gardens of Morr" point-costed anywhere?

It's in there; 80 pts but its summoning rule is ignored.

Attilla wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Might be oversight on my part, but I think there's an entry missing from the tzeentch list.

You have the silver tower gaunt summoner on foot with the 4 familiars.
But GW also have a gaunt summoner on a disc, without the familiars.

All that is listed is the one on foot with the familiars.

Or have I missed something?

Thanks.

It was a tough call, but in the end we put the original Gaunt Summoner in the Undivided list since he "belongs" with Archaon. He really should be in Tzeentch as well, but we didn't want to include the same model twice.

I think it would be a lot better to have both Gaunt Summoners in the Tzeentch list. Think "if I didn't know where it was, where would I look first?" and I believe the answer for most people would be the Tzeentch list, especially those not invested in the fluff.

Thanks 9th. Any chance of an adjusted version that allows for the summoning, with a similarly appropriate point-cost?

It sort of loses its flavor if it doesn't summon skellies... being a mystical grave-yard and all. :-p

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Thanks 9th. Any chance of an adjusted version that allows for the summoning, with a similarly appropriate point-cost?

It sort of loses its flavor if it doesn't summon skellies... being a mystical grave-yard and all. :-p

While I totally understand where you are coming from, the issue with that and similar terrain features that it becomes an unbalanceable option. For starters, only players with the right models can take advantage of it, meaning the value can swing radically if your opponent can use the summon or not. Secondly, there is no good way to account for how much it is made use of; a player could be getting it to have the vampire leading his skirmish force summon a few extra skellies or a player could be camping a half-dozen basic wizards next to it and abusing the heck out of the ability.

Ultimately if you wanted to use the garden as a structure summoning skeletons, I would recommend using it as a counts-as structure which has garrisons then putting wizards in it for which you purchased the summon ability. Alternatively use it as counts-as Arcane Ruins to buff your summoning wizards.

Makes sense... Sometimes I forget to think about things in the exploitative way. I had the former scenario in mind, literally wanting one Vampire Lord to buff a unit in fluffy fashion.

What about taking on a "Can be used in this way once per game-turn" clause?

It ultimately adds up to being more trouble than its worth. In addition to the problems I mentioned above there is balancing it alongside existing summoning, whether or not to change it to points-based summoning, how to manage other terrain features with similar abilities, etc. Terrain warscrolls are supposed to be a fun side-option that we don't normally have in wargames, making them technical kind-of defeats the point.

So I got my hands on the bloodbound battletome, from looking over the battalions I think Gorechosen would be better at 150 pts because it's requirements are somewhat high to justify 180. Also I think Dark Feast is good, but not that good. The thing is anyone running 3 bloodreavers units is simply not going to leave home without a bloodsecrator, which makes the battleshock benefit partly redundant. Also with a bloodsecrator in range the +1 attack from the battalion isn't as good (since they will be rocking 3 already) and the battalion's attack is contingent on the hero being alive. This is on top of bloodreavers being squishy as all hell; even without battleshock they are still 1 wound models with no save at all. I think Dark Feat is more in the 175 pt range because of all that.

I just had to re-download the zombie dragon on the AoS app... have they tweaked it again? I think it lost one of its D6 dmg attacks? Or am I going crazy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So I got my hands on the bloodbound battletome, from looking over the battalions I think Gorechosen would be better at 150 pts because it's requirements are somewhat high to justify 180. Also I think Dark Feast is good, but not that good. The thing is anyone running 3 bloodreavers units is simply not going to leave home without a bloodsecrator, which makes the battleshock benefit partly redundant. Also with a bloodsecrator in range the +1 attack from the battalion isn't as good (since they will be rocking 3 already) and the battalion's attack is contingent on the hero being alive. This is on top of bloodreavers being squishy as all hell; even without battleshock they are still 1 wound models with no save at all. I think Dark Feat is more in the 175 pt range because of all that.

