Well looks like Archeon will need some points and his new varanguard, my bets is acheon will work out to around 1350pts and his varanguard at some where around 125pts each.

To tell every one the truth every time they release these new rules for sigmar i die a little each time :(

Yeah, Archaon seems to be the equal of Apocalypse-style units for 40k.

This big meanie and his guard have been calculated now:

http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.se/2015/12/archaon-and-varanguard.html

So wasnt far off on my guess. and i'm gonna dump this idea here for giggles

1 wound models get objective secured in objective based scenario's!!

Hettar wrote:
So wasnt far off on my guess. and i'm gonna dump this idea here for giggles

1 wound models get objective secured in objective based scenario's!!

You were not far off indeed As for your idea, we've found that a large unit of 1 wound models are pretty good att holding an objective anyway (enemy units can't fit on the objective). With a commander nearby making them fearless, they just stand there and take the beating.


I've taken a look at the Gaunt Summoner rules now, and need some input from you all. The description says it always comes with a Book of Profane Secrets, but we're thinking about making it an upgrade anyway due to the nature of the ability. So please let me know what you guys think:

A) 160 points base cost, and +40 pts upgrade for Book of Profane Secrets
B) 200 points base cost, always including the book.

EDIT:
In either case, there will be a 100 pts limit on what you can summon with the Book of Profane Secrets.

Its tricky because the book is completely useless unless there is a specific terrain piece on the board, so I feel a break from the normal costing scheme (making it an upgrade despite it normally being always included) would be justified. However, 40 points to summon 100pts even just once or twice is a very powerful upgrade (note the ability has no chance of failure), I would say to increase the book to at least 75 points. The base cost of the guy should probably go to 175-185; at 160 he becomes a straight improvement over a basic chaos sorcerer because of two-spell capability coupled with benefits that offset the loss of oracular visions.

But that leads me into another matter; terrain warscrolls. What are people's opinions on point costing these? Coming alongside a rule saying the player who bought them deploys them within his deployment zone before any units. I think it could be a cool idea but I am not sure what other people think. In relation to the gaunt summoner, the book wouldn't need to be costed separately if the player had control of its availability through the option to buy realmgates. I will volunteer to point cost these if Attilla doesn't feel like letting us pile more work on him!

Something else that will need to be discussed at some point (if not now) is the army distribution. I know we come to a consensus earlier, but using the army-book-only approach to list building is apparently going to become steadily more difficult. take Warriors of Chaos for example; Bloodbound are a separate army, but what if I wanted to use units like bloodcrushers in my undivided army? Further, do we have 'armies' of Tamurkhan's Horde or Nurgle Rotbringers on their own? What about Everchosen? It is perfectly manageable right now with a decent application of common sense, but I foresee it being progressively more of a hassle as time goes on. Perhaps it would be better to amend 'one army book' to 'one grand alliance'? I know this is what we do in our league right now and it works pretty well.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Its tricky because the book is completely useless unless there is a specific terrain piece on the board, so I feel a break from the normal costing scheme (making it an upgrade despite it normally being always included) would be justified. However, 40 points to summon 100pts even just once or twice is a very powerful upgrade (note the ability has no chance of failure), I would say to increase the book to at least 75 points. The base cost of the guy should probably go to 175-185; at 160 he becomes a straight improvement over a basic chaos sorcerer because of two-spell capability coupled with benefits that offset the loss of oracular visions.

But that leads me into another matter; terrain warscrolls. What are people's opinions on point costing these? Coming alongside a rule saying the player who bought them deploys them within his deployment zone before any units. I think it could be a cool idea but I am not sure what other people think. In relation to the gaunt summoner, the book wouldn't need to be costed separately if the player had control of its availability through the option to buy realmgates. I will volunteer to point cost these if Attilla doesn't feel like letting us pile more work on him!

I think this depends on how people play the terrain now - my own group seldom or never use any of the fancy special terrain for AoS, but if we were to use Realmgates in our games the Profane Book ability would naturally be worth more. That's why I'm thinking 40p, because from a "not-knowing" perspective you'll have to take a chance that there's a Realmgate in your game.

Being able to purchase the terrain could be cool, and would not only take away the need to make the book a separate purchase, but can also remove PPC added rules such as the wood elves being able to use regular woods instead of Wyldwoods. If you could point cost them it would be an awesome addition, Ninth!

NinthMusketeer wrote:Something else that will need to be discussed at some point (if not now) is the army distribution. I know we come to a consensus earlier, but using the army-book-only approach to list building is apparently going to become steadily more difficult. take Warriors of Chaos for example; Bloodbound are a separate army, but what if I wanted to use units like bloodcrushers in my undivided army? Further, do we have 'armies' of Tamurkhan's Horde or Nurgle Rotbringers on their own? What about Everchosen? It is perfectly manageable right now with a decent application of common sense, but I foresee it being progressively more of a hassle as time goes on. Perhaps it would be better to amend 'one army book' to 'one grand alliance'? I know this is what we do in our league right now and it works pretty well.

Yeah, I believe it's time to remove the limitations and let people use the Grands now. My group also mix and match within the Grand Alliance, with the "one limit" you mention.
I will make an update to the PPC probably the coming week, and then the next will be closer to the end of february. If we change it now, and voices are heard about it breaking stuff, we can always tweak it back in for the feb update!

On that topic I gotta be honest. I am already fielding skeleton archers with my VC army. I have played them undead guys since they were well "undead" and not VC or TK. I am personally totally in favour of the great alliances. Especially since I'm going to start my dark omen army some time soon which will have empire, dwarves and wood elves as per the video game

Here's some initial terrain rules/costings, I'll work up a proper document later. Note I opted to price things on the high end of what I felt they were worth, because they are supposed to be side-options and not a mainstay of any army,

Terrain Warscrolls are placed after deployment zones have been determined but before either player has put down any units. Players alternate placing down terrain pieces in the same manner as units, and they must be completely within the purchasing player's deployment zone. Terrain does not count as belonging to either player beyond the purposes of deploying it.

Arcane Ruins - 65 pts
-The Fell Summons rule is ignored.

Baleful Realmgate - 100 pts

Balewind Vortex - 100 pts
-A Balewind Vortex is not deployed normally. Instead, any wizard from your army may cast the "Summon Balewind Vortex" spell as described in the warscroll. Your wizards can only successfully cast this spell once for each Balewind Vortex you purchased.

Chapel - 200 pts

Deathknell Watch - 135 pts

Dragonfate Dais - 150 pts
-Only one Beseech the Gods attempt may be made on a given Dais per hero phase.

Dreadfire Portal - 60 pts

Dreadstone Blight - 90 pts

Eternity Stair - 135 pts

Garden of Morr - 80 pts
-The Deathly Awakening rule is ignored.

Magewrath Throne - 90 pts

Numinous Occulum - 110 pts

Ophidian Archway - 50 pts

Skullvane Manse - 125 pts
-Must be upgraded with one of the following:
--Battlements - 15 pts: The manse gains the Uncanny Strategic Overview rule (note your general need only garrison the building, not be literally placed on the battlements).
--Astral Obervatory - 25 pts: The manse gains the relevant rule.

Temple of Skulls - 90 pts
-Only one model per player may benefit from the Cracked Summit rule at the same time.

Walls and Fences - 25 pts per 3" of obstacle
-Add a signpost to the end of an obstacle section for 15 pts

Watchtower - 100 pts

Witchfate Tor - 140 pts

Sylvaneth Wyldwoods - 2 for 100 pts
-Add additional Wyldwoods for 50 pts each

Dreadhold Fortress Wall - 75 pts
-Only one Defiant Proclamation may be made from a given wall per hero phase.
-Add additional Wall Sections for 35 pts each
-All sections from a given entry must be placed adjacent to each other.

Malefic Gate - 215 pts

Overlord Bastion - 225 pts

Skull Keep - 125 pts

[edit] Alrighty, everything is pointed out! I left out the Fortified Manor (and the other Dreadhold scrolls) because they are effectively battalions made of multiple structures, and we haven't gotten to how those will be factored into PPC.

Sorry for the late reply, Ninth!

This looks really solid - I haven't had the time to go through it properly yet though, but thought I'd pop in to let you know I'm on it as soon as possible!

Just noticed that a bone giant costs 200 points which is the same as a regular giant. That can't be true. The giant is borderline underpriced while the bone giant is pretty bad. Not that many people would ever play with such an ugly model, but still

Time for an update to v2016.01 today. Full checklist of changes here: http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com!

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
Just noticed that a bone giant costs 200 points which is the same as a regular giant. That can't be true. The giant is borderline underpriced while the bone giant is pretty bad. Not that many people would ever play with such an ugly model, but still

Well it does have a pretty big damage output, but should not cost as much as a Giant because it can't stand up to as much damage. Lowered it to 175p.

Juicy! I do like the scenario changes and typo-fixings.

While I disagree with the ruling on extra attacks I can see why people don't want an extra rule. Tournaments will probably end up comping it anyways and I doubt we'd see egregious abuse in casual games. That said, can we at least get an adjustment for Konrad? Because there is no way to cost him appropriately.

Hi Attilla

Nice work on the PPC system! I play in the same group as Andreas 2.0 and we are slowly building a player base in our club and it's nice to have a good system as a framework.

I played your new mission Schemes of War the other day. 1000 points of my Stormcasts vs. Tzeentch chaos. It worked really well! The three zones worked well. The "breakthrough" victory condition was never close. We are fairly new to AoS, so we rolled only once on schemes. With three victory conditions and two rolls it's quite a complex mission. I got assassinate and he got endure (the same character). So it came down to hunting him down while dominating the zones. It spread the troops out, which is nice. Avoiding i big centre battle should be the objective of all missions I think.
So the mission basicly works. I would suggest that you maybe cut the "breakthough" element and maybe one scheme (or one of them). There is a LOT going on.

As for the Stormcast Eternals, here is a little feedback. Liberators seems fairly balanced, at first I thought 15 point for great weapon was too much. It isn't. Seems right.

The retributors are really good! The are the main killers in my army. No cost reduction for the base trooper. The starsoul mace on the other hand is over priced IMO. You replace a very good ligthning hammer with two attacks, for 1d3 mortal wounds. With -1 rend, most troops die anyway, and two mortal wounds from each six is quite enough. Starsoul mace does more or less the same, but lightning hammer has more damage output on most troops and comes close in mortal wounds. 15 points is too much. 10 would be more reasonable, even 5 on retributors. I don't even think I would buy one on protectors due to their 3" reach. On decimators they make more sense, making for a more all round multi purpose unit. Stormcast can deliver mortal wound in quite a few other areas, so the mace isn' t that critical.

Lord Celestant on Dracoth seems fine. Awesome ability. I can't comment further, difficult to put a price on. More playtesting needed.

Judicators with X-bow. Good, but pricey. I think in retrospect I would have made mine with bows (but the X-bows look cool), just because of range. The main issue for Stormcasts is the lack of ranged weapons and slow movement. You need to threaten wizards etc. Im leaning towards bows beeing better because of internal balancing (no ranged warmachines etc). But it's too early to tell if X-bow should have a reduction or bows simply an increase in cost.

Procecutors with hammers are ok for the price. Much needed movement. I run only three and they seem underwhelming, but I think they will perform better with a few extra models. I will take them no matter what, just to hunt down warmachines and casters, that I can't reach otherwise.

The Lord Relictor is not worth 90 points I think. You raised him to 110 point. I can't really understand that. He has been underwhelming in every one of my games. He has some major issues. Low movement combined with only 12" power. 12" in hero phase and move 4" is really piss poor. Healing storm is nice but difficult to deliver consistantly on Dracoth Lord. Lightning storm is just an arcane bolt, but with 6" less range which is massively weaker in game. The main problem, he is not (other than healing) giving anything unique to the army. No good synergy like Lord Castellant, Vexilor og Heraldor or the threat of the Venator. I've used the Venator. Much much much better choice for the same points. Venator patches a massive gap in the stormcast army, with that range 30 bow. It's really a no brainer. 80-85 point would fit better IMO.

That's it for now.

Keep up the good work. Every game seems fairly balanced with your system so far and I have played vs. chaos warriors, gobbos and Undead.



Grimbok

Grimbok wrote:
So the mission basicly works. I would suggest that you maybe cut the "breakthough" element and maybe one scheme (or one of them). There is a LOT going on.

This is my feeling as well after playing it.

The starsoul mace on the other hand is over priced IMO. You replace a very good ligthning hammer with two attacks, for 1d3 mortal wounds. With -1 rend, most troops die anyway, and two mortal wounds from each six is quite enough. Starsoul mace does more or less the same, but lightning hammer has more damage output on most troops and comes close in mortal wounds. 15 points is too much. 10 would be more reasonable, even 5 on retributors. I don't even think I would buy one on protectors due to their 3" reach. On decimators they make more sense, making for a more all round multi purpose unit. Stormcast can deliver mortal wound in quite a few other areas, so the mace isn' t that critical.

