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.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I asked Ninth how he point costed the battalions and terrain. He basically eyeballed it and set values he thought were appropriate. This works in a small community where everyone is on the same page. It is also the way I suspect GW used to point cost things, and without math involved it usually gets broken.

WHFB originally used a math system (5 points for a basic human with a hand weapon, 8 points for a basic elf with a hand weapon, etc.). Later on they may have moved to an eyeball approach.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Skaarac will always do poorly head-on with other monsters because then he isn't getting the use of his abilities. Compare Skaarac's performance against units vs other monsters against the same units. As long as Skaarac kills a single model he heals d3 wounds, meaning he will be in the fight (and maintaining higher damage output from having more wounds) longer than those other monsters. Then, so long as he even does a single wound to an enemy (that doesn't even need to kill them) he nerfs the bravery of all enemy units within 12" by 2. That is huge; consider every model that flees as a result of this as an extra kill on his part. When it is just him in a vacuum against another monster he performs very poorly, on a table as part of one army vs another he is absolutely devastating. I highly encourage testing him yourself to see what I mean, mathhammer does not do Skaarac justice.

Oh I didnt mean VS in the sense of the two of them doing battle, just as a comparison on different monsters at different pts cost. Except for the Hydra, which is why I added it as the "fun" part.

I meant both against other units and monsters. I'm not so sure he is that much better than for example 2.25 Giants.

A monster that does perform well against many opponents but badly against other monsters or highly resilient heroes will still be of situational use. His Br-reducing powers are awesome, but his damage is still only average for a monster (if even that!)

Will he be as scary if your opponent knows how to counter him and locks him in combat? This is where further testing comes in, and if it shows he's a power house he will of course be raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

endur wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:
I asked Ninth how he point costed the battalions and terrain. He basically eyeballed it and set values he thought were appropriate. This works in a small community where everyone is on the same page. It is also the way I suspect GW used to point cost things, and without math involved it usually gets broken.

WHFB originally used a math system (5 points for a basic human with a hand weapon, 8 points for a basic elf with a hand weapon, etc.). Later on they may have moved to an eyeball approach.

And eyeballing stuff that really can't be mathematically gotten is still the right way in my opinion - and then the actual playtesting will quickly reveal if the stuff should go up or down in points, or stay where it is. Thatäs where GW fails in my opinion, but where we can quite quickly make some changes. A few rounds of changes up/down and we'll arrive at a good value soon enough.

So black knights lost their ability to move through walls'n'stuff. That sucks. Don't know how many points that was valued at, but the have just become some of the most generic and boring cavalry in AoS :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Krell became a wight king, and I think he lost an attack. It would probably be best to recalculate him, just in case. The regular wight king however, gained the same command ability, and should be increased in cost (I'm super stoked about this, as I can now play a deathrattle army without a tomb king!).

On the topic of calculating points, TBF I would use a formula to get starting values except battalions and terrain can't be quantified that way. At any rate, playtesting the initial values is very important, as we can see in PPC with how dramatically some units have shifted in cost. I'd love to hear any feedback on the battalions/terrain scrolls btw!

On the topic of Skaarac, I would say just to test him. Maybe the match I was in was an unusual result, but do keep in mind only one of his abilities actually requires him to kill models, and that unlike many monsters his melee potential does not drop at all until he is half-dead. I think on the table he heavily outperforms other monsters in the 450 pt range.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


but do keep in mind only one of his abilities actually requires him to kill models.

This is what I missed, it struck me when I thought about it this morning. I know you wrote that wounding not killing is enough for towering horror last post, but I didn't catch up on it until now

So I agree that Towering Horror makes him better than 450 and will comment and change that for 2016.03, but still thinks 600p sounds too much. Will think about it some more before deciding on a value. And after more testing during 2016.03 we can then set a final value for the next again update.

Cheers!

Big update today to v2016.03!
Check it out here!

Great update. We're going in the right direction without a doubt.

We had another tournament this weekend, and we have some great findings for the future of ppc.

The biggest one is without a doubt black orcs. They were just reduced to 18 points, but after looking at their stats compared to liberators, that still seems too high. They basicly have the same stats as liberators (except 1 rend vs reroll 1's on hit/save) and they have another ability when a warboss is near them. Liberators are better against heroes, chariots, monsters etc.. With that in mind, I would probably price liberators one point more, and black orcs one point less. I'm not quite sure about warriors of chaos, as they are basicly in the same boat with slightly different special rules.