I'll make these changes in awhile - please let me know any other battalions you think should be tweaked!
Cheers!

Jorthax wrote:
I just had to re-download the zombie dragon on the AoS app... have they tweaked it again? I think it lost one of its D6 dmg attacks? Or am I going crazy.

Hm, for me he still has three attacks with his Maw in the app. So yes, I think you are going crazy

Jorthax wrote:
I just had to re-download the zombie dragon on the AoS app... have they tweaked it again? I think it lost one of its D6 dmg attacks? Or am I going crazy.

Hm, for me he still has three attacks with his Maw in the app. So yes, I think you are going crazy

Jorthax wrote:
I just had to re-download the zombie dragon on the AoS app... have they tweaked it again? I think it lost one of its D6 dmg attacks? Or am I going crazy.

Hm, for me he still has three attacks with his Maw in the app. So yes, I think you are going crazy

http://imgur.com/v8TJGwA

Please see attached screenshot from my phone. He has 2 Maw attacks.

Hey Ninth! Thanks for clearing that one up, I only see the Flesh Eater Corps points cost for him, is there a legacy points somewhere? Seems weird to have him in two versions

Thanks again for the quick replies

Oh also noticed there are two Terrorgheist's , Do they have separate points costs also?

Jorthax wrote:
Hey Ninth! Thanks for clearing that one up, I only see the Flesh Eater Corps points cost for him, is there a legacy points somewhere? Seems weird to have him in two versions

Thanks again for the quick replies

Oh also noticed there are two Terrorgheist's , Do they have separate points costs also?

Up until this was brought up here I thought the new Zombie and Terror replaced the older ones (much like the Chaos Lord and others once were replaced).
I guess it's time to bring the older Terror and Zombie back into the list and BattleScribe file again, then.

Hey Attilla, I got my hands on the Stormcast tome as well, only one battalion value needs tweaking IMO; Lords of the Storm. If the mortal wounds were only that it wpuld be different but since they also force a retreat the battalion is worth considerably more. I would suggest 175 +25 per hero beyond the minimum. This may need to be compensated for by a points reduction in the meta-battalions including Lords of the Storm.

Hey Folks! I'm here to be a pain again sorry!

So first battle of our Friday night session, few vodkas, few dead ogres... you know the drill!

One of our resident VC players has a really nasty list. Neferata + Mournghoul = -2 AoE to hit , or -3 if you have 6 bravery like some ogres. He throws in some bat swarms just to make sure shooting is not hitting anything, ever.

Does this seem costed right, or should we not be stacking it? Sorry if this is in the wrong place.

Jorthax wrote:
Hey Folks! I'm here to be a pain again sorry!

So first battle of our Friday night session, few vodkas, few dead ogres... you know the drill!

One of our resident VC players has a really nasty list. Neferata + Mournghoul = -2 AoE to hit , or -3 if you have 6 bravery like some ogres. He throws in some bat swarms just to make sure shooting is not hitting anything, ever.

Does this seem costed right, or should we not be stacking it? Sorry if this is in the wrong place.

Its not a pain at all! This is the sort of feedback that improves PPC.

At any rate to answer the question, hit-penalty stacking is one of the major loop-holes in PPC that allows overpowered armies. Personally I think PPC should house rule that 6s always hit (much like 1s always miss) to counter this, but otherwise there isn't much to do. The problem is increasing the cost of those units would make them too expensive if taken on their own.

Side note: Firebellies are the counter you are looking for. Their breath isn't an attack, nor are fire cloak/arcane bolt spells!

So, I was thinking about PPC's house rules today and was wondering if there are elements that could be improved. Despite my initial position on the topic way back when I've been well convinced that less rules changes are more or less good. I was thinking about the auto-fail of spells and charges on double-1s and wondering if it was a good idea. While attacks/saves are one thing, even an auto-pass spell/charge would still need to be rolled for dispel/distance purposes and I don't think allowing for units to guarantee success on a charge or cheap spell is game-breaking at all. Similarly I am not aware of significant issues that could be caused by re-rolling initiative (though I don't play with initiative rolling so a bit unsure).

