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.

Something I should mention is all my games ignore the rolling for initiative part, we just alternate turns. Rolling for initiative just makes the game too random; I can easily win or loose just because me or my opponent got a double-turn at the right time.

I thought the same , but this game it didn't make a difference. But it's a good discussion for a decision on the final comp.

Also guys my buddy wanted to mention that the great unclean one is 310 pt. -- 75 pt. more than the cheapest bloodthirster. He's not really sure if he punches his weight. So that might be a unit to review.

GUO is 310, but the Bloodthirsters are 270, 330, and 400 respectively. From my use of the fat one I'd say he is totally worth his points, though he doesn't dish out a ton of damage in melee he also has a solid shooting attack and a really good spell. But the real reason he is worth it is resilience, the guy takes quite a bit to put down (and I don't know of another unit in the game with better passive healing).

[edit] Forge World has released warscrolls for their Warhammer products, just a heads up since I assume they will be included.

Hi all!

I just registered to be able to provide feedback on this project. Began playing AoS a few weeks ago with a couple of friends, and we have gone through a number of comp systems without being satisfied. We discovered this one just the other day, and are going to try it out as soon as we can. After an initial look, we all thought this one looked the most promising out of the bunch, and being community driven we figured it would be more open to feedback.

Since we mainly play HE and Daemons my feedback will be regarding those factions. Most things in this model seem reasonable enough, but the price for the Soul Grinder seems insanely high. What is the reasoning behind this?

I'll post some statistics for comparison. Keep in mind that all these numbers come from the unwounded profiles of the warscrolls, and that the damage is calculated as the average number of wounds dealt before saves. Numbers in brackets indicate the rend stat of the attacks. The total in the end of each entry is how much damage it does under ideal conditions (i.e. vs characters for the Soul Grinder for example).

Soul Grinder armed with Daemonbone Talon - 515 points
16 wounds, 4+ save

Shooting: 1.17 (-1) wounds + 1 (-2) wounds
Melee: 5.56 (-1) wounds + 1.17 (-2) wounds
Melee vs characters and monsters: 5.56 (-1) wounds + 1.47 (-2) wounds

Total damage per turn: 6.73 (-1) wounds + 2.47 (-2) wounds

Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury - 330 points
14 wounds, 4+ save

Shooting: 2.67 (-1) wounds
Melee: 6.67 (-2) wounds

Total damage per turn: 2.67 (-1) wounds + 6.67 (-2) wounds

High Elf Prince on Griffon - 235 points
10 wounds, 4+ save

Melee: 1.33 (0) wounds + 4.89 (-1) wounds
Melee when charging: 1.33 (0) wounds + 6.23 (-1) wounds

Total damage per turn: 1.33 (0) wounds + 6.23 (-1) wounds

What these numbers show is that a charging HE Prince on a Griffon deals almost as much damage as Soul Grinder, and that a UF Bloodthirster actually deals both more and better damage than a Soul Grinder. Even so, the Soul Grinder costs almost 200 points more than the UF Bloodthirster, and more than twice as much as the Griffon Prince. While the Soul Grinder does have advantages compared to them (more wounds, longer range, shoot and run), they also have other advantages (ability to fly and command ability for both, predatory leap for the Prince and AoE mortal wounds for the Bloodthirster). Is the Soul Grinder really worth that much more?

You raise an excellent point, Solaris, and as a matter of fact I updated the DoC just today to v0.5, lowering the cost of the Soul Grinder

But I think points for monsters are off in many places (and I still think the Grinder cost too much even in v0.5 but I don't want to lower anything too may points at once).

Once v0.5 is done for every list (v0.5 focuses on infantry and cavalry) I will start to go through monsters in more detail for v0.6, and will keep your comments in mind when I do.

Thanks for sharing your results with us!

Cool, awesome to see that feedback is taken into account so fast!

That's a significant buff to the Grinder, it might even be too cheap now. Will have to play test before reaching any conclusions on that though!

Another thing that I noticed while doing some calculations is that the Ithilmar Bolts that HE Bolt Throwers can shoot are utterly useless. In every feasible scenario, the Repeating Bolts do more damage (they break even against 2+ rerollable saves, against anything worse than that the Repeating Bolts are better).

With that in mind, I think the HE Bolt Thrower should be slightly cheaper than the DE Bolt Thrower, seeing as the DE one has a better version of the Repeating Bolts. What is your thought on this?

Solaris wrote:
Cool, awesome to see that feedback is taken into account so fast!