Ironguts are just too expensive as it is. Their survivability vs. normal ogres is only slightly better, which makes them a huge liability at that cost. I propose a 5-10 points decrease.

Another big subject is the elite infantry with only one wound. They have such a huge problem, getting work done, as they can get picked off so quickly. It comes up time and time again, and I still see swordmasters of hoeth being 16 (At wich point I would rather have a liberator with 1 point to spare, I might add) points etc. This probably isn't as much of a problem with ranged elites, but melee elites really have to get into the thick of it to do their part, and point for point, they rarely cut it.

Cavalry has yet to prove itself for their points. Now this is mostly a personal observation of mine, but I just can't seem to get them to work. My black knights have not been worth it in a single match. I get that they are penalized heavily for their tactical role with high movement, but I would probably rather have 4 more spirit hosts or something. (Spirit hosts, could by the way go up a few points too. They are crazy good). Anyway, if it is just me then fine, but I would imagine that most other normal cavalry would have this problem too. Movement is nice and all, but even in 1000 point games, you have a hard time finding a use for them.

Woodelves rely heavily on forests, but their free forests pr. game have gone missing from their ppc rules. Is this on purpose, because without the forests, they are both bad and boring

Thats it for now. I will report back with more, when it comes up.

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
Woodelves rely heavily on forests, but their free forests pr. game have gone missing from their ppc rules. Is this on purpose, because without the forests, they are both bad and boring

They can buy as many Sylvaneth Wildwoods as they like using the terrain warscrolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first two Grand Alliance books called and said they wanted their battalions costed! Like always please get back to me with any feedback to help me cost not only previous battalions but new ones too.

[Death] Legion of Death - 100 pts. Skeletons are happy to have a battalion that's worth something, I suspect.

[Undivided] Overlords of Chaos - 200 pts. On of this battalion's two main benefits is directly related to rolling for initiative, while the battalion is costed assuming that is in play I would price it at 100 pts if players were not doing so.

[Undivided] Godsworn Champions of Ruin - 125 pts. Worth noting that I see a huge amount of variability in how effective this battalion will be on the battlefield, so this value could be way off (more so than usual).

[Undivided] Godswrath Warband - 200 pts, +15 per unit beyond the minimum. Since the battalion has "10 or more" units in it and an effectiveness that scales with the number of units I had to include a similarly scaling point cost.

[Undivided] Ruinbringer Warband - 75 pts. I don't really see the effectiveness scaling with number of units on this one (rather it is number of models) and the ability is once per game anyway.

[Khorne] Goreblade Warband - 75 pts. Can anyone confirm for me if this is the same battalion from the starter set?

[Khorne] Blood Host (Lesser) - 300 pts. This version of the battalion allows 7 to 14 units to be included.

[Khorne] Blood Host (Greater) - 500 pts. This version of the battalion allows 15 or more units.

[Tzeentch] Changehost (Lesser) - 300 pts. This version of the battalion allows 8 to 16 units to be included. This is another battalion where I am very unsure as to an appropriate cost.

[Tzeentch] Changehost (Greater) - 400 pts. This version of the battalion allows 17 or more units to be included.

[Nurgle] Blightguard - 250 pts.

[Nurgle] Tallyband (Lesser) - 350 pts. This version of the battalion allows 6 to 12 units to be included.

[Nurgle] Tallyband (Greater) - 500 pts. This version of the battalion allows 13 or more units to be included.

[Slaanesh] Pleasurebound Warband - 150 pts. Slaanesh was feeling lonely so I stole a battalion from the Everchosen book for himher.

[Beastmen] Wildstalker Brayherd - 300 pts.

[Skaven] Clan Skryre - 75 pts, plus the value of Enginecovens.
-Whyrlblade Threshik - 25pts
-Gascloud Chokelung - 75pts
-Rattlegauge Warplock - 125pts
-Arkhspark Voltik - 35pts
-Gautfyre Skorch - 85pts

Disagree on the black orks. Rend is the big difference, in a game where rend is king. (Rend is really really good).

Black Knights are just a bit meh I think, have no important role in your army. And with spectral steeds gone, they really can't find a place in the army. Same with my judicators x-bow, they don't have a specific role they are better at. Your army is fine witout x-bow, same with black knights. Some units are just a bit vanilla and uninspiring.


Grimbok


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Great update Attilla!