Somewhat counter to the above, I think it may be worthwhile to add a house-rule that 6's to hit/wound always succeed. This is to prevent auto-miss situations which are very possible using certain combinations. Edit - Rethought this and I retract my statement.

Finally, on a similar topic I am thinking about summoning. While the consolidation of summoning spells into a single variable casting one was certainly good I think it doesn't quite do the trick on its own. This is because anything over 200 pts with summon rules effectively has them eliminated in PPC. While this is not a huge number of models I feel like something should be worked in to accommodate bigger summons. My suggestion is to add this as an extra entry next to the summoning spell in relevant faction lists;

Monstrous Summons - Variable Points
A model or unit with a cost greater than 200 pts can be summoned using the 10+ casting value of [Relevant Spell] but must be partly paid for ahead of time. In such a case, the unit costs 200 pts less to be included in the army, but can only be deployed via summoning and can only be summoned once (though you are free to purchase multiples to allow for multiple summonings).

So something else just cropped up; it looks like GWs rules includes a rule that extra attacks do not themselves generate extra attacks. I think PPC's best route forward is to make it an 'upgrade' to GW's points (which, as predicted, look to be rough estimates rather than precision costings) which would mean matching their rules where we can. There are two other rules we've seen so far; hit/wound/saves fail on a natural 1 (same as PPC - though worth noting charges/spellcasts aren't included), and and that a given spell can only be cast once per phase rather than once per wizard; so if you have two wizards you could not have them both cast arcane bolt for example; only one of them could. I'm not sure how I feel about the latter but it may be worth adding that just to make PPC as accessible as possible for players coming from GW-points (and I don't think it would really affect the values for the vast majority of wizards).

Any thoughts on this or the above?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So, I was thinking about PPC's house rules today and was wondering if there are elements that could be improved. Despite my initial position on the topic way back when I've been well convinced that less rules changes are more or less good. I was thinking about the auto-fail of spells and charges on double-1s and wondering if it was a good idea. While attacks/saves are one thing, even an auto-pass spell/charge would still need to be rolled for dispel/distance purposes and I don't think allowing for units to guarantee success on a charge or cheap spell is game-breaking at all. Similarly I am not aware of significant issues that could be caused by re-rolling initiative (though I don't play with initiative rolling so a bit unsure).

Finally, on a similar topic I am thinking about summoning. While the consolidation of summoning spells into a single variable casting one was certainly good I think it doesn't quite do the trick on its own. This is because anything over 200 pts with summon rules effectively has them eliminated in PPC. While this is not a huge number of models I feel like something should be worked in to accommodate bigger summons. My suggestion is to add this as an extra entry next to the summoning spell in relevant faction lists;

Monstrous Summons - Variable Points
A model or unit with a cost greater than 200 pts can be summoned using the 10+ casting value of [Relevant Spell] but must be partly paid for ahead of time. In such a case, the unit costs 200 pts less to be included in the army, but can only be deployed via summoning and can only be summoned once (though you are free to purchase multiples to allow for multiple summonings).

As for summoning; there are three ways we think it should be done:
1) Do the same as GH - buy what you want in advance and summon only that during the game. Although this would be the simplest path, it's IMHO the most boring one as well. I play Death (amongst other armies) and while I can see tactical use on this method, I will hardly ever use it because it doesn't feel right (for me).

2) Keep the summoning as it is, maybe add an option to summon monsters that cost more.

3) Revise summoning entirely to make it more the way it was meant from the beginning. We've been playing with a set of house rules lately that feels really good (might write more on this later on depending on the outcome of the General's Handbook). But in short, this third method will make all casters that can summon more expensive (probably an optional cost like it is now) but will unlock all summoning spells from every warscroll the way it was meant to be. With certain house ruled limits this has worked out very well for our group and really felt good and in the spirit .