That's a significant buff to the Grinder, it might even be too cheap now. Will have to play test before reaching any conclusions on that though!

Another thing that I noticed while doing some calculations is that the Ithilmar Bolts that HE Bolt Throwers can shoot are utterly useless. In every feasible scenario, the Repeating Bolts do more damage (they break even against 2+ rerollable saves, against anything worse than that the Repeating Bolts are better).

With that in mind, I think the HE Bolt Thrower should be slightly cheaper than the DE Bolt Thrower, seeing as the DE one has a better version of the Repeating Bolts. What is your thought on this?

The HE bolt thrower will cost less than the DE one once we come around to checking the balance between warmachines, true enough. As you say, there is literally no point in firing Ithilmar bolts...too bad, they should have made some more math before they wrote those rules. Could have been a nice bolt against monsters with just one special rule added...but alas.

Please let me know about the Grinder in your games, the more feedback the better when its time for monster balance version 0.6

I see, so each 0.1 patch you go through a different set of units? That's a nice way of doing it =)

I ran the math with Ithilmar Bolts dealing d6 wounds instead of d3 our of curiosity, and then they actually did their job. Meaning they were more potent against targets with heavy armour, but less potent against targets with light armour. If only GW made the calculations before putting up the rules lol... Oh well.

I'm currently reading through the thread and have some thoughts on earlier posts and discussions.

First off, the HE mage doesn't get +1 on casting rolls, only on unbind (dispel) rolls. So the comparison between WE, DE and HE spellcasters made earlier is even heavier in favour of the others.

Secondly, I think changing the rules for units as suggested by Haldir is a very bad idea. Having different comp systems at different tournaments is one thing, but having different rules is another thing altogether and can only lead to confusion and a fragmented community. I think things should be left as written as much as humanly possible, and only be regulated through points costs - that would be the easiest way of achieving balance while letting people from different communities play against each other without problem. (Nvm, this point was made more eloquently by several people, including Haldir himself, on the next page - maybe I should finish reading before commenting =) )

Thirdly, there was some talk about attacks with multiple wounds on page 4, and some worry was expressed. I didn't quite get what the person was worried about, but I would just like to say that 1 attack that deals 2 damage has the exact same average damage output as 2 attacks that deal 1 damage each. The difference is that the single attack deals either 0 or 2 damage, while the double attacks are more likely to deal 1 damage. In terms of balance they are the same though.

Looking at the updated DoC document I like the changes. I look forward to trying them out, though right now I would comment that the 290 for 30 plaguebearers seems unnecessary. Just the 12 ppm after 20 models would put a 30-man unit at 280 anyway, and 30 has no particular benefits over 29 other than the 1 extra dude (unlike some other units with scaling benefits). I think it would be better if the 30-man entry was dropped entirely, and the extra 10 points moved over to the 20-man unit. The end result would be:

10 Plaguebearers - 80 Points
20 Plaguebearers - 170 Points
-Each additional model costs 8 points
-If you have 20 or more models, they instead cost 12 ppm
-[command options]

This streamlines the entry and prevents 29 from being an ideal unit size. 19 is still notably cheaper than 20, but the latter gets you the improved hit penalties so its still a viable choice.

[edit] Looking at the warscrolls, I feel this same idea applies to the other daemon 'basic troops' as well.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Looking at the updated DoC document I like the changes. I look forward to trying them out, though right now I would comment that the 290 for 30 plaguebearers seems unnecessary. Just the 12 ppm after 20 models would put a 30-man unit at 280 anyway, and 30 has no particular benefits over 29 other than the 1 extra dude (unlike some other units with scaling benefits). I think it would be better if the 30-man entry was dropped entirely, and the extra 10 points moved over to the 20-man unit. The end result would be:

10 Plaguebearers - 80 Points
20 Plaguebearers - 170 Points
-Each additional model costs 8 points
-If you have 20 or more models, they instead cost 12 ppm
-[command options]

This streamlines the entry and prevents 29 from being an ideal unit size. 19 is still notably cheaper than 20, but the latter gets you the improved hit penalties so its still a viable choice.

[edit] Looking at the warscrolls, I feel this same idea applies to the other daemon 'basic troops' as well.

Thanks 9thMusk, that's actually just a typo from me...it should read 30 Plague 280p Will fix as soon as I get hom from work, thanks for pointing out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Solaris
The Ithilmar is one of those instances where changing the rules ourselves would make alot of sense

From the beginning we intended to tweak and change every unit needed in an update, but now that our dayjobs have kicked in again after vacation, its hard to do so without spending a month on each list, so now we try to go through one aspect more for each, and just tweak other unit costs in preparation for their turn. It works out better and is easier to keep the focus up this way.