Nice to see the small upgrade characters decreased in points over the lists. Nice to see the overpriced monster go down in points.

The Stormcast changes look good, nice internal balance. X-bow got a hefty reduction, but I thinks it the right one. (Still would probably take bows, but thats fine, now it's more of a choice.)

Nice work on the banner, keeping the hefty price on the pennant and reducing the other (the character himself isn't that impressive). I havn't tried the pennant yet, looking forward to .

Good to see retributers go up, it's a start. (Maybe it's enough, we will see)


Grimbok

Rend is really good. This is how good it is on an orc vs a liberator.

10 orcs deal 6.7 damage to units with save - and 6+ (liberators, 6.7 and 5.6 for a difference of 0% and 16.7%)

And 16.7% difference for every other save value aswell.

Divided over all save values, BOs' advantage comes out to 13.9 (assuming, that all savevalues are encountered evenly)
But damage isn't everything, and we can't have a model cost 100% more because it does double the damage. That would undermine every other stat.

The other thing that seperates BOs and Liberators are their special abilities. 'We's da best' vs. 'Lay low the tyrants'. They are about equally good. One adds 1 to hit vs 5 wound models like heavy cav, heroes, monsters, bigger creatures, chariots etc. The other adds 1 to hit when they are within 6" of a BO boss. Both situational, and while the boss is more reliable, he is removeable and/or seperateable from them. And he also costs points while lay low does not.

Liberators then have the option to surpass BOs survivability or to close the damage gab between them slightly with either shields or 2 weapons. Right now There is a point increase of 20% from liberator to BO, which should probably only be less than 10% with all things taken into consideration.

That would bring black orcs down to 1 point more than liberators. I just ran the stats through my excel calculator, and they agree with my assumption. 14,5 points for liberators by their stats alone, and 15,6 points for black orcs. With the liberators reroll 1's it brings them to 14.7 and if we increase both units 1 point for abilities, we have a 16 point liberator and a 17 point BO.

That is my reasoning at least.


EDIT: And that is coming from the person, who gets his ass handed to him from rend values because of crappy undead shields. We just can't punish black orcs because 1 army has shields that don't like rend values.

And as for sylvaneth wildwoods. We don't play with terrain rules in our local setting, so I think we'll have to add our own rule for bringing forests to the table. Sylvaneth are pretty trash without forests.

I think we can agree that despite their differences Liberators and Black Orcs can remain united in being preferable to Black Knights!

In a straight up killpoint battle, I would almost be inclined to say yes. But with objectives, the movement is alot better. But I'm not just talking about black knights. Boar boys, centigors and the like have the same problem. They are expensive and more often than not unimpressive

Liberators and Black Orcs are both more survivable than Black Knights while dealing more damage, so I'd say they beat out the latter even in objective games. The Black Knights may get there first, but they won't be able to keep it.

They are better when charging, and can be effective for a turn 5 or 6 objective grab. But yeah, it's hard getting them to survive or to reach the enemy artillery.

We got some new Stormcasts coming in:

Concussors 150 pts.
Fulminators 150 pts.
Desolators 120 pts up to five models, then 150 pts.
Tempestors 140 pts.

New Lord-Celestant on Dracoth as well, base cost lowered, but comes with equipment options now.

Wow, that is pricey!

I have the following view on the power levels.


1. Concussors: Absolutely the best. Best breath weapon, mortal wounds and stunning. Might be 150, it is high though. Maybe 130-135


2. Fulminators: How many times do you get to charge on a game? Once, maybe twice, somtimes never. In a complete round, they do less damage than concussors, even if they charge. 3 dam on charge and 1 the following round, compared to concossors 2 each round plus extra mortal wounds. The breath is less powerful, it is really only superior within 3" ie in close combat on it's own turn (how often does that really happen? Round two (if they were charged, maybe round three of combat)
These are much harder to use than concussors, the breath is not as good, and no stun, which i amazing. Cost wise, about as Varanguard. 120 maybe.

3. Desolators. Not as good as above unless 4+ models, has the good breath though. Maybee 115 for each of the three first, then 125 fourth and fifth, six and above 135.

4. Tempestors. Bad breath option on a missile unit, I think they are poor. No rend, few attacks, low damage. Nice abilily though (pinning). No more than 100 points. 100 is character level prices, I would never pay more than 100 points for a tempestor.

My initial thoughts of course. I might be wrong.