Have you ever played against starsoul maces? Guaranteed 1d3 mortal wounds (potentially 2d3 in a 5-man unit) is absolutely devastating. And much more powerful than a lightning hammer, which only does an average of 0.66 mortal wounds and 2 regular wounds per model (before saves). Starsoul maces are also very difficult for some armies to counter (like chaos, which has a bad enough time against Stormcast already).

Procecutors with hammers are ok for the price. Much needed movement. I run only three and they seem underwhelming, but I think they will perform better with a few extra models. I will take them no matter what, just to hunt down warmachines and casters, that I can't reach otherwise.

Now that you mention it, it does seem like hammer-prosecutors underperform a little, particularly when compared to their javelin counterparts.

The Lord Relictor is not worth 90 points I think. You raised him to 110 point. I can't really understand that. He has been underwhelming in every one of my games. He has some major issues. Low movement combined with only 12" power. 12" in hero phase and move 4" is really piss poor. Healing storm is nice but difficult to deliver consistantly on Dracoth Lord. Lightning storm is just an arcane bolt, but with 6" less range which is massively weaker in game. The main problem, he is not (other than healing) giving anything unique to the army. No good synergy like Lord Castellant, Vexilor og Heraldor or the threat of the Venator. I've used the Venator. Much much much better choice for the same points. Venator patches a massive gap in the stormcast army, with that range 30 bow. It's really a no brainer. 80-85 point would fit better IMO.

I think you missed his most powerful asset to the army; the storm ability gives the unit struck a -1 penalty to all hit rolls (ranged and melee) until your next hero phase. If he didn't have that I would agree with you. Whenever I see him the healing and mortal wounds are treated as side-effects to the main benefit of nerfing an enemy unit's attack rolls on a 3+ with no way for them to stop it.

Good point about the lightning storm, I will try to use that tactic on a large/dangerous unit. Still sceptical about the range though...

Still not sold on the starsoul maces. For two you can almost get another retributor...the hammer damage output is greater on 5+ save or worse units I think. On the protectors the reach of 1" is not good considering their purpose and tactics. My meager 1000 point army can deliver mortal wounds from Dracoth, Relictor, Thunderbolt X-bow, ligthning hammers and starsoul maces. Pretty abundant actually.

I think hammer procecuters are better than javelins, but not sure by how much. I just think a unit of three is a bit small. They are still quite nice on paper though. Maybe when stormcasts gets cavalry/chariots they become more vanilla, as their speed is their main strong point.


Grimbok

Its not so much the raw damage output as the fact that they are guaranteed; there is no hit roll, no activation roll, they just happen. All of the other things you mentioned have a chance of failure while the starsoul maces do not; this consistency is worth something. I honestly encourage you to try playing against them, because they are very hard to deal with from the other side. Also of note is that anything which imposes a -1 to hit penalty on attacks will prevent the lightning hammers from dealing mortal wounds at all.

Good new additions to PPC. I'll go over them in the coming days. I already see a few things that are worth looking at - The monster costs and the warmachine costs, especially for beastmen and empire might be a tad too high.

About the Lord-Relictor - This is a tough one. By my calculations, he is worth about 50 points without his magic abilities. This means that you really have to get the most out of him for it to be worth another 60 points. This might be possible, but the fact that he has 4" movement and 12" range from the spells means, that he might first get them off around turn 3. That seems a little pricey. I would value him around 80-100 points, but you may have some playtesting insight that I don't

Really he has an average of 7.5" of movement, because unless you want to charge (meh) he will just run and still use his abilities.

[edit] Also to note, I have seen him start using his abilities turn 2 almost every game I've played against him, with a few exceptions being turn 1 healing. Keep in mind a melee enemy will be moving towards you thus getting in range faster, while a ranged one will be damaging the troops that he can then heal.

15.5" effective average range for a turn 2 use... Just saying. And that is if you have him at the very front of the line, at which point he can easily be picked off. I don't think that a turn 2 use is reliable in any way if your opponent doesn't want it. Remember you have to use it at the start of the turn. If your opponent blindly charges forward into range of a deadly spell, I see how he can be dangerous. Otherwise, I'm not really that impressed.

Bear in mind that I don't play Stormcast - I would still rather spend 110 points on a knight venator than on a relictor. Especially in an army that lacks movement above all else. The relictor is outmanouverable, situational and unreliable with a potential to be an asset. Just my thoughts.

Again, if your enemy isn't charging your line then they are probably shooting it - in which case he can heal. Himself, even, making him quite difficult to pick off with his 3+ save. Theoretical ranges are one thing, but on the tabletop it is actually quite difficult to find a given turn in which he cant put that ability to use. As someone who plays against Stormcast regularly I would be very unhappy to have my enemy getting Relictors at below 100pts. I am more afraid of them than Venators, because beyond the hit-or-miss ubershot once per game he only plinks on a few wounds here and there. His advantages are mobility and long range, which may or may not be what your army needs. If the conflict at hand is a dual of melee armies than the Relictor can actually out-damage the Venator because of mortal wounds output and far better melee. "Situational" is an inappropriate term for a model that can heal friendlies, fight decently in melee, and damage enemies with a powerful debuff. The only things he doesnt do are long range and mobility.

All in all I see arguments for him being cheaper that seem to be based on the Relictor being used inappropriately, which is frustrating when he kicks my ass with such regularity.

I get that he has potential, but I still don't see him being a surefire 110 points worth of gold dude. Anecdotal evidence is still just that. You say (quote: "All in all I see arguments for him being cheaper that seem to be based on the Relictor being used inappropriately, which is frustrating when he kicks my ass with such regularity."). Where the counter could be that he seems to be worth more if you are not playing appropriatley against him. Anecdotal evidence is important, but should not sideline math or theory. He could be used better or worse than he should be in your gaming group. Not saying that is the case, but it is still important to consider when assessing a model. What I'm saying is that he seems to be punished harder than he should be based on 'not quite enough evidence'.

Maths wise he does 1,78 damage with a rend of 1 and 1,2 mortal wounds with a range of 12. All told 1,98 on a model with no armor or 6+ on his own turn. The venator does 2,67 damage at range 30-42 vs. a model with armor (-) and 2,5 damage vs. armor 6+. In melee he does another 1 / 0,83 damage. for a total of 3,67 to 3,3 damage on his own turn. If we say that they are both in melee, the venator has an average of 2,08 (6+) to 2,34 (-) damage whereas the relictor does 2,34 on average in melee. So yes, the relictor is slightly better in melee as we can never expect to fight something with armor (-). There will of course be some wounds where the star eagle gets -3 rend, but let't forget that for a second. Because even without that the venator still has a huge advantage of range infinity. This means that in a 5 turn game he gets another 0,25 added to his average damage output as he already shot the enemy before the first combat round. Now this makes them about even if the relictor attacks on turn 2 or if there is a 6th turn.

So Relictor wins a bit if we imagine them both as melee machines, but that isn't really the case. The relictor heals and debuffs, and has the potential of dying in combat, whereas the venator has insane range and mobility and shouldn't really be in combat most of the time.

What we have to ask ourselves is this. Is the healing (with a decrease in dps) and debuffing as good as the herokiller arrow, insane manouverability and range of the venator. I say no in theory. I would rather have the venator for my money, but I agree that it is somewhat close. Not a 20 point difference, but absolutely 10 or 15. The venator wins on objectivegrabbing, survivability and frankly damage as he should not die half as often as the relictor. The relictor wins on giving supporting.

Again, this is just theory as it doesn't take into account, that the venator could possibly be harder to play which would effectively make him worse for the average player, or the Relictor could be a super easy model to play, which would make him worth more. My money is on the venator as being the nobrainer sniper choice, but I could of course be wrong.


On a super seperate note. I read the dark elves rules, and the doomfire warlocks cost 29 points and 150 for 5. Shouldn't that be 145? There might be more of these (typos?) in there.

EDIT(s): Typos...

Fair enough, here's some math:

Venator Ranged:
Bow = 1.66 wounds @ rend 1
Eagle = 1 wound @ no rend
=2.66 vs -
=2.5 vs 6+
=2.05 vs 5+
=1.61 vs 4+

Venator Melee:
Talons = 1 wound @ no rend (x2 for two combat phases per shooting)
=2 vs -
=1.66 vs 6+
=1.33 vs 5+
=1 vs 4+

Venator Total Damage:
=4.66 vs -
=4.16 vs 6+
=3.38 vs 5+
=2.61 vs 4+


Retributor Storm:
=1.33 vs all

Retributor Melee:
=3.55 vs - or 6+
=2.96 vs 5+
=2.37 vs 4+

Total:
=4.88 vs - or 6+
=4.29 vs 5+
=3.7 vs 4+

So right off we can see that an argument for the Venator having higher basic damage output is false (even factoring in the eagle's potential rend won't change that). Of course there is more to these models that cannot be as easily evaluated, so I'll just put a list of benefits:

Venator:
+long range
+mobility
+chance of eagle rend
+Star-Fated arrow ability

Relictor:
+higher base damage output
+healing ability
+nerfs enemy attack rolls

All in all it seems to me these factors balance out and they should be costed about the same. From my perspective the Venator is only a no-brainer in a vacuum where the rest of the army does not exist; the Relictor enhances other models by healing them if needed (or if enemies are out of range) or by preventing wounds in the first place from nerfing enemy attacks. While it is one ability or the other, keep in mind the star arrow also replaces his regular bow attacks, and a 45% chance to do absolutely nothing by failing to hit or wound before saves are even made. This is not to downplay the value of the Venator, its just to say that it is correct for the models to be priced about the same.

[edit] It is also perhaps worth noting that I am arguing for the values already in place, I am fine with agreeing to disagree on the overall effectiveness at this point; I think my case has been made. But if the points values should be changed you will need to provide a cohesive argument as to why they are not representative of the models at hand, and not just relative to each other (if the Venator is that much more effective perhaps it needs a points increase instead of the inverse). Anecdotal evidence does have value here because much of the effectiveness simply does not boil down to hard math.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Fair enough, here's some math:

Venator Ranged:
Bow = 1.66 wounds @ rend 1
Eagle = 1 wound @ no rend
=2.66 vs -
=2.5 vs 6+
=2.05 vs 5+
=1.61 vs 4+

Venator Melee:
Talons = 1 wound @ no rend (x2 for two combat phases per shooting)
=2 vs -
=1.66 vs 6+
=1.33 vs 5+
=1 vs 4+

Venator Total Damage:
=4.66 vs -
=4.16 vs 6+
=3.38 vs 5+
=2.61 vs 4+


Retributor Storm:
=1.33 vs all

Retributor Melee:
=3.55 vs - or 6+
=2.96 vs 5+
=2.37 vs 4+

Total:
=4.88 vs - or 6+
=4.29 vs 5+
=3.7 vs 4+

As I was saying, anecdotal evidence does have value, but it also blinds one, and should never overtake the math; as for that I don't think, we are seeing the same models?

My retributer stats are 4 attacks with 3+ TH 3+ TW. That makes 2,67 which becomes 1,78 wounds with rend -1 in melee.

So it should be
Retributer Melee:
=1,78 vs - or 6+
=1,48 vs 5+
...

Plus the 1,33 (granted you don't use healing)

Total:
=3,11
=2,81
...

and so on.... What am I getting wrong?
(In my math I halved wounds done by shooting btw to even out over all combat rounds.)

The Relictor is better in melee, as he should be. And he is an OK character (at 90 points, not 110). But his damage output i similar to the rest of the army. Slow, tough, hard hitting.

The Venator does something completey different to the rest of the army, except maybe for the judicators with bows. It closes a massive gap in the army that is needed (ranged threat to characters).

The Relictor is more of the same, the Venator is another aspect to an army. Maybe 110 i ok for the Relictor, but it seems too much through my eyes. My experience of him is underwhelming, at 90 points.

Grimbok

Andreas 2.0 wrote:

and so on.... What am I getting wrong?
(In my math I halved wounds done by shooting btw to even out over all combat rounds.)

I left the shooting damage as it was but doubled the melee damage for both models, so our numbers are the same.

The Venator does something completey different to the rest of the army

There are a large number of Elf units in the same grand alliance that serve the same role. It isn't army-based anymore.

Well, while Attilla is busy blatantly ignoring the terrain point costs I made (/sarcasm) who's down for some PPC'd battalions!?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well, while Attilla is busy blatantly ignoring the terrain point costs I made (/sarcasm) who's down for some PPC'd battalions!?

Dammit, could you not have waited one more day before that post - it's gonna happen today after having finished the DoC cards yesterday


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Allright, time for some terrain discussions!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's some initial terrain rules/costings, I'll work up a proper document later. Note I opted to price things on the high end of what I felt they were worth, because they are supposed to be side-options and not a mainstay of any army

That's a good idea, since we can publish it soon and have the costs tweaked in the early mars update after having them tested. And if noone tests them at all that's a pointer that we should lower the costs anyway

Ninth wrote:
Terrain Warscrolls are placed after deployment zones have been determined but before either player has put down any units. Players alternate placing down terrain pieces in the same manner as units, and they must be completely within the purchasing player's deployment zone. Terrain does not count as belonging to either player beyond the purposes of deploying it.