There are alot of things that we need to re-think with the General's Handbook - the leaks show many things that are similar to PPC but also things that are different. As we strive to keep the PPC close to the rules as written we might end up with most things similar to the official book but differentiate on the point costs of some things, which brings the question if the balance is so far off in GH that it's worth keeping a fan-made comp that is so close to the same.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So something else just cropped up; it looks like GWs rules includes a rule that extra attacks do not themselves generate extra attacks. I think PPC's best route forward is to make it an 'upgrade' to GW's points (which, as predicted, look to be rough estimates rather than precision costings) which would mean matching their rules where we can. There are two other rules we've seen so far; hit/wound/saves fail on a natural 1 (same as PPC - though worth noting charges/spellcasts aren't included), and and that a given spell can only be cast once per phase rather than once per wizard; so if you have two wizards you could not have them both cast arcane bolt for example; only one of them could. I'm not sure how I feel about the latter but it may be worth adding that just to make PPC as accessible as possible for players coming from GW-points (and I don't think it would really affect the values for the vast majority of wizards).

Any thoughts on this or the above?

The failures on rolls of 1 was because of consistency - if you roll one die you fail on a 1, if you roll two dice you should also fail on 1s (casting/charges). But now that it seems the (three!) rules of one will be in the GH, we can as well remove this entirely and stick to the official GH rule.

The same goes for extra attacks and casting each spell once - I am glad the extra attacks have been "fixed", and we will adjust the cost of those units accordingly to reflect this new official way. The casting once/turn is something I don't agree with personally, but see no point in changing it from the new way.

I think we will end up with all rules of three in the PPC, but it's too early to say before we've read the Handbook.

It's going to be an exciting time ahead for sure!

Well I was looking at the points and the balance is... well less than perfect. I think PPC is still very distinct in that manner. Actually I am thinking this could be great for PPC in terms of defining it's niche. Rather than a stand alone comp, PPC comp can be an 'upgrade' to the GHB that goes one step further by keeping most of the rules but enhancing the point costs & options (GHB seems to lack FW points, Silver Tower, and several battalions alongside PPC's unique terrain warscrolls option). This way the GHB becomes a sort of gateway drug for those players that want what PPC offers. Naturally it won't be for everyone, but things were already that way.

Hey guys, so my friends and I have been debating the leaks as and when they happen as I can see you have been too.

I've never been happy with summoning. I'm a firm believer that a 2000pt battle should be 2000pts vs. 2000pts not 1900+summoning spell , which can end up with perfect casting as +1000pts or on a bad day +0pts. I would like my two VC friends to be able to tap into that playstyle. Maybe changing it completely to infiltrating and pay up front? Appear any hero phase of choosing?

Interested to hear your new house rule Attila. If you want more playtesters we have 2 VC's desperate for a working methodology

I'm still not sure on GW points costs when units scale (Vulkites for 80 for example) I much prefer PPCs scaling costs and hope to continue to use those.

I've always believed double 1's should fail anything, even with modifiers to cast or charge rules (see skeletons 6 inch banner). A fail is a fail and this has led to many arguments at our tables (friendly ones of course!)

Either way, I have faith in you guys. I don't think we'd be playing AOS without PPC.

Jorthax wrote:
I've never been happy with summoning. I'm a firm believer that a 2000pt battle should be 2000pts vs. 2000pts not 1900+summoning spell , which can end up with perfect casting as +1000pts or on a bad day +0pts. I would like my two VC friends to be able to tap into that playstyle. Maybe changing it completely to infiltrating and pay up front? Appear any hero phase of choosing?

Interested to hear your new house rule Attila. If you want more playtesters we have 2 VC's desperate for a working methodology

I'm still not sure on GW points costs when units scale (Vulkites for 80 for example) I much prefer PPCs scaling costs and hope to continue to use those.