I understand the initial high price. But 150 range for heavy cav? It's fricking close to a giants price. They still are only 5 wounds, and have no immunity to mortal wounds.


Grimbok

True, but they have a better save than most monsters, and fight just as effectively at 1 wound vs fulls wounds unlike most monsters. Coupled with a nasty attack routine and ranged mortal wound dealing and I see those prices as a good starting point.

[edit] Also, lightning surge has better average damage output (and more consistent) even outside of 3" than storm blast. The latter has an advantage of range but does less damage, before even factoring in the bonus for being within 3".

Yes, but we all know how little range 6" is. And do you really want to shoot at range 4-5", then have the opponant remove front casualties, and don't get the charge (Fulminators need that charge). On a monster yes, you can use it, but it's still only 6".

So really, the range 12" breath is much more useful allround. As are the concussor hammers . Concussors are clearly best, by a fair bit. All other are more situational and/or needs more thought to be put to good use. Fulmiators needs the charge (on the right target, not just chaff), Desolators need the numbers (but are quite powerful at 6+). And the tempestors are really not that good...


Grimbok

As you said previously, if the enemy charges you then that's the best chance of them being within 3" for the improved damage. 6" range really isn't too bad on a model that wants to be in melee and has a move of 10". I think the two breath options are balanced with each other overall, perhaps with an edge to lightning surge because it hits better. You do have a point about the concussor's superior weapon, though.

A tempestor for 100 points!?!?! That would be crazy good, and I'll give an example as to why.

The closest thing I can come to a heavy cav unit in my army would be a morghast archai. They are pretty solid, and very comparable to these dracoth dudes. The tempestor might be the worst of them, but let's look at just how bad they are, shall we?

If we assume that they are solely in melee, where they will do the most damage and are more likely to be compared to other heavy cav, this is what their stats look like vs an archai.

Tempestors:

Damage:
Crossbow - 0,67 range 12 rend -
Lightning surge - 1,33 mortal wounds, range 6
Warblade - 1 rend -
Dracoth's claws and fangs - 2,17 rend -1 (Not 1,33 because of Intolerable damage)

Total - 5,17 vs armor -
4,89 vs armor 6+
4,24 vs armor 5+
3,64 vs armor 4+
2,97 vs armor 3+
2,33 vs armor 2+

Survivability

Attacks with 4+, 4+, rend -, damage 1 to kill.
80 (because of rerolls of 1). Mortal wounds to kill = 5



Archai

Damage

4 damage rend -2

Total - 4 vs armor -
4 vs armor 6+
4 vs armor 5+
3,33 vs armor 4+
2,67 vs armor 3+
2 vs armor 2+

Survivability

Attacks with 4+, 4+, rend -, damage 1 to kill.
48. Mortal wounds to kill = 8

Now it might not be clear from what I've written, so I'll recap. Tempestors have a significantly higher damage output as well as survivability vs. normal weapons of all rend values. Archai have a higher survivability vs. mortal wounds. As for their abilities and movement compared to each other. The archai boost necromancy with +1 to casting rolls. The Tempestors reduce the hit chance and 'special attack chance on a 6+ chance' of a unit. I would trade abilities any day of the week!

(Both abilities should be reflected with an increased cost for the first model in the unit as it doesn't increase in strength with larger numbers. )

Movement is 9" (flying) vs. 10 on the ground. I would pick the flying unit 8 times out of 10 depending on terrain, setup, the opponent, and mission.

What I'm trying to get at with this babble is that the tempestor is just plain better in almost every sense, and its cost should probably reflect that, so let's compare the proposed '100 points' to an archai's cost... OF 135!

Yeah, I would probably keep the tempestors at 150 for 1 and 140 for subsequent ones and be pretty happy with that. I haven't even adressed the fact that they have the possibility of actually shooting things, but I don't think it's possible to take that into account while doing the math.

The dracoth riders are pretty damn good all of them, and I think they are just about the right price.


Edits: Spelling and whatever.

Lightning surge only works in your own shooting phase, not every combat round. Same with crossbow. You will not always be able to shoot because of range 6" and if you are within 6", be careful not to fail charge because of casualties. So, there will be plenty of times when you can't shoot. And the boosted lightning surge is only within 3". That only happens in close combat on your following turn! Thats two combat rounds away! You cannot seriously factor it in every round, like you did. In real life 6" matters, possibly failed charges matters. And surviving two rounds before you can use lightning surge matters. Under perfect circumstances, you have to halve the ranged damage, as you only shoot every other round.