Sounds good, except that I think it's enough to limit them to be placed in the owning player's table half as opposed to the smaller deployment zone. This creates some more flexibility in placing the terrain.

----

I've gone through your terrain costs and most of it was very close to what I think I would have given them as well. Good job and thanks for saving me lots of extra work!
I do have some thoughts on a few of them, but as my group seldom plays with any special terrain I will leave the deciding to you guys here on the forum in the end. My text in bold:

Chapel - 200 pts
Feels very expensive at 200 pts for what it does. Units within a chapel sure are hard to destroy, but it feels like it's not that hard to ignore the chapel's garrison alltogether. I think around 150 pts would be a better starting value.


Dragonfate Dais - 150 pts
-Only one Beseech the Gods attempt may be made on a given Dais per hero phase.
I'd rather not have the added rule, and each unit can only benefit once from the results anyway.


Skullvane Manse - 125 pts
-Must be upgraded with one of the following:
--Battlements - 15 pts: The manse gains the Uncanny Strategic Overview rule (note your general need only garrison the building, not be literally placed on the battlements).
--Astral Obervatory - 25 pts: The manse gains the relevant rule.
All good points-wise, but might as well make it 140 pts and Battlements free, Astral +10 pts.


Temple of Skulls - 90 pts
-Only one model per player may benefit from the Cracked Summit rule at the same time.
As with Dragonfate, we should start by not limiting the rules and just add the limit if reported as needed.


Walls and Fences - 25 pts per 3" of obstacle
-Add a signpost to the end of an obstacle section for 15 pts
I think they're abit too expensive, considering you can get pretty much the same effect and more from an Ophidian Archway. I also believe we should stick to the warscroll's amount of fences and walls for being as close to the original as possible (although there sure are alot of walls/fences in the original scroll!). If we don't stick to the original, how about 40 pts for 2 walls of 3" long, and +10 pts for a Signpost. That way you can't just get one 3" wall to shield a specific hero, for example.
Also, anyone knows if the official walls and fences from GW are about 3" long?


Dreadhold Fortress Wall - 75 pts
-Only one Defiant Proclamation may be made from a given wall per hero phase.
Rather have it without this limit, as with the other terrain pieces.

What do you fine people think, let me know and we'll have this up on the blog in the PPC format soon!
Again thanks to Ninth for the work you've done on this matter.

Thank you for the compliments!

Adding the "once per phase" rule was more a matter of clarification, since to me it looked the the wording of the warscrolls could be interpreted as one model only or any model with the right keyword. Since other buildings with similar wording are more clearly once per phase (dreadhold gargoyles) I elected that as the RAI and put the additional rule there to clarify it right off. To put it differently, I feel that the warscrolls already have a once-per-phase limit but also that there is room for interpretation that I wished to eliminate.

The Chapel is expensive because it gives a 6" bubble of no battleshock to everything Order. I priced it assuming an Order player purchasing it.

The walls were tricky. The warscroll has a huge number of obstacles included, more than I have ever seen on a single game board for that matter, and quite possibly more than what most players have available. I believe that the GW obstacles are 6" for the long ones and 3" for the short, so I used that as a baseline for points based on length as I believe many players will probably use non-GW terrain of differing lengths for this. But overall I am open to suggestion here.

I agree on the terrain placement, and on the manse point costs.

i think the one thing that is missing from PPC is Maximum unit sizes, seeing 10 fanatics pop out of a unit of guys is an awful sight to behold that just puts you off the game a little more.

Uploaded the Fyreslayers to the PPC page now.

Hettar wrote:
i think the one thing that is missing from PPC is Maximum unit sizes, seeing 10 fanatics pop out of a unit of guys is an awful sight to behold that just puts you off the game a little more.

I don't think we should set a max unit size on regular units, but for certain ones such as Fanatics it might indeed be a good idea. Let's keep the thought open for the early March update!

What is the reasoning for the slayers being Mercenaries instead of Order (which is the keyword they have)? Is it because of the fluff? While I think it is a fluffy and reasonable decision it doesn't exactly set a good precedent for future releases that may be a bit more vague.

It was based on the wording on Games Workshop's website that they are mercenaries who will work for any of the Grand Alliances.
On one hand it's odd that they wrote that, since in AoS raw any faction can ally with any other (which as you know is not the case of the PPC), but since it was so obviously written out I thought there'll probably some more about it in the book.

Vulkite Berserkers should become more expensive after 20 models. I personally think they should start at 11 pts and go 15 pts @20 i base this by comparing them to Gutter runner's who has nearly same dmg out put, worse save mechanics and a gimmicky deployment method and come in 16 pts each.

as for things like assassins and fanactics there should be a maximum number you can hide in small units, like 10 gobbo's can hide 1 fanactic where as 30 could hide 3, some other thinjgs should be thought of two as i saw a stormfiend reach in his pocket and retrieve deathmaster sniktch out of it! lol

Attilla wrote:
It was based on the wording on Games Workshop's website that they are mercenaries who will work for any of the Grand Alliances.

Ah, makes sense then.

like 10 gobbo's can hide 1 fanactic where as 30 could hide 3

That seems like a solid idea to me.

Hettar wrote:
Vulkite Berserkers should become more expensive after 20 models. I personally think they should start at 11 pts and go 15 pts @20 i base this by comparing them to Gutter runner's who has nearly same dmg out put, worse save mechanics and a gimmicky deployment method and come in 16 pts each.

I think you're right that there should be a higher cost / model after 20, as they become very resilient then.
As for their base cost, if you take the ranged options and pair of axes it puts them at 11 pts and gives them about the same damage and base save as Gutter Runners.
But then we take a look at their abilities:

- Gutter Runners have a special deployment, which may or may not be of much use. They can also run and shoot, which with their high movement gives them a very long threat range.
- The Berzerkers have an extra save of 6+ down to 4+.

In their base cost, I do believe the Gutters win out, but maybe not by 5 pts / model, in which case I think we should look at lowering their cost instead of raising the Berzerkers base cost. And at larger numbers the Berzerkers resilience will begin to shine, and that's where we should increase point costs properly IMHO.

Hettar wrote:as for things like assassins and fanactics there should be a maximum number you can hide in small units, like 10 gobbo's can hide 1 fanactic where as 30 could hide 3, some other thinjgs should be thought of two as i saw a stormfiend reach in his pocket and retrieve deathmaster sniktch out of it! lol

Sounds like a good idea to somehow limit the amount depending on the parent unit's size. 1/10 sounds maybe alittle to low, but what do you think of 2 fanatics for every 10 models?

just get hit a few times multiple fanatics at once and you decide lol, these little buggers are really powerful and even by fluff standards come in small amounts, they can start becoming a good tool is instead of a wrecking ball! i Vote 1 per 10, and hidden hero's to be 1 per unit if it dosnt already state it.

Quoting from other thread:

Attilla wrote:
So when we get down to setting the points of the formations

So when Attilla said that, I assume he meant this:

Wow Ninthmusketeer seeing that you are so great and awesome it would be super sweet if you could post the points for some battallions!

Thanks for the authentic praise! And who would I be to turn down such a factual request?

Let's kick things off with the free battalions for Chaos. Again, leaning towards the higher end of point costing since they are a 'side-order' of army building. If you include the required units for a battalion warscroll in your army, you can receive the battalion's benefits by purchasing it for the cost indicated below. A given warscroll selection can only be part of one battalion.

[Beastmen] Bullgor Stampede - 700 pts. This needs to be priced very very high because of the extra attack potential. Presumably the Doombull will be using his command ability here, meaning each wound roll of 5+ (4+ for the Ghorgon) generates two extra attacks. Wound rolls for those attacks generate extra attacks, and so on.

[Beastmen] Furious Brayherd - 200 pts. A powerful bonus but with a limited range, also contingent on the characters being alive.

[Beastmen] Ungor Raiders Ambush - 300 pts. This is a very potent deployment benefit and the potential hit roll bonus has a great deal of synergy with the unit size benefit to re-roll hits of 1 or 2.

[Daemons] Cohort of Khorne - 75 pts. The benefits are nice, but very situational.

[Daemons] Cohort of Nurgle - 150 pts. Solid bonuses, but the first is a bit unreliable and the second is redundant on half of the battalion since Plaguebearers will likely be getting that benefit from their locus anyway.

[Daemons] Cohort of Slaanesh - 325 pts. For the player who owns a lot of daemonette models this battalion is gold, if dependent on what your opponent has.

[Daemons] Cohort of Tzeentch - 750 pts. Probably the best battalion in the game.

[Bloodbound] Ravagers of Ruin Keep - Free. Having to take the component units and terrain of the battalion in exchange for mediocre benefits justifies the cost.

[Skaven] Eshin Clawpack - 200 pts. The first benefit is good but doesn't affect the assassin, the second benefit only affects the assassin.

[Skaven] Moulder Clawpack - 200 pts. A bit heavy on the requirements, but solid bonuses.

[Skaven] Skreet Verminkin's Horde - 50 pts. Significant requirements, a double-edge benefit for the characters and a troop benefit that is redundant with the banner bearer you will probably be taking either way.

[Skaven] Verminus Clawpack - 275 pts. The bonuses are good and have really good synergy with the models in the battalion.

[Pestilens] Pestilent Clawpack - 325 pts. The first benefit has good synergy with the wound roll bonus from the priest and the second bonus is quite potent because you can buy a terrain warscroll as well to get control over what the pack-nest will be.

[Tamurkhan's Horde] Sons of the Maggot Lord - 175 pts. How much benefit you get is largely determined by what your opponent brings.

[Tamurkhan's Horde] The Leaping Pox - 100 pts. Mediocre benefits that do not have good synergy with each other.

[Legion of Azgorh] Blackshard Warhost - 275 pts. Good benefits on models you would likely be taking together anyway.

[Legion of Azgorh] Artillery Train - 200 pts. The trick here is that an Iron Daemon can haul the other warmachines, allowing them to move without counting as having done so.

[Warriors of Chaos] Chaos Warband - 175 pts. Very nice rewards, but unreliable and they won't kick in until partly through the game.

[Warriors of Chaos] Marauder Raiders - 175 pts. Somewhat situational, but solid benefits overall.


[edit] Adjusted Legion of Azgorh Artillery Train from 225 to 200 after first-hand experience.

Wow, Ninthmusketeer seeing that you are so great and awesome it would be super sweet if you could post the points for some battallions!

Now get on with the rest, you slob!

(As with the terrain, it will take me some time to get around to actually look into this more closely, but I have faith in your work with this!)

By the way, the terrain doc should be finished for uploading on the blog tomorrow

Grimbok wrote:
Hi Attilla

Nice work on the PPC system! I play in the same group as Andreas 2.0 and we are slowly building a player base in our club and it's nice to have a good system as a framework.

TERRIBLY sorry for the very late reply, Grimbok, and welcome to the PPC thread!

Grimbok wrote:

I played your new mission Schemes of War the other day. 1000 points of my Stormcasts vs. Tzeentch chaos. It worked really well! The three zones worked well. The "breakthrough" victory condition was never close. We are fairly new to AoS, so we rolled only once on schemes. With three victory conditions and two rolls it's quite a complex mission. I got assassinate and he got endure (the same character). So it came down to hunting him down while dominating the zones. It spread the troops out, which is nice. Avoiding i big centre battle should be the objective of all missions I think.
So the mission basicly works. I would suggest that you maybe cut the "breakthough" element and maybe one scheme (or one of them). There is a LOT going on.

Glad you enjoyed it! As you are not the only person to say it's complex, we'll probably make it less so for the next update. Since we've played it alot ourselves we've probably gotten blind to its complexity ourselves.

Grimbok wrote:


Judicators with X-bow. Good, but pricey. I think in retrospect I would have made mine with bows (but the X-bows look cool), just because of range. The main issue for Stormcasts is the lack of ranged weapons and slow movement. You need to threaten wizards etc. Im leaning towards bows beeing better because of internal balancing (no ranged warmachines etc). But it's too early to tell if X-bow should have a reduction or bows simply an increase in cost.

Procecutors with hammers are ok for the price. Much needed movement. I run only three and they seem underwhelming, but I think they will perform better with a few extra models. I will take them no matter what, just to hunt down warmachines and casters, that I can't reach otherwise.