Alright, in that case I'll run the math later today and compare HE bolt throwers to their contemporaries in other armies, as well as to other ranged options in the HE army. Depending on the result I'll suggest rule changes to the Ithilmar Bolts and/or the points costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, a little comparison of the three different bolt throwers in the game. I'll first show the average number of wounds dealt by each machine before saves, and then compare their damage against different types of saves. As before, numbers in brackets indicate rend. My suggestion for the Ithilmar bolts is giving them d6 wounds instead of d3, so I'll include the damage profile for the d6 Ithilmar bolts as well in the comparison.

The following bolt throwers exist in the game: the Dwarf bolt thrower that fires Runic bolts and costs 90 pts, the Reaper bolt thrower for 110 pts and the HE Repeater bolt thrower for 110 pts.

Wounds dealt before saves:
Runic bolts: 0.89 (-3) + 1.33 (-1)
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 1.78 (-3) + 1.33 (-1)
Reaper bolts: 5 (-1)
Repeating bolts: 4 (-1)
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.78 (-2)
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 3.11 (-2)

Damage dealt vs 6+ save:
Runic bolts: 2.22
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 3.11
Reaper bolts: 5
Repeating bolts: 4
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.78
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 3.11

Damage dealt vs 5+ save:
Runic bolts: 2.00
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 2.89
Reaper bolts: 4.17
Repeating bolts: 3.33
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.78
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 3.11

Damage dealt vs 4+ save:
Runic bolts: 1.78
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 2.67
Reaper bolts: 3.33
Repeating bolts: 2.67
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.48
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 2.59

Damage dealt vs 4+ rerollable save:
Runic bolts: 1.48
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 2.37
Reaper bolts: 2.22
Repeating bolts: 1.78
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.24
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 2.15

Damage dealt vs 3+ save:
Runic bolts: 1.41
Runic bolts w/ engineer: 2.14
Reaper bolts: 2.5
Repeating bolts: 2
Ithilmar bolts (d3): 1.19
Ithilmar bolts (d6): 2.07


As shown by these numbers, the Ithilmar bolts are by far the worst out of the bunch in all feasible scenarios (as I mentioned before they break even with Repeating bolts at a 2+ rerollable save). Second worst in all scenarios are the Runic bolts without an engineer nearby. Since these two are clearly irrelevant compared to the other options, I’m going to exclude them from the comparison from now on.

Remaining then are the Runic bolts with engineer, Reaper bolts, Repeating bolts and Ithilmar d6 bolts. At low saves, the Runic and Ithilmar d6 bolts are the worst, while at medium saves they catch up to the Repeating bolts. At high saves, they both pass the Repeating bolts in damage, which then goes down to the bottom of the pack.

The ones that really stand out here are the Reaper bolts, that perform at the top in all scenarios except against 4+ rerollable saves, where the -3 rend of Runic bolts really does a number on the armour.

My conclusions from this is that both the Dwarven and the Repeater bolt throwers should be cheaper relative to the Reaper bolt thrower (though not necessarily relative to other things in the army lists). The Reaper is without a doubt the strongest out of all of them. The Dwarven bolt thrower really needs an engineer to be effective. Assuming an engineer can stand close enough to affect two warmachines at once, the price of the engineer should then be split between these two and the profile of the engineer itself. Hand-waving this a little, the cost is split equally between the engineer and the two warmachines, meaning that the Dwarven thrower costs 90+55/3=108.3 pts. This price is comparable to the 110 of the other two, but the performance is noticably worse. I suggest the price of the Dwarven one is lowered slightly to take this into account (maybe to 80 or even 70 or 60 points – by lowering the price of the bolt thrower that much, the price for the engineer can be increased to compensate. After all, the power boost gained by having an engineer nearby is very significant). I also suggest increasing the price of the Reaper by 25 points to 135 total, since it is about 25% more effective than the Repeating bolt thrower across the board.

Finally, I suggest changing the damage of the Ithilmar bolts to d6 instead of d3. As illustrated by my calculations, the Repeating bolts are still better in most scenarios, but the d6 Ithilmar then at least finds a niche against rerollable heavy armour and heavy armour in cover, rather than being complete garbage as it is now.

I’ll have a look at the internal balance of HE shooting units next. Also, sorry for the wall of text.

Cheers!