And there is a massive difference between rend -2 and -. Tempestors are trash, utter trash, you will see, no one will take them. 4 shots with crossbows, really...and a liberator warblade. What are these guys supposed to do? They bring nothing to the army. Actually only the pinning ability it brings. I can field 4 paladins for the price of one tempestor. 4! Survivability means gak, unless the troops are cheap or you can deliver massive damage.

Concussors are good though. Another matter entirely. The stun is really good.

Too much excel, too little on board reality. Same with judicators, just calculating optimal situation, they are about equal. When you field them, you realise how bad range 12" crossbows are..

Generally you underestimate rend and ranges I think.


Grimbok

Everything was taken into account. Both ranged attacks damages were halved in my calculations, and as you can see - I tested them against all saves to see if rend would be the equalizer. And I didn't account for their potential to actually be at range, which is a situational use for them IMO, but still an asset non the less. Excel might not tell everything, but when their stats are just plain better without a doubt, I don't think that there is much discussion. They even use the same bases as morghasts, which helps the comparison without fielding them on a board. Rend 2 is good, but mortal wounds at range 3 is just so much better.

Lightning surge also? 1.33 mortal wounds is half of the double damage, not the 1 damage. That's only range 3" which is impossible in the first round. And how can you be sure to be within 6" in the first round. There will be many times where it is impossible to shoot og maybe only partial shooting (multiple models). It's quite relevant, as the breath is the main damage dealer.

Rend -2 is close to mortal wounds on most models. Even 4+ heavy armor is reduced to 6+. And maybe the morghast is too pricey. In general the big scary things have been reduced in price over time. Maybe that's because the initial price is often in the high end (which I can understand, easier to go low later).

And what does it bring to the army. Tempestors doesn't really bring that much to the stormcast army, you can't get elsewhere. A tempestor at 140ish is too close to Celestant on Dracoth, way too close. The Celestant is way better. Morghast brings punch to an army of mostly cheap chaff, it's a diffent role. 4 decimators or 4 protectors is about 140 points. Way better than a single tempestor, for what they bring. There might be some internal balance issues here.

But we will see after playtests. I don't think a 140 point tempestor will be popular... No one wil take it. There are too many issues. The only no brainer is concussors. Easy to use, poweful.


Grimbok

Lightning surge does go down in damage because of the range, but not to 1. If they are in combat for 2 to 4 turns (which seems an average for most units) in a game, it is still about 1,17 to 1,25. So alright - 0,16 to 0,08 less mortal wounds than I calculated (or even less of a difference if in combat for longer).

I don't think Morghasts are overpriced, and I don't think tempestors are either. Their biggest problem is that they have models with ranged weapons, but are truly melee units in nature. Their damage output is just about the same as 3 retributors (Higher on lightly armored enemies and lower on heavily armored enemies). They have greater manouverability and more survivability. And as icing on the cake, they have a crazy ability (-1 to hit.). That counters things like spirit hosts, retributors, skullreapers, Har Garneth Executioners etc. etc.. But even if an enemy unit doesn't have a great ability on a '6+ to hit', they still reduce the damage of that unit greatly. That is pretty damn good.

I think you are underestimating them by alot. I really do.

3-4 paladins have 9-12 wounds though, which is far better.

2-4 rounds in combat for tempestors at that price, and you have one, maybe two of them. Maybe they charge from more than 6" and gets recharged and dies. No lightning surge in the whole game. It's only 5 wounds. And that 's a scenario that can happen a lot. Too many "if's". Morghasts have no "if's". Concussors too, have no "if's". Point and kill. Tempestors, Fulminators and Desolators have "if's". Harder to use on the board. 4 protectors or 4 chaos knights are just better. More damage, a lot more wounds, more versatile.

Grimbok

I wanted to compare concussors to tempestors just for fun, so here goes.

Assuming that he is in melee, where he will do the most damage.

The concussor

Damage:
Storm Blast - 0,5 mortal wounds
Lightning hammer - 2,67 damage with rend -1
Dracoth's claws and fangs - 2,17 rend -1 (Not 1,33 because of Intolerable damage) 4,84

Total - 5,34 vs armor - and 6+
4,53 vs armor 5+
3,73 vs armor 4+
2,92 vs armor 3+
2,11 vs armor 2+

Survivability

Attacks with 4+, 4+, rend -, damage 1 to kill.
80 (because of rerolls of 1). Mortal wounds to kill = 5

If I take the lowered damage of the tempestors breath weapon into account, the concussors deal from 0,4 to 0,79 more damage in melee.