The Lord Relictor is not worth 90 points I think. You raised him to 110 point. I can't really understand that. He has been underwhelming in every one of my games. He has some major issues. Low movement combined with only 12" power. 12" in hero phase and move 4" is really piss poor. Healing storm is nice but difficult to deliver consistantly on Dracoth Lord. Lightning storm is just an arcane bolt, but with 6" less range which is massively weaker in game. The main problem, he is not (other than healing) giving anything unique to the army. No good synergy like Lord Castellant, Vexilor og Heraldor or the threat of the Venator. I've used the Venator. Much much much better choice for the same points. Venator patches a massive gap in the stormcast army, with that range 30 bow. It's really a no brainer. 80-85 point would fit better IMO.
Grimbok

Thanks for all the feedback! Some of it (about the Relictor) has been replied to already and I'll just add that many people have been using him to debuff enemies, but also alot to keep the Dracoth and Celestant-Prime alive, and by doing so making sure they do tons of dmg (especially the Prime). That's why an increase in points was asked for and done.

The X-Bow Judicators might warrant a slight price drop, just because of their short range. With that range, you can *almost* get a pure melee beatstick unit instead. The Bowmen on the other hand, provide very long range support and are no slouches in melee either. I'll add it to considerations for next update!

The Prosecutors are a wild card. I've lost count of how many times my opponent has destroyed my warmachines with them, but other games they don't really perform at all and get blasted to bits. I would appreciate if you would give more input after some more games (as with all units of course!).

Cheers!

I've played Schemes of War again, as is, except only one roll on the table. It's fine that way. Two rolls complicate things too much IMO. Otherwise a very solid mission.

As for Stormcasts:
The bows are fine with that range. Better than crossbows for sure. Range alone is the big difference.

I see the Lord Relictor is good with the Prime. I still can't see him over 100 points though.

I think Procecutors with Javelins as quite weak, compared with hammers. Trident is cheap though. Maybe + 10 for trident and a lower base cost for the unit? Hammer Procecutors are ok, very fast. Maybe priced ok, I don't know yet. I still take then, as I need the speed...



Grimbok

Have you included the part where they do 2 damage per shot at 9" or more? Plus the part where the trident goes on the unit leader for 2 attacks with rend -1.

I agree that javelins are quite weak compared to hammers. They really don't want to get within 9" of the enemy with their bad melee attacks. I'm just not sure if they are worth even less than 30 points. They do seem to be better than most cavalry like black knights (25p) and reiksguard knights (24) to name a few, but honestly not by alot. It seems like a tweak of 1-2 points at the most. On the other hand we have outriders (29p), who serve kinda the same role. I might actually be inclined to pick the outrider over the javeliner. Food for thought at least.

I still agree about the Relictor though. I play undead, and my Tomb King for 110p seems like the better choice in almost every way (I do use him as my general, which is part of it, but still). It wouldn't even be a hard choice for me if I could chose - TK every day. So yeah, I'd like to see the relictor put back around the 100 points again.

[edit] Nevermind, I'll just agree to disagree on the Relictor.

The javelin prosecutors seem like a solid ranged unit to me, with the added benefit that they won't roll over in melee to a type warmachine hunting unit. They can do quite well without ever seeing melee, they simply don't need to in order to deal damage to key targets. I have seen the hammer prosecutors have more trouble because they are built for melee yet die very easily (for their points) when they get there without doing all that much damage in return. I don't really see a strong place for the hammer prosecutors in the army (or the alliance) compared to the javelin ones. I would say that its the hammer guys that need a points decrease, though I do think that in both unit's cases more of the point burden should be shifted to the special weapon - making it +10 to upgrade while reducing the model cost a few points seems like a great idea to me.

I agree somewhat. It's all sbout the trident. A javelin is a bit better at long range, but a bit worse within 9". And they will mostly fire witin 9". And they are very bad in melee. Hammers are way better all round. I would up the price on the trident to at least +10, and reduce the normal javelins to 25. That way a unit would go from 105 to 95 point. And keep a hammer unit at 115, because they are actually good in melee. Then it's a choice... with a 20 point difference. Probably still would choose the hanmers from a cost efficiency point of view, but it's more of a real choice. And the javelin models look pretty, love that spartan look.

Grimbok

PS You really wan't your javelins in melee, can't avoid it. They are not good enough at shooting to stay at range and just shoot. You need to shoot and charge from turn 2.

Interesting discussion on the Javelin Prosecutors! Looks like there is currently a consensus that both them and the Hammers (but especially Javelins) should cost less but have their special weapons cost more. I'm adding this to considerations for next update!

The Relictor will of course be open for more thoughts and discussions. I'll review him again when March is getting closer and next update is due.

Grimbok wrote:
PS You really wan't your javelins in melee, can't avoid it. They are not good enough at shooting to stay at range and just shoot. You need to shoot and charge from turn 2.

I am not seeing why this is true, when I fight against them they do stay at range and just shoot. Their damage output is not great, but 18" is plenty enough range for them to pick out support characters with only 5 wounds, especially when they have a 12" fly move to get into position. Also note that even if they are in melee they can still shoot at something more than 9" away; they aren't locked into targeting whatever is in front of them. I find it hard to believe that even when in melee they consistently have absolutely no targets between 9-18" away. As someone who plays against Stormcast, I see javelins and think about how I will allocate my forces to deal with them. I see hammers and just shrug because I know that when they hit melee they will be the squishiest target available and die quickly (literally every other stormcast unit short judicators is harder to kill). But maybe its the type of armies I play, what do you see the hammer prosecutors getting used for?

Hey guys,
First off ninth, great job on terrain prices they are very acceptable. Secondly any word if there is a point cost on the dread saurian ?

@Ninth
I use my hammer procecutors to hunt characters and warmachines if possible or to outflank opponents, engaging and "locking" units to get other units to grab objectives og get the right charges. Well, so far they seem underwhelming except for their great speed and threat range, but that makes opponent think more about the placement of their characters, which is nice I suppose. They are ok in combat, hitting and wounding on 3+ reroll 1's to hit. So charging weak opponent they fare better (ranged troops for example).

When are you gonna make the rules for Stormcast battalions by the way, looking forward to it.


Grimbok

TheDanseMacabre wrote:
Hey guys,
Secondly any word if there is a point cost on the dread saurian ?

I'll add the Saurian tomorrow, mate! I'll also check if there's anything else from FW I've missed to add.

Grimbok wrote:
@Ninth
When are you gonna make the rules for Stormcast battalions by the way, looking forward to it.

I think he got angry because I called him a slob....

Unfortunately the Stormcast battalions aren't coming anytime soon, since they are pay-blocked :(

So after a few games with the gaunt summoner and realm gate, I believe that they both need a point boost ( the book for the summoner up to 100, and the realm gate up to 125). The ability to summon 100 points automatically with no chance to dispel is very powerful in itself, and I have found the realm gate to be extremely powerful with its ability to let a unit outflank.
food for thought
-Danse

Being the person on the receiving end of those, I would second Danse on the realmgate - the ability to bring units in 6" from the board edge without a minimum range from the enemy is powerful, as are the potential for buffs from the gate itself.

I think the book does need a points increase but maybe not to 100, the 75-85 range would be better I think.

Thanks Danse and Ninth, I'm adding it to the list of tweaks for the next update. Please keep me updated if you play more games with the Gaunt/Gate about what increase in pts would be best.

Hey Ninth. Don't worry about pay blocking, I can lend you any books you need to get battalions done!

Did someone say Order battalion point costs?

[Stormcast] Host Azyric - 500 pts. The "From the Heavens they Come" rule can only summon up to 100 pts of Stormcast models.

[Stormcast] Skyborne Slayers - 350 pts. No battleshock on Stormcasts isn't nearly as useful it is on most armies.

[Brettonians] Defenders of the Realm - 125 pts. Good synergy with the bonuses to wound rolls on the charge.

[Brettonians] Peasant Militia - 300 pts. Men-at-Arms hit on 2s if they are 30+ and a Paladin is nearby, and this battalion lets them reroll 1s.

[Dark Elves] Blood Cult - 300 pts. The benefit to Witch Elf units is significant, and lets them take out armored targets they would otherwise have problems with.

[Dark Elves] Exiled Warhost - 600 pts. Sorry DElf players, the bleakswords option drove the cost way up due to extra attack chaining potential on the charge.

[Dwarfs] Artillery Battery - 125 pts. Decent benefits but weak synergy with warmachines' battlefield use.

[Dwarfs] Clan Throng - 200 pts. The battleshock benefit is not as great because of unit banners and the BSB character, but reroll 1s to hit is solid.

[High Elves] Altran Stormriders Host - 125 pts. The hero benefit requires that the very squishy high elf mage stays relatively close to the flying prince, and the bravery benefit is a bit weak because the units will likely be rocking bravery 8 from their banners.

[High Elves] Dragon Host - 400 pts. Giving all three dragon characters re-roll 1s to hit is powerful to begin with, combined with the potential of the dragonfire ability to obliterate anything it likes.

[High Elves] Glittering Host - 275 pts. Basically you get to pick two units rather than one as your first pick of each combat phase, plus a good battleshock boost.

[Lizardmen] Saurus Host - 200 pts. Solid bonuses, though ignoring battleshock on bravery 10 units may not always be useful.

[Lizardmen] Skink Patrol - 425 pts. Deep-striking ripperdactyls with +1 to wound will destroy whatever they charge that turn.

[Sylvaneth] Guardians of the Deepwood - 225 pts. The real benefit here is not the underwhelming deployment ability as much as the advantage of being able to but down the Wyldwoods anywhere on the battlefield (as opposed to your table half with the normal PPC terrain warscroll rules) and THEN deploy into them.

[Empire] Brotherhood of Knights - 175 pts. The charge bonus is OK, the bravery bonus is nice, and the requirements are very easy.

[Empire] State Troop Detachment - 375 points. State troops are why PPC says attacks always miss on a 1.

[Wood Elves] Wanderer Host - 150 points. A nice deployment option but the other benefit is extremely situational.

Well done sir, well done!

Alrighty, I got some proxy-experience behind the wheel of a few fyreslayer units and some of the legion of azgorh ones.

Empire Cannon - Not strictly related to my last game, but it probably needs to go up to 150 pts. High damage at high range, and a particularly powerful engineer buff.

Vulkite Beserkers - I just want to say good job costing these, it seems like a really solid value (for reference, I ran a unit of 40). The horn should cost more, however, probably 10 or 15 pts since it lets you reroll just one of the charge dice which is generally more advantageous than an outright reroll of both.

Auric Hearthguard - So it turns out letting them get charged by Demigryphs is not a good idea. But again, solid costing.

Battlesmith - He doesn't have a cost yet, but I would recommend 175 pts, or even 200. The buff he hands out while alive is amazing and then he gives out an awesome buff when he dies.

Legion of Azgorh Daemonsmith - Should probably cost 125 base. He's an engineer, a level 1 wizard with a solid (if a bit situational) spell, and a neat little once per game ability. The daemonforged weapon upgrade should cost more too, probably 10 pts.

Deathshrieker Rocket - I would say it should go up to 135 points. This is because unlike many warmachines it doesn't have a vulnerable crew that can be targeted separately.

K'Daai Fireborn - Should probably cost 150 points for the minimum 3, adding extra for 30 pts/each. Their mortal wound ability doesn't scale with unit size so as the points stand now there is little reason to take anything more than the minimum.

Lots of useful insights and feedback there! I'm putting them all on the list to check out properly!

Some experiences after a local event.

On the stormcasts:
Lord on Dracoth- seem costed just fine.
Lord Relictor-situationel, still a bit overcosted imo. 100 points makes more sense.
Retributors- still bad ass, not undercosted. Maybe a tad more, 40 points? Absolutely the best unit by far!
Judicators with x-bows- thunderbolt is fine. Unit as such is bad, really horrificly bad at that cost. No more than 20 per x-bow, that bad. Bows I don't know yet, they seem very useful.
Liberators- fine I suppose
Procecutors w. Hammers- still not the bomb, seems weak in real game.

Basicly Ok costed overall, some minor ups and downs that equal out more or less except judicators w. X-bow. They are gak. Really...gak.


Grimbok

Thanks Grimbok for the valuable input! Adding all of this to the list as well!

The X-bow judicators will definately be lowered, the only question is by how much

Keep up the good work.

On a more generel note, I've been looking at some wood elves lately and it seem that PPC in generel has high point costs for unit upgrades like unit leaders, banners, horns etc. I think they, if anything should be a little undercosted. It would be a pity to see people not taking unit leaders, pretty banners etc. Then it just becomes like 40 K, where no one takes veteran sergeants ets. Boring and unispiring modelwise.

Things like Stormcast Primes, Wood Elf banners etc, that often gives a very minor bonus should be a little undercosted. Rather have it auto include than missing. Example, Wild Riders, not an expensive unit, but leader cost 10 for one extra attack with a normal weapon, 10 for a bravery banner (not that important on that small unit) and 10 for the horn. Maybe the horn is ok at 10, but the other two are way too expensive. Why not just + 5 for each of them. They are not that game changing.

Same with my stormcasts, why am I paying +10 for my hammer procecutor prime for one extra 3+/3+ no rend attack? If the great weapon is that powerful with one extra attack, price the weapon higher.

It's not just those two armies (I haven't looked deep in other races warscrolls), but I think it's a generel issue in many factions. Make people want to take these minor upgrades, it looks better on the table and adds flavor.