@Solaris
Thanks Solaris, that's some good math I will refer to when it's time for balancing warmachines properly. I will lower the Repeating Bolt when I update HE, but the true changes will come later on.

But I think you misunderstood me alittle with the rules change, what I meant is that it does makes perfect sense for us to change some unit rules that GW clearly didn't think about long enough, but that would mean we open a gate where we need to go through too many rules and in the end will end up with something that was not intended to start with. So we will most likely not change the bolt thrower's dmg to d6, even though it makes perfect sense to do so. We will instead make the cost lower, since no HE player will ever use those bolts. Sorry for not being clear enough.

Looking forward to your math on the HE shooters, since when it's their turn for v0.5, those are units I will look into in detail.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
@All

We have made a tweak for Zombie's Shambling Horror ability, and corrected the Plaguebearer cost now, more info on the blog.

Alright, I completely agree with that, I simply misunderstood your previous comment. Rule changes should be kept to a minimum.

In that case I will say this instead. I don't know what the absolute prices of warmachines should be in comparison to other things in the armies, so I'm just going to compare how efficient they are relative to each other.

If the Reaper fires at 100% efficiency, the others fire at:
Runic: between 44% and 56% efficiency (67% against 4+ rerollable)
Runic w/ engineer: between 62% and 86% (107% against 4+ rerollable)
Repeater: ~80% efficiency across the board

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An internal comparison of some ranged HE units with DE Darkshards:

10 Archers with Hawkeye & Standard Bearer @ 155 pts

5 Sister of Avelorn with High Sister @ 131 pts

10 Darkshards with Guardmaster & Standard Bearer @ 132 pts

Repeater Bolt Thrower @ 110 pts

Move, range and save, #wounds:
Archers: 6", 20", 6+, 10
Sisters: 6", 18", 5+, 5
Darkshards: 6", 16", 5+, 10
Repeater: 4", 36", 5+, 6 (crew included)

Damage:
Archers: 2.58 (0)
Sisters: 2.67 (0) (3.33 (0) vs Chaos)
Darkshards: 3.5 (0)
Repeater: 4 (-1)

Abilities:
Archers can deal twice the damage one turn per game.
Sisters can do this every turn they stand still, they can "stand and shoot" when charged and they get +1 on wound rolls against Chaos.

Based on this, I would say that Archers are severely overcosted compared to the other "pure" ranged options in the HE army. The 2" range they have over the Sisters is negligible, and their ability to shoot twice one turn is not nearly as strong as the Sisters ability to shoot twice every turn they stand still. On top of this, the sister can "stand and shoot" and get bonuses against Chaos units. The only real advantage the Archers have is the double body count, but this is offset by their save being half as good (this interaction becomes a bit more complex when rend is taken into account, but I'll ignore that for now). As it stands, I would never take a unit of Archers over a unit of Sisters.

Sisters may be slightly too cheap currently, however I would have to try them in a few games before reaching a definite conclusion (I have a box that should arrive in my mailbox very soon, I'll get to playtesting asap). They seem like a very solid ranged unit, with some good utility. When standing still, they deal more damage than the Repeater against lightly armoured targets (5+ and 6+ saves), while the repeater deals better with heavier armour. In a balanced army I would include both of them most of the time, and against Chaos I would bring some Sisters every single game.

Darkshards, added in as an afterthought, seem like a very solid unit. They price about the same as the sister, have twice the body count but slightly shorter range, lack the utility of the Sisters and perform solidly in-between the Sisters standing still and the Sisters shooting after moving. Assuming these are properly priced, since they're 0.5, I would say that Sisters should go up slightly and that Archers should go down significantly.

While looking into these, I came upon a rules question. The rules for the Sisters state that they may attack twice when standing still, and as they have 1 attack on their profile my initial interpretation was that they then get 2 attacks while standing still, and that the High Sister gets 3. However, when looking at the corresponding hero, the Handmaiden of the Everqueen, she has the same rule ("may attack twice") but already has 2 attacks on her profile! My interpretation then is that "attacking twice" means using the full profile twice, giving both the Handmaiden and the High Sister 4 attacks when standing still. What are your thoughts on this?

Next I will look at the hybrid units of the HE army, i.e. Lothern Sea Guard, Shadow Warriors and Ellyrian Reavers.

Cheers!

Good stuff, Solaris!