Their ability is another thing entirely. It is not nearly as good as the tempestors' ability for a number of reasons. 1. it doesn't work, if the enemy unit has already piled in. 2. Smaller units or units with longer range may not even need to pile in. 3. Characters, monsters etc. don't need to pile in (but I guess that is kind of the same as the first point). Either way, it is a good ability, but very situational, whereas the tempestors' ability is universally good (and has longer range).

So are the concussors really that much better. Right now, they are 10 points more expensive, but I am actually inclined to reduce the concussors in cost while leaving the tempestors where they are. I would personally pick the tempestors for their versatility over the concussors. But that really depends what you are lacking in your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimbok wrote:
3-4 paladins have 9-12 wounds though, which is far better.

2-4 rounds in combat for tempestors at that price, and you have one, maybe two of them. Maybe they charge from more than 6" and gets recharged and dies. No lightning surge in the whole game. It's only 5 wounds. And that 's a scenario that can happen a lot. Too many "if's". Morghasts have no "if's". Concussors too, have no "if's". Point and kill. Tempestors, Fulminators and Desolators have "if's". Harder to use on the board. 4 protectors or 4 chaos knights are just better. More damage, a lot more wounds, more versatile.

Grimbok

Paladins are only slightly harder to kill unless you get hit by mortal wounds. But with movement 10", that is on you. If it is an attack with rend - or -1, 5 wounds from a dracothian is nearly as good. 80 attacks (4+, 4+, -, 1 on) vs 84 on 3,5 retributors which, is the same price. Don't undersell their survivability, as you will get to pick and choose most of your battles. And if we throw the tempestor ability into the mix, they have a higher survivability than the 3,5 retributers, you would otherwise have.

And there are no 'if's'. There is one 'if', which means that you will deal 0,33 less damage for two combat rounds. Not really a big deal.

It is true that the Dracothian take more skill to use than some other units, but they have a high enough potential for them to be worth it. And if you make a mistake, you won't just lose them, as their 3+ save with reroll 1's will save you alot of the time.

You could also look at it this way. Would you rather have 1 dracothian tempestor or 5 knights of the realm with a leader. Same cost, same function. The 5 knights are just worse.


EDIT: I made the false assumption that concussers' breath weapons had 2 attacks. They don't, which halves their damage output from mortal wounds. This effectively makes them worse or about the same as tempestors on armor 2+ and 3+ models. Now there is now doubt in my mind, that I would pick the tempestor over the concussor myself.

I would bring two units of tempestors at that price, hitting the most dangerous enemy unit with -2 to hit while being competant at ranged damage and good in melee while being extremely survivable... Yeah I don't see no one taking them. Though really they should cost more for the first model and less for the additions since the ability doesn't scale with unit size.

You are still factoring in that lightning surge as a long prolonged combat, where it always gets to use it. It not realistic in real games imo. There could be games where you only get to lightning surge once at long range before charging, maybe even not that.

And that crossbow is still only range 12". You can target one unit up close,maybe the right unit, not just crap chaff, maybe. But then you get stuck in and all sorts of nasty things happen. It's not a REAL missile unit, it's a shoot and charge.

This is judicators all over. In a perfect world, crossbows are as good as bows. When you play them, then you have to deal with range 12". The Tempestors lack of rend does it for me, although I see your point for the first being more expensive than the second in the same unit, because of the pinning effect.

Well, playtesting will find out I hope. But not my playtesting as I will not use tempestors anyways.


Grimbok

I am too of the opinion that the Dracothian Guard cost is a bit steep...

I would perhaps go with:

Concussors: 140pts

Desolators : 115pts

Fulminators: 130pts

Tempestors: 125pts


Of course some playtesting is needed and as Grimbok said it is better to lose some points than to have to raise the cost...

What's that smell? Pestilens battalions!

[Pestilens] Bringers of the Rotsmog - 90pts

[Pestilens] Congregation of Filth - 125pts

[Pestilens] Foulrain Congregation - 200pts

[Pestilens] Plaguesmog Congregation - 215pts

[Pestilens] Virulent Procession - 125pts. This is in addition to the battalion costs for the Congregations of Filth.

I also updated my grand alliance battalions (above) with the Skryre Battalion.