Grimbok

Grimbok wrote:
Keep up the good work.

On a more generel note, I've been looking at some wood elves lately and it seem that PPC in generel has high point costs for unit upgrades like unit leaders, banners, horns etc. I think they, if anything should be a little undercosted. It would be a pity to see people not taking unit leaders, pretty banners etc. Then it just becomes like 40 K, where no one takes veteran sergeants ets. Boring and unispiring modelwise.

Things like Stormcast Primes, Wood Elf banners etc, that often gives a very minor bonus should be a little undercosted. Rather have it auto include than missing. Example, Wild Riders, not an expensive unit, but leader cost 10 for one extra attack with a normal weapon, 10 for a bravery banner (not that important on that small unit) and 10 for the horn. Maybe the horn is ok at 10, but the other two are way too expensive. Why not just + 5 for each of them. They are not that game changing.

Same with my stormcasts, why am I paying +10 for my hammer procecutor prime for one extra 3+/3+ no rend attack? If the great weapon is that powerful with one extra attack, price the weapon higher.

It's not just those two armies (I haven't looked deep in other races warscrolls), but I think it's a generel issue in many factions. Make people want to take these minor upgrades, it looks better on the table and adds flavor.

I agree overall - I see a lot of unit champions costing 10 points in particular when they probably shouldn't be. Something to keep in mind is that 1 extra attack on a model that normally has 3 attacks is not worth as much as 1 extra attack on a model that normally has 1. That said, with AoS it is important to actually look at what the champions/banners/musics do because some are worth much more (I still think the Enrapturing Standard for Hellstriders should be 25 points) because ideally we want it to be a choice where some units will have command and some won't, and others will just have partial. I think this is a spot where Attila very much relies on players to inform him.

With the Stormcast champions specifically, however, its a matter of the weapon upgrade being on the champion. Increasing the price of the weapon upgrade makes it overcosted to put on a regular model, so I think PPC opts to assume that if you are buying the champion you are paying for the weapon upgrade on him, which IMO is a pretty accurate assumption. The alternative is to vary the cost of the weapon upgrade, which is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Some notes from the latest tournament. I played death, but I don't have much to say in that area actually. The tomb king, could perhaps stand to be 10 points more expensive, while grave guard never seem to perform well for their points (1-2 points reduction, would probably do it). But other than that, Death seems to be one of the more refined ppc lists.

Elves however, are a perfectly different matter. All three faction seem to have some overpriced elite infantry. Black guard are good for their points while executioners are probably 1 point too expensive. I think their ability is good, but its not that good, seeing as you still need to wound after the to-hit roll of 6.

Witch elves are just plain bad. Their survivability is just good enough for to field at 9 points each. I would probably vote for a 2 point reduction, although that is a huge cut.

Shades, shadow warriors and waywatchers all seem a tad overpriced.

The flamespyre phoenix seems 10-20 points too expensive while the frostheart phoenix seems equally underpriced.

I'll look more into the elves in the near future.

Another thing we had the luck of seeing this tournament was an army of Fyreslayers. Super cool models and rules, but the points need a tweak here and there.

The Hearthguard Berzerkers and Auric Hearthguard both seemed a bit too cheap. Berzerkers by a point or two, and the flamethrower dudes by 2-3 points. The magmadroth variants all seemed WAY overpriced though. Most other monsters over 300 or even 400 points outperform them by quite alot. I think we could have them reduced 30 points each and do some more playtesting from there without breaking the game. The Magmadroth with a runeson never really did more than a giant or similar monsters, which IMO comes down to its 12 wound profile. It is just super easy to focus it down. I did it myself with a wight king and 3 spirit hosts.

Keep it up guys. The game is getting more and more fun by the minute ;D

Thank you everyone!!

I'm keeping my replies short, because my focus right now is on finishing the Warmachine custom warscrolls. The next two weeks I'll be off on a trip, but once I get back there will be a week or two of gathering all input provided before making the next big update at the beginning of 2016-03.

So please discuss and keep providing the invaluable input you do, and I'll get into it properly when I get back.

Cheers!

Destruction called and wanted their battalions, so here we go!

[Ogres] Beastclaw Avalanche - 300 pts. Its main bonus does only apply on charges, but man is it a nice bonus. The potential for up-front damage before the enemy can really do much in a game is very high. The other benefit is a bit of icing on the cake.

[Ogres] Gutbuster Wartribe - 175 pts. Another bonus-on-the-charge, but not nearly as good. And the requirements are a bit steep.

[O&G] Bonesplittas Big Mob - 375 pts. Now this is a nice battalion. The main bonus is very powerful and the second is a nice extra.

[O&G] Great Gitmob - 200 pts. Good bonuses but not totally reliable, and having to take three separate goblin units to get them is a pain.

[O&G] Great Moonclan - 300 pts. A nice bonus, though this avoids a much higher cost because (to my knowledge) the component units don't have access to hit roll bonuses.

[O&G] Greenskinz Big Mob - 175 pts. Run+charge is pretty useful on all those footslogging orcs, and the once per game ability is nice, but overall the bonuses aren't great.

[O&G] Ironjaws Big Mob - 250 pts. Good bonuses with pretty easy requirements.

[O&G] Spiderfang Venom Mob - 150 pts. The wound roll bonus has bad synergy with the attacks it benefits and the battalion requirements are steep, though the battleshock benefits are OK.


Something to note on all of the battalion costs; I am assuming armies roughly in the 1500-2500 point range; going above that many of these battalions quickly become worth much more than listed. However, given that balance tends not to be a main priority in games that massive anyway I do not see it as a huge issue.

Dísregard what I said about executioners. They should stay at their point cost for now. I read their rules wrong.

I just received an e-mail from GW providing me with rules for a store league for AOS (created by the good folks at Dragon's Lair), an event from one of the Warhammer World's game days, and the SDK point system. I was disappointed that the SDK list is being passed out by GW instead of the PPC. Do you all think that because GW seems to have endorsed SDK that it will become the de-facto balancing tool in tournaments? It is still only a bunch of point lists with no scenario or rules guidelines.

I don't have any concern over SDK becoming a de-facto balancing system; it's bad. We are talking a system that puts a GUO at 432 points while Skarbrand is 377... for starters. This is on top of not dealing with any of AoS' game-breaking issues. Players aren't going to bother using it because it's no better than simply doing wounds-count and trying to bring something appropriate to what your opponent is bringing.

I honestly think the best thing the community can do is what we have already been doing; continually balancing and updating PPC while expanding its coverage. Because once people try it they are going to be hooked, and I think PPC will gradually get more players due to that. PPC isn't drumming up a lot of activity right now because AoS isn't drumming up a lot of activity right now.

I think SDK is OK. Running our lists for our last event through it, and it more or less is equal points to PPC (very close), so I think both systems are on to something...of course some are off, but so are some of PPC points. PPC is the only system rating Celestant Prime more than 50-60 % higher than Dracoth, actually more than the double. That is off I think, even for Stormcast, where the points seem solid more or less.

SDK has issues with options, The Vexilor is cheap, and no difference in which banner you take, but those banners are VERY different, one is meh, ok, other is OMG good. In SDK you would always take the good one, in PPC you pay an extra 65 point to upgrade. That is a real choice. Sometimes I would take the one, some times the other.

So for basic stuff SDK is fine. PPC is very close, but better when it comes down to very different options. And it's easy to give feedback.


Grimbok

I am very concerned. I know that when GW circulates game modifications, most stores, and hence most tournaments take them seriously. Here is one example of how it effects the tournament scene. Frontline Games, the sponsors of the Las Vegas Open, arguably the second largest GW tournament behind Adepticon, are using SDK and making battle report videos using SDK. A lot of the people who play in the Las Vegas Open also play in the Broadside Bash, and I believe that I will have to take into consideration the fact that players who are used to SDK will want to stick with it. While SDK does have things that may need to be worked on, it also has benefits to tournament players. For instance, most tournament players are used to fielding 2000 point fantasy lists. It has been the norm for 20 years. In SDK you can field Skarbrand or Archaeon Everchosen in a 2000 point list. PPC you cannot. If PPC grew organically, then maybe it would become the norm, but with GW passing out SDK, I don't think that will happen. As far as not dealing with game breaking issues, SDK is not a rules set, just a points list, so stores will have to decide what rules to modify/enforce. Certainly GW knows about PPC, Azhyr Comp, and all of the others and someone decided they liked SDK the best (probably because it's not a rules modification system, just a point costing system). I am bummed out because I have been involved in PPC, and I think it is a great system. But having said that, I don't know what math the points in PPC are based on. I have never seen a breakdown of how to cost a unit. SDK has the math laid out so that players can point cost units as they are introduced without having to wait for someone to do it for them. This is appealing, even if it may be flawed. 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.

I'm not sure if it actually matters who uses what system and why. I wont tell other people what should be the standard of AoS because I don't see a point in having one system to rule them all. SDK has a solid math system that seems to be quite close to ppc, and that makes it super compatible if you ever wanted to attend a tournament with the opposite system. That alone is enough for me to keep working on a system that I feel looks more like "my kind of game".

You could probably do a cost-benefit analysis of ppc and look at the amount of people using it vs. The time it takes to create it, but to me, that doesn't really matter. As long as AoS is interesting to me, I will keep spending time on ppc - at least until something better comes along, and SDK is not that. So I don't really see a reason to be concerned. SDK takes nothing away from ppc, and vice versa.

On the subject of math - the reason I got into ppc in the first place was because it looked pretty damn close to a mathematical model Guitarasmus and I spend a huge amount of time on. Ppc was so close that it was kinda pointless to keep working on the other system seperately from this. I can't really speak for Attilas initial model, but I find it hard to believe that there is no math behind it. And it seems like SDK has somewhat the same idea too.

Lets hope SDK does extremely well so that everyone will want to play warhammer. AoS is gaining strength in my local club, but we absolutely wouldn't mind a surge of new players. They can always be introduced to ppc after that.

Maybe I am over-optimistic and SDK will take over, but I 'll keep playing and contributing to PPC comp regardless. SDK is more of the same; meh balance without addressing glaring issues. If I am going to deal with sub-par balance anyway I'll just play something that doesn't need to be comped. The way I see it, AoS needs a comp to be playable, so I'll stick with the best one for me.

On the note of comp-tributions; Death Battalions!

[Tomb Kings] Royal Legion of Chariots - 500 pts. The combo potential with Righteous Smiting for chaining attacks drives up the price.

[Tomb Kings] Tomb Legion - 175 pts. The bonuses are nice but the requirements are heavy for what you get.

[Vampire Counts] Charnel Pit Carrion - 325 pts. Combined with a terrain warscroll this can give a huge area of extra attacks, and the second bonus is a nice little boost as well.

[Vampire Counts] Deathrattle Horde - 50 pts. Its a moderately high requirement for a bonus that simply isn't very good on most of the component units, and the auto-4" run isn't very good either.

Hey Attilla


Some more feedback on the Stomcast Eternals. Only on models I have and use.

Lord Celestant on Dracoth: I think he is fine at 210 points or there abouts. Under 200 is too cheap, more than 225 is too close to big monsters. His command ability is awesome, but I have a feeling it's not that good considering battleshock and multi wound creatures. The Liberators are somewhat vulnerable without, but they are kind of cheap anyways. You need to lose two whole paladins (6 wounds) and then you only lose a guy on a 6. The army is very hero heavy, so I don't think his command ability is as important as we all think. So I would keep him at 210.

Lord Relictor: Good, sometimes. A bit situationel. I still think he is a bit too expensive. He might be better in bigger games, with more targets. We play 1000 points, so it's more spread out on the board. I think 100 points seems better as a start (still at the high end for me).

Liberators: Seems fine at that cost. There is always the prime and great weapon issue. I run my prime without, so the greatweapon seems a tad expensive, but it's a good weapon.

Retributors: They are deadly in every battle, no exceptions. They seem better that protectors. Haven't fielded my protectors yet, but on paper I would take retributors every time, except perhaps versus a monster heavy army. I think the prime is a bit too costly (look at my post on unit upgrades earlier, I think they should all be reduced). But maybe up the cost of the retributors to 125 for the first three and then 42 per model there after? With plus 5 for prime. That would up my basic five man unit with one mace from 216 to 229. It's a start, but makes the choice of paladins a bit harder. Retributors are the safest and best choice right now, where protectors and decimators are much more situational and thus harder to use.

Procecutors: Still extremely underwhelming. I don't have a greatweapon on the prime, which might make them more useful. But my standard three double hammers with prime, really don't cut it. They can't really deal with even a wizard with missile and combat. Let alone one in cover or with decent save. They are very fast, and good for objective grapping, but at hunting weak heroes or even warmachine crew, they are simply not good enough. You need 4 or 5 to do that. And the price is hefty. They are basicly liberators on wings, and liberators really don't deal that much damage...and the plus 10 for prime is way off. Up the greatweapon to 10, assuming it goes on a prime. But many people play with the starter set setup with all with twin hammers. My best bet on pricing is 30 per procecutor and plus 5 for prime, with greatweapon plus 10. It's still double the cost of liberators, it's pretty big. Right now they are three points lower than a retributor, and that's simply way off.