As you have noted, the regular HE archers are very expensive - this was an error with older lists when we began to allow shooting in melee. We priced the units high so they wouldn't be overpowered, but the more we played, the more we realised it wasn't such a big deal after all. That's why most ordinary ranged attackers go down in cost in v0.5, and I bet the Archers will too

About the attacks - I have to say you double your attacks when attacking twice. There are many units that gains 1 attack, and that's not the same as attacking twice. So the High Sister should shoot 4 times...a proper Legolas

Keep up the good math!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah, forgot why I came to Dakka this time...

Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms have been updated to v0.5!

Just checking the Daemon v0.5b and I found some oddity in the Soulgrinder. Out of the box, it comes with both the harverster canon and the phlegm bombardment. So i don't see why you put the bombardment as an upgrade.

"A Soul Grinder is a single model. It is armed with a fearsome Harverster Cannon, Piston-driven Legs and a Hellforged Claw, and can spit a horrific Phlegm Bombardment. Some Soul Grinders also wield a Warpmetal Blade, while some other have a Demonbone Talon"

It was mostly a matter of making the Soul Grinder cheaper with the bombardment optional...let's just say I on purpose interpreted the word "can" as optional.

But if that's not how you (you as in daemon player) would prefer it, I can switch it back and add the cost to the base.

I think that IS the best way to do it as it offers more choice to players. Plus, that is how it worked in the 8th Ed daemons army book.

So, I had a look at some different infantry options, specifically comparing HE Spearmen and Lothern Sea Guard to Empire State Troops armed with spears and DE Dreadspears. Since Empire and DE are at v0.5 I'm going to assume those units are correctly priced.

I'm comparing all four warscrolls at tiers of 10, 20 and 30 models, including full command at each stage and shields for the State Troops. I'll include the price at each tier, the move, save and bravery, any special rules and the number of wounds they cause per round at each tier. The damage is calculated from ideal conditions (i.e. HE and DE spears not moving in the same turn).

Empire spears
73 pts, 133 pts, 213 pts
5", 5+, 5
+1 to hit if 20 or more models
+2 to hit if 30 or more models
+3 to hit if 40 or more models (not relevant since rolls of 1 always fail)
2.75 (0), 7 (0), 12.92 (0)

DE spears
93 pts, 163 pts, 233 pts
6", 5+, 6
+1 to hit when standing still
+1 to hit when 20 or more models
3.67 (0), 8.75 (0), 12.92 (0)

HE spears
91 pts, 161 pts, 231 pts
6", 5+, 6
reroll hit rolls of 1 when standing still
+1 attack when 20 or more models
3.21 (0), 11.96 (0), 17.79 (0)

Lothern sea guard
186 pts, 346 pts, 506 pts
6", 5+, 6
Reroll hit rolls of 1 when 20 or more models
2.75 (0), 6.13 (0), 9.04 (0)
Ranged: 2.5 (0), 5.83 (0), 8.75 (0)

In terms of efficiency, State Troops and Dreadspears seem to be priced about right for what they do. The Dreadspears cost more per model at low tiers, but also perform better per model at those tiers. As the performance evens out, so too does the relative cost. Awesome.

HE Spearmen cost about the same as Dreadspears at all tiers, but perform worse in low numbers and significantly better in high numbers (and extra attack per model is just insane). They should probably be lowered in price at 10-19 models, but increased in price in higher numbers. My suggestion would be something like 60 for 10 + 6 per extra model and 150 for 20 + 8 per extra model.

Now Sea Guard are an interesting unit. In small numbers they outperform anything else, assuming they get to both shoot and stab in the same turn. However, unlike the others they are not completely dependent on being in melee range to deal damage. In high numbers they deal identical damage to the Spearmen, only half their damage has a 16" range. Compared to Dreadspears, they deal about 40% more damage on all tiers, half of which is ranged which gives them a utility the others don't have. I would put them at 90 for 10 + 9 per extra model, a 30% price increase compared to Dreadspears to reflect the damage and utility they bring to the table.

Cheers!

Something else I noticed is that Bloodletters don't have scaling points costs despite having a similar 20+ rule to other daemonic troops. I assume this is an error...?

Solaris wrote:So, I had a look at some different infantry options

I'll run the HE list next, so your input is excellent Solaris!

NinthMusketeer wrote:I assume this is an error...

It's not an error per se, but might be an error of my mind.
I was thinking that the Bloodletters come on 25mm square bases, which in my mind equals 32mm round bases. That means that even in greater numbers, they will struggle to get plenty of attacks in and with only a +1 to hit didn't have to pay extra.
The Plaguebearers gain a very nice protective bonus, and the Pink Horrors gets +1 to hit with an 18" range. The Daemonettes become truly brutal with extra attacks on 5+. Compared to that the Bloodletters entry didn't feel like it needed any extra complexity by upping the cost for 20+ models. The same goes for the Dark Elves Dreadspears, they are capped at +1 to hit for 20+ models, so I didn't bother making them more expensive either.