Color me interested about this new summoning system - I am looking forward to seeing what Attilla comes up with. And seconded on the scaling points costs, the lack of this holds many comps back in my eyes.

Either way, I have faith in you guys. I don't think we'd be playing AOS without PPC.

Don't forget that you've helped PPC too! Anyone who offers feedback has.

I've gotten a change to skim through the General's Handbook. General impressions of the book aside (awesome) it naturally gave me some more thoughts on compatibility with PPC. The basic matched play setup they have set up is pretty good - while it preserves the 'take anything' option basic AoS it also provides incentives for restricting to a Grand Alliance or faction keyword, then it layers on restrictions for unit types which are very easy to stay within. The place where the matched play becomes weak is the points themselves - on top the balance leaving something to be desired it does not include all of the warscroll battalions, forge world (though supposedly that's coming), or the terrain warscroll options. There is also little granularity to speak of; models must be bought in 'batches' and there's no variation for command groups, weapon options, etc. Another weak point is the simplified approach they took to comp summoning; great for the context is but very lacking beyond the basic level. Also the rule limiting a given spell to once per phase seems like it can be quite restrictive yet provides very little in return.

Where does this leave me in regards to PPC? I believe that PPC has its place in the AoS lineup, perhaps more so with the General's Handbook. But I am now very sure that it should line up with Matched Play as much as possible -- an upgrade to the base that refines the point costs and a handful of expanded house rules (b2b measuring, refined summoning, adjusted force org, auto-fail charges/spells (?), adjusting the 'rule of 1' for spellcasting (?), and whatever else is critical to making the points listed work). In regards to force organization I think that PPC should probably stick where its at, but presented as an alternative for players who don't prefer the Handbook's version.

So that's where I'm at. Has anyone else been able to give the Handbook a look? Any thoughts on this? To Attilla, obviously I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the matter since you are the final arbiter of decisions.

Of course, regardless of the direction PPC goes I'll still be playing it!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jorthax wrote:
I've never been happy with summoning. I'm a firm believer that a 2000pt battle should be 2000pts vs. 2000pts not 1900+summoning spell , which can end up with perfect casting as +1000pts or on a bad day +0pts. I would like my two VC friends to be able to tap into that playstyle. Maybe changing it completely to infiltrating and pay up front? Appear any hero phase of choosing?

Interested to hear your new house rule Attila. If you want more playtesters we have 2 VC's desperate for a working methodology

I'm still not sure on GW points costs when units scale (Vulkites for 80 for example) I much prefer PPCs scaling costs and hope to continue to use those.

Color me interested about this new summoning system - I am looking forward to seeing what Attilla comes up with. And seconded on the scaling points costs, the lack of this holds many comps back in my eyes.

Either way, I have faith in you guys. I don't think we'd be playing AOS without PPC.

Don't forget that you've helped PPC too! Anyone who offers feedback has.

Indeed, and you've been added to the credits of the PPC too, Jorthax. Cheers!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Where does this leave me in regards to PPC? I believe that PPC has its place in the AoS lineup, perhaps more so with the General's Handbook. But I am now very sure that it should line up with Matched Play as much as possible -- an upgrade to the base that refines the point costs and a handful of expanded house rules (b2b measuring, refined summoning, adjusted force org, auto-fail charges/spells (?), adjusting the 'rule of 1' for spellcasting (?), and whatever else is critical to making the points listed work). In regards to force organization I think that PPC should probably stick where its at, but presented as an alternative for players who don't prefer the Handbook's version.

So that's where I'm at. Has anyone else been able to give the Handbook a look? Any thoughts on this? To Attilla, obviously I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the matter since you are the final arbiter of decisions.

Of course, regardless of the direction PPC goes I'll still be playing it!