Judicators: The crossbows suck, big time... Wow, they are really bad, except the thunderbolt. Bows are waaaaay better. It's nearly liberator territory. Maybe 20 per x-bow. And again, the prime is plus 10 now. Too much, it's only plus 1 to hit. Plus five points at the most. He is only good with the shockbolt bow, so up that 5 points, everybody puts that on the prime, hitting on 2+ anyway.

Gryph-Hound: 30 points? Ehh, no. It's utter crap. No save and an abilty that you really can't use. And a free kill point in those scenarios. 15 or 20 points the most. Put it at 20/15 instead of 30/20, then the first is still over costed imo.

In my force, what works and what is...meh...

Dracoth Lord works
Relictor works (on and off, but has a unique role to play)
Liberators work
Retributors work (too good in my opponants opinions)
Procecutors don't work (maybe I'm missing something or needs a bigger squad)
Judicators w. x-bows do absolutely nothing that liberators can't do better and cheaper.
Gryph-hound is painted, but I'm not giving a free kill point away for a 30 point handicap. A fricking night gobbo fanatic stops a charge for 20 and kill things...but the hound is a good looking little model.

But overall we have good games in our group, they all seem pretty balanced. There are good and bad match ups, but no army is dominating. External balance seems really good. There are some tweaking to do within the lists, to make more units viable in a cost efficient manner, but it is getting there.

Grimbok

Just to comment on some of those; I think they are very related to the game size. 1000 pts is pretty small and like very high points totals the balance won't be quite as solid. The relictor becomes better when there are large enemy units (and a wealth of targets in range) for him to hit with the lightning and thus the -1 hit penalty. The other paladin options also become better since the protectors' screening against shooting and the decimators' have actual hordes to fight against.

I have to ask on the crossbow liberators, are you factoring in their rapid fire rule? Because then they get three shots apiece as long as they didn't move which is an important factor in balancing them against the bows (becomes bows=0.44 rend -1 wounds vs crossbows=1.00 no rend wounds). Though I still agree that the crossbows should be a few points lower because of their inferior range and rend.

My games against Stormcast pretty much support the rest of what you said (though for what its worth the javelin prosecutors seem fine unlike the underpowered hammer variety). I'd like to say I think you have a great point with the weapon upgrades and unit champions; assuming (probably correctly) that people are only getting the weapon upgrade to put on a champion then it would be better to reduce the champion's cost and shift it to the weapons to open up the option for running unit champions without special weapons.

I think it works fine at a 1000 points. Eventually, our group will play 1500 point, but I don't think a 6*4 table can support more models and still make sense (same with 40k, I don't get why so many plays 1850, it's too crowded). Putting many models on the board is a legacy of 8th imo. You have battleplans and objectives to complete, and that needs space to move around.

I would hope Attilla is balancing on a 1500 point game scale.

On the x-bows: range 12" means they don't shoot in the first round, and certainly not three shots. They only fire three when in melee, and that's really not the place to be for them. And only every other round. The four extra shots (not incl thunderbolt) is just that, four shots hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Nothing, actually. They are bad, really bad. Top three stormcast bad, maybe number one bad (gryph hound, javelins and x-bows is the bottom three in the army I think).

I can see decimators beeing attractive if you use a sideboard or in bigger games with more models. But you still have to deliver them at the right spot, and lets face it, there are many monsters and heroes in these games you have to deal with, and that's where they are not good. The protectors do seem more allround though, and can handle monsters, which is nice.

Grimbok

Grimbok wrote:
I think it works fine at a 1000 points. Eventually, our group will play 1500 point, but I don't think a 6*4 table can support more models and still make sense (same with 40k, I don't get why so many plays 1850, it's too crowded). Putting many models on the board is a legacy of 8th imo. You have battleplans and objectives to complete, and that needs space to move around.

I would hope Attilla is balancing on a 1500 point game scale.

On the x-bows: range 12" means they don't shoot in the first round, and certainly not three shots. They only fire three when in melee, and that's really not the place to be for them. And only every other round. The four extra shots (not incl thunderbolt) is just that, four shots hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Nothing, actually. They are bad, really bad. Top three stormcast bad, maybe number one bad (gryph hound, javelins and x-bows is the bottom three in the army I think).

I can see decimators beeing attractive if you use a sideboard or in bigger games with more models. But you still have to deliver them at the right spot, and lets face it, there are many monsters and heroes in these games you have to deal with, and that's where they are not good. The protectors do seem more allround though, and can handle monsters, which is nice.

Grimbok

Hey all, I'm back from my trip and ready to persue the march update now

All the posts in this thread will be taken into consideration for the update, so your posts on the Stormcast have been very good as they are one of the main AoS factions (and yes X-Bows will definately cost less than bows in the update to come).

I've tried a few match VS different armies. Here are some comments I can think of:

Paladins:
- Retributor = Worth every penny
- Protector = overall good, less specialized than their other paladin brethen. Cost is ok
- Decimator = Worth every penny, especially VS horde. Even the +2 to Bravery is good by itself

Judicator:
- Bows are awesome. Like, really awesome. Shock-bolt Bow is even greater. R-1 with W3+ is brutal
- Xbow are... situationals mostly. Great against a horde with low armor, when you're in combat too. Giving them +1 armor make them less vulnerable but paying for shooters and getting them into combat is not the best option.

Hero:
- Knight-Venator =you like one trick pony? Take him then. I dislike him because you really pay for his one shot ability. Start second/miss with his arrow/get him charged and he's nearly done. 130 pts seems a bit high.
- Knight-Vexillor = seems good but his cost is a bit high without upgrade. No rending is pretty rare for Stormcast
- Knight-Heraldor = love it. 90 pts is not that high considering the synergy with paladin + their M4''. Run/charge is great!
- Lord-Celestant = he's good. Command ability is bad ass with paladin.
- Lord Castellan = Bread and butter. Love the +1 armor who doesn't use magic dice. Great ability, not too much killy but enough wound to survive a match.

Other than that, I've played against Nurgle daemon. Nothing struck me except the damned plague bearers at 8pts each. Seems a bit low with the 5+ ignore a W or MW.
Vampire count = Ghoul king with flesh eater army is quite insane. Sadly for him, his 5+ armor is quite bad. Was tempted to call him underpriced regarding the synergy potential but he's really not resilient.

I'll update into this forum regarding all my other matchs in the time to comes.


Next thing that we RREEAAALLLY should have is a file containing all the cost for the bataillons warscrolls, even the new chaos ones. This will really help all players to build their army according to the system.

Thanks babyberg31! I'm looking forward to more updates when you have the chance.

I have begun the intel gathering on units that might need a tweak now, so if you want anything considered for early march update, now is the time to let us know.

Hellstriders of Slaanesh - I have been working with these guys a lot (really like the models) but am having trouble getting them to really be worth their points. The bonus attack rule oftentimes does nothing since it is models killed and the unit struggles to get a high enough tally even against just 2-wound models, or anything with a 4+ save (then once the unit loses models of its own it simply cant muster enough attacks to trigger it). The unit champion really isn't worth 10 points either; better 5 for a single extra attack on a model with 3 already. That said, the enrapturing banner is absolutely amazing; a 6" bubble off the entire unit that makes any enemy model in range be -1 to hit with all attacks. It is certainly worth more than 15 pts.

Marauder horsemen feel about 1-2 ppm too high for what they do, considering how easily they die.

And as much as it pains me to say it, plaguebearers might need a 1 ppm increase.

Yeah. I too would like to see some changes to champion- and daemon costs. champions could probably be reduced to half the price across the board to great effect, but there might be some really powerful ones out there, that have the right price right now (fyreslayer champions for example). I probably agree about the plaguebearer increase too, but luckily we have a tournament coming up with a nurgle player, which should give us some more information. The herald is probably 10 points too cheap if not more, but we'll see. The big guys however, (Morbidex, Bloab and Orghotts) all seem 20-30 points too expensive. They can take a huge punch, but with the small damage output, I have no quarrels with sending my mortal wound dealing units after them. It's like the 3 magmadroth characters. They just don't fit the bill.

Champions could get a price change but some of them get great benefit from special weapons, like the judicator with shockbolt bow.

Two things that really need tuning are the damn Varghulf and the dwarf flame canon.

The vargulf doesn't have the "monster" keywork, which is a shame.

And obsiously, a flame canon with 2D6 MW potential is horrible. The ingeneer synergy is very strong.

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
The big guys however, (Morbidex, Bloab and Orghotts) all seem 20-30 points too expensive. They can take a huge punch, but with the small damage output, I have no quarrels with sending my mortal wound dealing units after them. It's like the 3 magmadroth characters. They just don't fit the bill.

My brother will be pleased to hear this I traded him my mortal Nurgle army some time ago and he's added Bloab since. Although he gets good use out of him as is, we see the point you make about their being too high costed (pun intended).

babyberg31 wrote:
The vargulf doesn't have the "monster" keywork, which is a shame.

It does, however, have the hero keyword now This changed with the Grand Alliance book, and is a welcome one. Although I would rather have it as a monster, though.

I will make a list of all changes I can find in the GA books, as that should be of interest to many people - it does change gameplay around abit after all!
(Most changes are only superficial such as name changes, but some scrolls lost or gained abilities!)

Some people are mad at GW for changing their scrolls - I think it's the perfect way of fixing the game as they go. Although they should announce the changes themselves so we don't have to scavenge through the book for every little change ourselves. Maybe they do in White Dwarf, anyone knows?

Attilla wrote:
It does, however, have the hero keyword now This changed with the Grand Alliance book, and is a welcome one. Although I would rather have it as a monster, though.

Didn't even notice that!
Well, it nows include it into the 50% max with other Death heros, which is nice.

Totally agree with you regarding the warscroll updates. I personnaly love it. One thing though, their is no more entry for the Strigoi Ghoul king on foot is not avaialble anymore.

babyberg31 wrote:
One thing though, their is no more entry for the Strigoi Ghoul king on foot is not avaialble anymore.

He's called "Abhorrent Ghoul King" now but he's there, in the Flesh-Eater Courts.

On the topic of warscroll changes, I like them because they seem to be improved over their old versions in that they work better or have silly rules eliminated. On the Chaos end, the Chaos Lord on foot will need to be re-evaluated because his command ability changed to something completely different, and the Masque will need a points drop since her re-rolls are no longer guaranteed (formerly were as per PPCs auto-trigger silly rules). The cockatrice will need a slight points drop for the same reason (gaze hits on 4+ instead of 3+ now).

babyberg31 wrote:

Attilla wrote:
It does, however, have the hero keyword now This changed with the Grand Alliance book, and is a welcome one. Although I would rather have it as a monster, though.

Didn't even notice that!
Well, it nows include it into the 50% max with other Death heros, which is nice.

Totally agree with you regarding the warscroll updates. I personnaly love it. One thing though, their is no more entry for the Strigoi Ghoul king on foot is not avaialble anymore.

The Strigoi on foot has just been renamed to Abhorrant Ghoul King, so in the GA book he's still there.

EDIT: Ninja'ed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

babyberg31 wrote:
One thing though, their is no more entry for the Strigoi Ghoul king on foot is not avaialble anymore.

He's called "Abhorrent Ghoul King" now but he's there, in the Flesh-Eater Courts.

On the topic of warscroll changes, I like them because they seem to be improved over their old versions in that they work better or have silly rules eliminated. On the Chaos end, the Chaos Lord on foot will need to be re-evaluated because his command ability changed to something completely different, and the Masque will need a points drop since her re-rolls are no longer guaranteed (formerly were as per PPCs auto-trigger silly rules). The cockatrice will need a slight points drop for the same reason (gaze hits on 4+ instead of 3+ now).

Yeah all the changed scrolls need to be re-evaluated. I made a post on the blog about which entries have changed, so each of them will be gone through and updated. I had missed The Masque though, so good thing you pointed that one out here

Attilla wrote:
Yeah all the changed scrolls need to be re-evaluated. I made a post on the blog about which entries have changed, so each of them will be gone through and updated. I had missed The Masque though, so good thing you pointed that one out here

On a similar note, Nurglings gained the ability to be summoned. And on the list of changes you may want to shorten the daemonic locus effects to "all locus effects have been changed to trigger of any daemon hero of the appropriate god" since that is indeed what has occurred.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Attilla wrote:
Yeah all the changed scrolls need to be re-evaluated. I made a post on the blog about which entries have changed, so each of them will be gone through and updated. I had missed The Masque though, so good thing you pointed that one out here

On a similar note, Nurglings gained the ability to be summoned. And on the list of changes you may want to shorten the daemonic locus effects to "all locus effects have been changed to trigger of any daemon hero of the appropriate god" since that is indeed what has occurred.