As always this is up for discussion!

Just noticed that there are two entries for the Elven War Horn that a HE Prince on Dragon can get. I assume this is an error?

Attilla wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:I assume this is an error...

It's not an error per se, but might be an error of my mind.
I was thinking that the Bloodletters come on 25mm square bases, which in my mind equals 32mm round bases. That means that even in greater numbers, they will struggle to get plenty of attacks in and with only a +1 to hit didn't have to pay extra.
The Plaguebearers gain a very nice protective bonus, and the Pink Horrors gets +1 to hit with an 18" range. The Daemonettes become truly brutal with extra attacks on 5+. Compared to that the Bloodletters entry didn't feel like it needed any extra complexity by upping the cost for 20+ models. The same goes for the Dark Elves Dreadspears, they are capped at +1 to hit for 20+ models, so I didn't bother making them more expensive either.

As always this is up for discussion!

I see what you mean, though Daemonettes also rely on being in melee to get the benefit. All four options come on 25mm square, but since they have been packaged with 25mm round bases for quite a while (and still are for now) I wouldn't use 32mm base size as a factor. That said, it might be good to have the Bloodletter&Daemonette point cost increase by 3 at 20+ instead of the 4 that Plaguebearers&Horrors get. In my games large units haven't had much of a problem getting the majority of models into melee but there are definitely still a notable fraction left out in a given round.

I have updated the High Elves list to v0.5 now, at the blog!


NinthMusketeer, I think you're right. I should add cost by numbers to Bloodletters, and maybe also to Dark Elf Dreadspears, who gain a +1 bonus to hit from 20+ models.

Cool, will be checking these out on the table and report back to you!

fantastic project, thanks for doing this

It has become Bretonnias turn to recieve their v0.5 update! Find it here.

Solaris wrote:Cool, will be checking these out on the table and report back to you!

Looking forward to it!

pancakeonions wrote:
fantastic project, thanks for doing this

Thank you very much, and thank you for using the PPC!

Lizardmen has been updated to v0.5!

Played a couple of games today, HE vs Daemons. Both games seemed like they would be pretty balanced, even though they ended up being pretty onesided this was mostly due to RNG. Some units seemed quite strong, and others quite weak (my Griffon Prince is a perpetual disappointment), but two games are not enough to judge whether they were balanced or not. However, one unit stood out as being a whole lot of value for its points, and that was the HE Sea Helm.

As it stands, I currently see very little reason not to bring a Sea Helm with a Sea Drake Pennant, and I also see very little reason not to use him as my general (unless I had a Prince on Dragon, in which case I would use him as general in order to be able to use the Sea Helms command ability anyway). With the current prices, both his Command Ability and his Totem may be a tad too strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and also, for 27 pts compared to 30, there's is basically no reason to take Silver Helms over Dragon Princes - they are just much worse but almost as expensive.

Solaris wrote:
Played a couple of games today, HE vs Daemons. Both games seemed like they would be pretty balanced, even though they ended up being pretty onesided this was mostly due to RNG. Some units seemed quite strong, and others quite weak (my Griffon Prince is a perpetual disappointment), but two games are not enough to judge whether they were balanced or not. However, one unit stood out as being a whole lot of value for its points, and that was the HE Sea Helm.

As it stands, I currently see very little reason not to bring a Sea Helm with a Sea Drake Pennant, and I also see very little reason not to use him as my general (unless I had a Prince on Dragon, in which case I would use him as general in order to be able to use the Sea Helms command ability anyway). With the current prices, both his Command Ability and his Totem may be a tad too strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and also, for 27 pts compared to 30, there's is basically no reason to take Silver Helms over Dragon Princes - they are just much worse but almost as expensive.

Thanks Solaris! Will raise the cost for Sea Helm next update, and the Griffon Prince will have a look over as well since the next update focuses on monsters. As for the Dragon Princes....I think I missed them entirely in the update Will make sure to have the HE list as one of the earliest v0.6 updates to fix these things.

Cheers!

Nice =) The problem with the Sea Helm is that he is strong as a support character with his Command Ability and his Totem, but not so much from his profile. So it's not as simple as just raising his basic cost.

Of course, look at the Griffon if monsters are the next thing on the list =) But I don't think the price is wrong, I've just mainly been very unlucky with my rolls when fielding him :p