As always (almost anyways ) I believe we feel the same.
Once GH arrives (I want my own copy to drool over before I dive into it properly heh), we will adjust the PPC comp taking all the new changes into account.
However, we need to discuss some basic things abit more. I want to use as few extra house-rules as possible, but base measuring is definitely one of them. Other than that, my group is torn between using the new official summoning rules or going our own way. We all agree that we should use the rules of 1 as they are without any additions (no more failing on snake eyes etc), and change the cost of Ripperdactyls etc. to make up for attacks not stacking anymore.

I haven't taken a look at the new force organisation, but should we really differ from it in PPC?

The PPC scenarios will definately be getting a major revision as well to make them more in line with the ones from GH. We aim to have the new update for PPC ready in august, which will give us enough time to get a good feel for the balance of the GH.


As a sidenote, here are the points for the new Sylvaneth. It was fun to check these costs against the ones in GH afterwards. Some were pretty close, others were not

Alarielle the Everqueen
850 pts

Drycha Hamadreth
310 pts

Branchwych
95 pts

3 Kurnoth Hunters 270 pts
+80 pts/model.
Free choice of equipment.
Huntmaster +15 pts.

5 Spite-Revenants 75 pts
+11 pts/model.
Shadestalker +5 pts.

5 Tree-Revenants 75 pts
+10 pts/model.
Scion +10 pts, free choice of equipment.
Glade Banner +10 pts.
Waypipes 25 pts.

Attilla wrote:
I haven't taken a look at the new force organisation, but should we really differ from it in PPC?

Well I was thinking that we wouldn't want to invalidate people's army lists that they have been using, but has occurred to me that players can just ignore said restrictions if it's really a problem; AoS has a much more house-rule-friendly mentality to it than most wargames. If the plan is to adopt GHB force organization then I'll need to know ahead of time though, since it will affect battalion values. I'll also be sure to re-evaluate battalions with extra attack stacking so their cost can be reduced appropriately.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Attilla wrote:
I haven't taken a look at the new force organisation, but should we really differ from it in PPC?

Well I was thinking that we wouldn't want to invalidate people's army lists that they have been using, but has occurred to me that players can just ignore said restrictions if it's really a problem; AoS has a much more house-rule-friendly mentality to it than most wargames. If the plan is to adopt GHB force organization then I'll need to know ahead of time though, since it will affect battalion values. I'll also be sure to re-evaluate battalions with extra attack stacking so their cost can be reduced appropriately.

Yeah, we'll bring all the possible changes up for discussion before we put them in the pack. The extra attacks limit is almost certain to make it, so if you have some spare time, re-evaluating battalions for it is good to go

Battalions II - The Repointening! I am re-evaluating battalion costs to take into account rules changes and better accommodate the unit requirements. First up is Order!

Spyreheart Warhost - 75 pts, +25 per Phoenix included beyond the minimum. This was a typo on my part.

Alarielle's Heartwood Guard - 135 pts.

Guardians of the Deepwood - 150 pts.

Waystone Pathfinders - 125 pts.

Exiled Blood Cult - 225 pts.

Exiled Warhost - 125 pts. Looks like I overcosted this one pretty badly before, sorry Dark Elf players!

Althran Stormrider's Host - 50 pts. Note the PPC document has his name misspelled.

Dragon Host - 200 pts.

Glittering Host - 125 pts.

Wanderer Host - 75 pts

Defenders of the Realm - 75 pts.

Peasant Militia - 150 pts.

Dispossessed Clan Throng - 165 pts.

Brotherhood of Knights - 125 pts.

State Troop Detachment - 225 pts.

Pilgrimage of Wrath - 75 pts.

Skink Patrol & Shadowstrike Starhost - 185 pts. Note the Starhost allows a Starseer as the leader but the battalions are otherwise identical.

Host Azyric - 75 pts.

Skyborne Slayers - 200 pts.

Devastation Brotherhood - 150 pts.