Cheers, added them!

So I just saw that Skaarac got priced at 450 pts... Am I missing something? Me and my bud played a game with him and agreed at the end that he was probably worth around 600 points. How is he costed so low?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So I just saw that Skaarac got priced at 450 pts... Am I missing something? Me and my bud played a game with him and agreed at the end that he was probably worth around 600 points. How is he costed so low?

Well, first and foremost it's from the formula (not including special rules).

But of course, playtesting is always needed for the big guys before we can get a precise cost from abilities.

But let's check him out:
VS GIANT
He has about the same damage output as a Giant when taking the Stuff 'Em ability into account. He has +4 wounds and one better save than the Giant.
He has some really neat special abilities but a rather bad CMD if you choose to use him as your general. This costs the same as 2,25 Giants. Is he really worth 3 Giants?

VS SOUL GRINDER
Let's compare to a Soul Grinder, same wounds and save. The Grinder does less dmg in melee but more dmg at range (dmg at range is generelly valued higher in the PPC). Skaarac don't get to reach out to his targets as well, and can't run+shoot, but his other abilities are much nicer than the Grinder's. Unless of course the Grinder gets lucky with his hidden dice vs the right opponent. For the same dmg at less range, the same wounds and save, you pay 75 pts extra.

VS DRAGON
Comparing him to a High Elf Prince on Dragon
Dragon has 2 less wounds but 1 better save. The Dragon has almost 50% higher damage output and can fly, but Skaarac has his neat abilities. But that 50% increase in damage is massive, and brings the Dragon up to 520 pts (in 2016.03). So you pay 70pts less for Skaarac.


And, just for fun, putting him in a direct fight vs a Hydra would almost even out, despite a 120 pts difference to Skaarac.

But I'm curious as to makes you and your friend think it should sit as high as 600 pts? Our calculation is only mathhammer after all, and you have actually tested him!

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.

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.

Just adding to my post above, I was looking at the Varanguard today and stats wise they are comparable to Dracothian Guard.

So I compared their profiles and while I think overall that Concussors are better than the Varanguard with Ensorcelled Weapon (their most expensive build) I do not believe that they are 40 points worth better...

Now I can't say if the Varanguard is fairly prized to begin with but when comparing the two units a 40 points difference is pretty big.

Just some questions.

When casting a summoning spell does it give the opponent an extra unbind attempt or does it only let him ignore the range on the unbind attempt?

A Slann can only attempt to summon a unit once per turn right?

Overhamsteren wrote:
When casting a summoning spell does it give the opponent an extra unbind attempt or does it only let him ignore the range on the unbind attempt?

You just ignore the range, which is no small thing in my opinion and gives much balance to summoning...

Overhamsteren wrote:
A Slann can only attempt to summon a unit once per turn right?

Summoning can only be done once per turn per wizard, since there is only one summon spell (this assumes you purchased it). The exception is undead, who have a mini-raise zombie spell that can also be purchased.

What is the reasoning for making skink handlers a 10+ model unit?

Some kind of 5 razordon unit + 3 handlers abuse or something?

Seems 10 handlers are not worth it unless you bring a lot of salamanders/razordons in your army?

Overhamsteren wrote:
What is the reasoning for making skink handlers a 10+ model unit?

Some kind of 5 razordon unit + 3 handlers abuse or something?

Seems 10 handlers are not worth it unless you bring a lot of salamanders/razordons in your army?

If I had to guess I'd say the skink entry was copy-pasted and he forgot to change the number.

Though at any rate I feel like handlers should be a unit that costs more for the first one then less to add, because the relevant abilities trigger off any number of handlers. As it stands there is no reason (beyond finishing deployment first) not to take handlers at the minimum size possible. Especially if it is changed to match the warscroll, in which case it would be far more advantageous to take 10 units of 1 rather than the reverse.

Yeah the unit is a bit more complicated to prize than most I suppose, right now I just miss the aesthetic of 1 beast+3 handlers and 2 beasts+6 handlers.

Units of 1 handler each look stupid too of course.

Rules wise I guess the beasts work just fine without handlers.

And I guess the handlers are not useless either besides buffing beasts(and kroxies) they do have 8 move and 10 bravery for scenario jamming stuff?

The next round of battalion point costs has been chosen! Everchosen, that is.

[Slaanesh] Pleasurebound Warband - 150 pts. Previously costed, but placed here again for convenience.

[Khorne] Bloodmarked Warband - 300 pts. Unlike the Slaanesh option, the other gods' battalions here have their main benefits outside the multiples-of-X requirement.

[Tzeentch] Fatesworn Warband - 400 pts.

[Nurgle] Plaguetouched Warband - 400 pts.

[Undivided] Overlords of Chaos - 350 pts, or 75 if using set turns.

[Undivided] Archaeon's Grand Host - 250 pts. The Daemonic Pacts ability can only summon up to 100 points at a time. Sidenote: if someone plays this send me a picture of it!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Overhamsteren wrote:
What is the reasoning for making skink handlers a 10+ model unit?

Some kind of 5 razordon unit + 3 handlers abuse or something?

Seems 10 handlers are not worth it unless you bring a lot of salamanders/razordons in your army?

If I had to guess I'd say the skink entry was copy-pasted and he forgot to change the number.

Though at any rate I feel like handlers should be a unit that costs more for the first one then less to add, because the relevant abilities trigger off any number of handlers. As it stands there is no reason (beyond finishing deployment first) not to take handlers at the minimum size possible. Especially if it is changed to match the warscroll, in which case it would be far more advantageous to take 10 units of 1 rather than the reverse.

Actually not a copy-paste error. In the early days we thought that purchasing 1 of them was abuseable, but since then we've made every battleplan score VP:s for wiping out units which means having just one of the handlers is a sure way of giving away VP:s I've not bothered to change it because no-one have commented on it, but I have no objections to change it for next update. Also, could be a good thing to make the first cost alitte bit more...but with their stats I'm not sure it's even worth bothering about that.

Also, thanks for all the new Battalions, Ninth! I'm overly busy at work these weeks so my work on the PPC is not quite as high as it used to be, but I aim to have all new ones integrated soon!

Attilla wrote:
Also, thanks for all the new Battalions, Ninth!

Thanks! Though perhaps you could tell me, do you know if anyone has been using them? I am getting the sense that no one actually cares...

At any rate, behold battalions for the Balanced Quest of Ghal Maraz Power!

[Stormcast] Devastation Brotherhood - 200 pts

[Stormcast] Annihilation Brotherhood - 75 pts

[Stormcast] Grymn's Brotherhood - 400 pts

[Stormcast] Ecelsior Vengeful Storm - 100 pts

[Fyreslayers] Arngard's Berzerker Fyrd - 100 pts

[Sylvaneth] Alarielle's Heartwood Guard - 275 pts

[Khorne] Vengeful Skullhunt - 100 pts

[Nurgle] Blighted Warband - 325 pts

[Nurgle] Nurgle's Deluge - 200 pts

[Nurgle] Torglug's Foulblessed - 125 pts

[Tzeentch] Watcher King's Horde - 250 pts

[Slaanesh] Lascilion's Horde - 150 pts. Note that this battalion still allows one roll on the triumph table for games that are not using the major victory rules (which I suspect is all of them).

[Skaven] Skulker's of Runestruck Pass - 300 pts

[Death] Neferata's Blood-Court - 175 pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ohhhh Attilla!

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/fw_warscrolls/aos-monstrous-arcanum.pdf

We, the community, will be expecting this to be fully calculated and the point costs posted within the next three hours.

[/sarcasm]

Alas, Easter holidays got the best of me - so Arcanum had to suffer from it Will be done tomorrow when I get back home though.

So far I haven't received much feedback on the battalion points (but I have had some!), but that could be because people either find them fine as is, or because I haven't updated the files with more than your original batch of battalions yet. When I add more of them, which should be this week, maybe people will begin to use them more and offer input on them.

Well I have tried Skyborne Slayers with my Stormcast Eternals army and the cost seems fine more or less.

G'day everyone!

The Monstrous Arcanum from Forge World has now had their units pointified! We have yet to decide if we should put this up as a seperate list on the PPC page, or if we should put each entry with their corresponding Grand Alliance (destruction, death etc.). What do you guys (and gals!) think?

Here are the goodies (any abilities that need a certain realm is always active):



Basilisk
125 pts

Bonegrinder Giant
310 pts

Carmine Dragon
560 pts

Colossal Squig
290 pts

Curs'd Ettin
210 pts

Dread Maw
470 pts

3 Fimir Warriors for 140 pts
- Additional Fimir Warriors cost +46 pts / model.
- Must have either Hand Weapons for free, or Mauls for +5 pts / model.
- Upgrade to
-- Banner Bearer for +15 pts
-- Fimraich Noble (max. 1) for +10 pts
-- Hunting Horns for +10 pts..

Incarnate Elemental of Beasts
355 pts

Incarnate Elemental of Fire
340 pts

Magma Dragon
900 pts

Merwyrm
280 pts

Mourngul
385 pts

Squig Gobba
25 pts
(Did they forget something when they made this one - seems like rubbish!)

Preyton
200 pts

Rogue Idol of Gork (or Possibly Mork)
450 pts

Brood Horror
125 pts

Skaven Warlord on Brood Horror
265 pts

3 Skin Wolves for 210 pts
Additional Skin Wolves cost +70 pts / model.

5 Wolf Rats for 90 pts
Additional Wolf Rats cost +18 pts / model.

Troll Hag
380 pts

Warpfire Dragon
220 pts

First off, looks pretty good overall except for the basilisk, am I missing something because 125 pts is dirt cheap for its mortal wound potential... It has an average of 1.1 mortal wounds per gaze attack, and it starts off with 5. It really isn't meant for melee, rather park it in cover and just use it's gaze. That alone is worth more than 125 points. On a separate note, ditto on the squg gobba, it's absolutely terrible! Better to use it as a stone thrower, unfortunately.

As for alliance, while it might be a bit subjecticlve I think it would be best to split them between alliances and the mercenary section based on what they are. Squigs, rogue idol, and hag in destruction. Order, death, and chaos keep the ones categorized to them, and the rest go to the mercenary section since they aren't explicitly tied to destruction beyond the keyword.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
First off, looks pretty good overall except for the basilisk, am I missing something because 125 pts is dirt cheap for its mortal wound potential... It has an average of 1.1 mortal wounds per gaze attack, and it starts off with 5. It really isn't meant for melee, rather park it in cover and just use it's gaze. That alone is worth more than 125 points. On a separate note, ditto on the squg gobba, it's absolutely terrible! Better to use it as a stone thrower, unfortunately.

As for alliance, while it might be a bit subjecticlve I think it would be best to split them between alliances and the mercenary section based on what they are. Squigs, rogue idol, and hag in destruction. Order, death, and chaos keep the ones categorized to them, and the rest go to the mercenary section since they aren't explicitly tied to destruction beyond the keyword.

You are certainly not missing anything, and thanks to your keen eyes and comment I realized I messed my mathematical skill up when calculating the amount of mortal wounds the basilisk does! After the change it went up to 175 pts, which I think is a better starting value for it before feedback from gameplay. So cheers Ninth!

I think I agree on where to place the warscrolls - since the alliance keyword itself isn't neccessarily the defining one. Things like Brood Horrors clearly belong to one of them, others do not.

FWIW I'd be very interested in seeing the battalion costs updated to the docs - my group are just getting started with AoS but I already see several battalions I would like to take and right now it's hard to figure out what the costs should be - some of them have some pretty nice bonuses

Thanks all for the great work on this comp system, btw! I'm really liking what I'm seeing; still very flexible to take fluffy lists but at least with something to hang a degree of equivalency off.

Only just seen this and it helps to no end, so great work guys


Only thing that has me thinking though:

Night goblin squig herders are in units of 10 for 30 points.
Is the unit of herders intentionally large?

Just curious as even before, most people would run 4-6 in a unit at the most.
And considering the herd pack is £15 for 2 herders and 3 squigs, you'd need to buy 5 packs alone for the herders.

 Jackal wrote:
Only thing that has me thinking though:

Night goblin squig herders are in units of 10 for 30 points.
Is the unit of herders intentionally large?

Just curious as even before, most people would run 4-6 in a unit at the most.
And considering the herd pack is £15 for 2 herders and 3 squigs, you'd need to buy 5 packs alone for the herders.

This was brought up in regards to skink handlers as well, Atilla is going to change it with the next update. In the meantime I'm sure no one will have a problem with you bringing 5 for half the points.

Thanks
Just found it a bit odd, that was all.


Nice to be able to build an army list with points again!

Hey!

Managed to check the new heroes for Khorne Bloodbound today, and here's the result:

Added the Aspiring Deathbringer w. Goreaxe and Skullhammer as a new option due to ability variation from the original A. Deathbringer.
110 pts

The Impaling Spear has been added as a free option to the Exalted Deathbringer.