Grymn's Brotherhood - 315 pts.

Knight's Excelsior Vengeful Storm - 150 pts. I actually think I may have undercosted this one before, and 3 liberator units is not as significant a tax when they can be used for battleline.

Brotherhood of the Great Bolts - 325, +25 per Vexillor included beyond the minimum, +50 per Relictor included beyond the minimum. Increased based on feedback.

Exemplar Chamber - 100 pts.

Harbinger Chamber - 150 pts. Previously missed the synergy between this and the Vanguard Wing's benefits.

Merciless Host - 200 pts.

Thunderstrike Brotherhood - 150 pts.

Vanguard Wing - 125 pts. Re-evaluated and think its worth a bit more.

Also note that points for new Sylvaneth and All-Gates battalions will arrive within the next week.

Thanks Ninth! Will put these in for the next update.

As always, I am happy to help!

The repointening continues with Chaos:

Bullgor Stampede - 200 pts.

Furious Brayherd - 100 pts.

Wildstalker Brayherd - 125 pts.

Ungor Raiders Ambush - 200 pts.

Bloodstorm - 150 pts.

Brass Stampede - 50 pts.

Dark Feast - 175 pts.

Red Headsman - 85 pts. The Blood Warriors are not as much of a tax now since they fulfill battleline requirements.

Skulltake - 100 pts.

Gorechosen - 150 pts.

Blackshard Warhost - 200 pts.

Blighted Warband - 235 pts.

Blightguard - 200 pts.

Bloab's Swarmbrothers - 225 pts.

Pestilent Clawpack - 275 pts.

Eshin Clawpack - 150 pts.

Moulder Clawpack - 135 pts.

Daemon Cohort of Slaanesh - 175 pts.

Sons of the Maggot Lord - 75 pts.

Daemon Cohort of Tzeentch - 85 pts.

Fatesworn Warband - 200 pts.

Marauder Raiders - 150 pts.

Death!

Charnel Pit Carrion - 215 pts.

Attendants At Court - 125 pts.

Royal Family - 175 pts (this is flat; the GHB restrictions on hero allotment balance it out).

Royal Legion of Chariots - 185 pts.

Tomb Legion - 100 pts.


Destruction!

Great Gitmob - 150 pts.

Great Moonclan - 165 pts.

Beastclaw Avalanche - 225 pts.

Gutbuster Wartribe - 100 pts.

Bonesplittas Big Mob - 235 pts.

Greenskinz Big Mob - 135 pts.

Ironjawz Big Mob - 115 pts.


And Fyreslayers!

Forge Brethren - 200 pts.

Lords of the Lodge - 125 pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a separate note, Durthu should be moved from the Elf Legacy document into the legacy section of the Sylvaneth document, and probably get a points buff considering his ability to summon Wyldwoods has more synergy now.

Also, while the Sylvaneth Wyldwood warscroll has not yet been updated in the app, here are the new points costs taking into account the slight changes and more synergy opportunities:

Sylvaneth Wyldwood - 65 pts
-Add up to two additional Wyldwoods for +35 pts each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The All-Gates unleash the point costs for their battalions!

[Stormcast] Azyrite Hunt-Team - 175 pts. Note this can move units into/out of combat.

[Skaven] Castle Rot-Wreckers - 75 pts.

[Nurgle] Pustrol's Plague Cohort - 135 pts.

[Stormcast/Sylvaneth] Cleansers of the Woods - 185 pts.

[Fyreslayers] Underborers - 115 pts.

[Stormcast] Hammer and Anvil - 85 pts.

[Fyreslayers] Magmadroth Steelburner Pack - 225 pts.

[Tzeentch] Ironguard - 200 pts. Note this can move units into/out of combat.

[Orruks] Gordrakk's Megafist - 250 pts.

[Stormcast] Storm-Strike Team - 200 pts.

[Fyreslayers] Subterranean Fyrestorm - 125 pts.