The Slaughterpriest has been updated with the Hackblade and Wrath-hammer as a free upgrade option. Its base cost has been reduced to 95 pts, with the Bloodbathed Axe as a +10 pts upgrade.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Only thing that has me thinking though:

Night goblin squig herders are in units of 10 for 30 points.
Is the unit of herders intentionally large?

Just curious as even before, most people would run 4-6 in a unit at the most.
And considering the herd pack is £15 for 2 herders and 3 squigs, you'd need to buy 5 packs alone for the herders.

This was brought up in regards to skink handlers as well, Atilla is going to change it with the next update. In the meantime I'm sure no one will have a problem with you bringing 5 for half the points.

Yup, just confirming it will be changed for the next major update.

Hy gyes, thy nyxt battalyons ayre fyr Fireslayers!

[Fyreslayers] Lords of the Lodge - 200 pts, or 125 if not rolling for initiative.

[Fyreslayers] Warrior Kinband - 150 pts

[Fyreslayers] Forge Brethren - 225 pts. Note the wording is a bit vague here, but I am pointing it with the interpretation that only one unit may create a bulwark per turn.

[Fyreslayers] Grand Fyrd - 50 pts. The Oaths of Battle rule is ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a few of the Start Collecting box battalions I've been able to track down:

[Seraphon] Gul'Rok's Starhost - 125 pts

[Skaven] The Virulent Horde - 100 pts. I am pointing this with the interpretation that the mortal wound is in addition to any normal damage of the attack (and that saves will be rolled normally for that damage).

[Nurgle] Glugurous' Plagueband - 175 pts.

[Khorne] Skall'Uk's Slaughterband - 175 pts.

In response to the recent blog post requesting stormcast extremis feedback; the tempestors (crossbow guys) need to have a "unit tax" in that the initial one costs more while additional models cost less to add. And this should probably be a big unit tax, since their ability is so powerful. It is literally pick a unit within 12" and that unit gets -1 to hit until your next hero phase, the unit does not have to score any wounds (or even hits) with their crossbows for the penalty to apply.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In response to the recent blog post requesting stormcast extremis feedback; the tempestors (crossbow guys) need to have a "unit tax" in that the initial one costs more while additional models cost less to add. And this should probably be a big unit tax, since their ability is so powerful. It is literally pick a unit within 12" and that unit gets -1 to hit until your next hero phase, the unit does not have to score any wounds (or even hits) with their crossbows for the penalty to apply.

True, would be a good idea.

Also, the blog post Ninth is referring to is this:

Hi all!

In about two or three weeks time, we will make the update to PPC v2016.05.

This means it's time to let us know about any and all concerns you have about units - does something cost too much? Too little? Let us know now please, so we can evaluate better for the update. Also let us know why you think the cost is too high/low.


We are especially looking for more input on things like the Stardrake and Dracoth Guards. As it stands, we have people thinking they cost too much, but also people who think they should cost the same (even more in a rare few cases). So if you have used them - don't hesitate to let us know how you feel about them. As it stands now, their cost will be lowered, but by how much?..

You can either write directly here on the blog, or at our Dakkadakka thread, or by mailing me:
attillaq3 (at) gmail.com.

Cheers and thanks for all the feedback and support!!

So keep the good ideas and suggestions coming, please

In time for the next update, Grand Alliance Order battalions!

[Stormcast] Warrior Brotherhood - 150 pts

[Seraphon] Bloodclaw Starhost - 200 pts

[Seraphon] Heavanswrath Starhost - 325 pts. The potential of Bastiladons which heal one wound a round drove the price way up.

[Sylvaneth] Forest Spirit Wargrove - 100 pts

[Human] Pilgrimage of Wrath - 100 pts

[Human] Freeguild Regiment - 75 pts

[Human] War Council - Free

[Human/Dwarf] Artillery Detachment - 75 pts

[Duradin] Grudgebound War Throng - 200 pts

[Aelf] Spyreheart Warhost - 75 pts, +25 per Phoenix included.

[Aelf] Dragonlord Host - 125 pts

[Aelf] Realm Reavers - 175 pts

[Aelf] Bloodwrack Sisterhood - 75 pts

[Aelf] Thrall Warhost - 175 pts

[Aelf] Ebondrake Warhost - 100 pts

[Aelf] Waystone Pathfinders - 300 pts

Others things I've found:

Find a way to raise the cost for the Flame canon and engineer interaction . This guy is a real wrecker with the possibility to do 2D6 mortal wound each turn. His basic capacity to do D3 Wound is ok and not to OP but raising it to D6 is clearly badass. Maybe you could integrate a tax to the engineer regarding which machine he could cover up. Grunge expertise = X points, powder expertise = X+10 points, flame expertise = X+20 points. Each level of expertise include the precedent level. An engineer cannot cover up for a machine which he doesn't have the expertise for. So a Grunge expertise level engineer can cover up for balista and rockthrower but not for any type of canon.

Watch out the points for some units:
-Some Fyreslayer ''basic'' units cost seems to be too cheap. Giving mortal wounds on a hit + 3+ is truly great and the interaction to have a 4+ rerollable armor save + 4+ Feel no pain like save is great.
-Irondrakes. They have a great potential like stormcast judicators skybow but cost only 10 points less?
-Stormcast heraldor. That guy is a true bitch. He really provide great opportunity in a Stormcast army. Run/charge, Retreat/charge and soundwave blasting is really good.

Raise the cost of certain upgrades when they are used by champions. Clearly, when I use Stormcast judicator or protector, I will put the weapon upgrade on the prime. Having a +1 to hit or two attack is too damn good to pass up. There should be something factoring this fact.

Warscrolls Bataillons... Well, while I really appreciate the idea of putting cost to them I find it silly. Let say I decide to play a 1000 pts game with my buddy. We will both take unit and leave bataillon behind since they can easily take 10-20% of my list. But if we play another match at 3000 pts, then it will be much easier! And since almost every bataillon do not offer fixed choice (no hard number for units, it's one unit of unlimited models) you can't really factor it appropriately. I would suggest to use a percentage (%) for each and every Bataillon. That way, when building an 3000+ pts army, you would still feel you should invest points and it would be possible to use them at 700 pts if you want.

That being said, I also think that some bataillons can be overcosted. The Tzeentch cohort one, at 750 pts, is truly a joke. Nobody can play this and expect to win, specially since summoning have been somewhat corrected in the PPC.

And if we've already started adjusting Bataillons cost, I'm sorry. I can't really keep up with all the upgrades.

This is my 2 cents.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In time for the next update, Grand Alliance Order battalions!

[Stormcast] Warrior Brotherhood - 150 pts

[Seraphon] Bloodclaw Starhost - 200 pts

[Seraphon] Heavanswrath Starhost - 325 pts. The potential of Bastiladons which heal one wound a round drove the price way up.

[Sylvaneth] Forest Spirit Wargrove - 100 pts

[Human] Pilgrimage of Wrath - 100 pts

[Human] Freeguild Regiment - 75 pts

[Human] War Council - Free

[Human/Dwarf] Artillery Detachment - 75 pts

[Duradin] Grudgebound War Throng - 200 pts

[Aelf] Spyreheart Warhost - 75 pts, +25 per Phoenix included.

[Aelf] Dragonlord Host - 125 pts

[Aelf] Realm Reavers - 175 pts

[Aelf] Bloodwrack Sisterhood - 75 pts

[Aelf] Thrall Warhost - 175 pts

[Aelf] Ebondrake Warhost - 100 pts

[Aelf] Waystone Pathfinders - 300 pts

Always a pleasure Ninth! These go up on the blog today and into the lists on May update
Thank you!!

babyberg31 wrote:
Others things I've found:

This is my 2 cents.

And very good cents it is - lots of fine feedback there!
Some things I think you are right on, but don't think we will do because it interfere or adds to the game rules (the engineer part - we don't want to increase the amount of rules if we can help it).
Others will probably be done - the X weapon upgrade on champions could definately cost more than on a grunt!
We'll definately take a closer look at the unit costs you've provided.

As for battalions, I'll gather some input on them and pass them along here first so we can discuss it. Then make changes for the update

Battalions are costed assuming 1500-2500 (or in some cases a bit larger) point games. It is indeed difficult to factor in how they are more or less potent at certain points levels, but in the end 3000+ point games are already going to be seeing balance break down anyways and are also more likely to be casual games than competitive ones. I considered doing a % cost but then the issue becomes that no one will want to factor in that math. As for the costs themselves, I leaned on the high side so it's likely many of them will need to go down. Though in defense of the Tzeentch battalion, I have played it and won; the thing gives you 5 extra spells a turn!

Just noticed the Cogsmith still has weapon options despite his warscroll coming with everything by default now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just noticed the Cogsmith still has weapon options despite his warscroll coming with everything by default now.

Thanks, will fix for May update!

Point Costs for the Ironjawz Orruks from the leaked images here on the blog

Heads up Attilla, the FAQ is out and some costs may need to be adjusted a bit. Of particular note is the clarification on the Stonehorn (and other wound-halving models) that the wounds dealt are totaled up then divided, meaning 1-damage attacks will indeed be halved.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Heads up Attilla, the FAQ is out and some costs may need to be adjusted a bit. Of particular note is the clarification on the Stonehorn (and other wound-halving models) that the wounds dealt are totaled up then divided, meaning 1-damage attacks will indeed be halved.

Indeed, and since we don't want to change rules unless we have to that rule will go away in the next update. Lucky this FAQ was released in good time for the may update

I've not had very much feedback on battalions yet, except a few on the very expensive ones (bullgor stampede and the tzeentch spell one mostly). But since my own group haven't really used battalions I think it would be better to discuss it here. There was a comment recently that is well written about the stampede, and I told the poster I would re-post it here instead, so here goes:

I understand that some bataillons really boost units and whole armies and therefor an increased point cost seems viable.
However, a bataillons limits the number of choices you can make in building an army. Moreover, it makes some units you would normally only rarely see - like State Troops or Gors and Ungors - stronger so that they can match other units that are mostly played.

To sum up my comment: I think that some bataillons are rated too high point-wise. I would like to take the Beastmen bataillon Bullgor Stampede as an example.

The Bullgor Stampede includes all the Minotaur units in the Beastmen army and they gain impact hits on 4+ and an extra attack through Bloodgreed, which means: 2 extra attacks for every to wound roll of six- which can be improved by one with the Doombull`s command ability. Sounds great and sometimes it is- but not really always. This bataillon gives Bullgors and Ghorgon a massive damage capacity but it is a very dicy issue. Bullgors only hit on 4s with their 2 attacks which means you have to have 6 Bullgors in close combat for the 2 extra attacks- with the Doombull`s ability, 6 Bullgors create 4 extra attacks. So they get 2/3- 4/3 extra wounds with a slight chance of extra attacks. On the other hand they only have a 5+ save making them easy targets for any unit.

This bataillon costs an extra 700 points which is half of the army in a 1500 point game.
I think this is way too much, especially if you compare Bullgors to Chaos Trolls. Chaos Trolls only cost 5 PpM more than Bullgors and 6 Chaostrolls create an extra 3 Attacks without a hero`s command ability. And they vomit and regenerate!

I do not see why bataillons have to cost so many points. They have their strengths but they also have their weaknesses. And I honestly do not see a bataillon that is worth more than 200-250 points. Imagine how many units with how much more punch can be included for 700 points, especially in a Beastmen army.

So I would like to know why some bataillons are so highly priced that you basically have to use an army of half the enemy`s army`s size.
It is a pity that some bataillons are so hard to put up because most of them are very characteristic armies following their fluff.

Any thoughts from dakkadakka users on the subject before we update?

I would expect many are overcosted since we'd all rather see them start high and come down rather than the reverse. The difficulty is that the higher the points, the better a fixed-value battalion becomes because the units within it get bigger, and incorporating a more flexible cost becomes too much of a hassle. They will indeed tend to be less bang for one's buck at 1500 points because they are calculated for games ranging from 1500-2500. Again, many of them do probably need to come down, but something to keep in mind is that some battalions may simply need bigger games to work.

On the the Bullgor Stampede, the issue was not the minotaurs' extra attacks but the ghorgons. With the doombull's command ability his main attack hits on a 3+ then generates two more attacks on a 4+ to wound; statistically infinite. This means there is a high chance of him outright killing absolutely anything he's in combat with regardless of what it is. With that battalion, a Ghorgon could charge Nagash or Archaeon (or both) and kill them before they got a chance to even swing. If the Ghorgon were not in that battalion I'd put it at 200 pts.

To put it all in other words, my response is "I agree, and I'm sorry the Bullgor Stampede has to be high".

[edit] I will put more weight on the requirements of a battalion going forward to bring costs down somewhat.

[editedit] Apologies, I forgot to account for hit rolls, making the attacks not statistically infinite. Instead each blade will end up generating an average of 2 extras and each maw will generate 1 (taking the limit here). This means it will only do an average of about 14 wounds to Archaeon or Nagash when it attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Godbeast battalions!

[Stormcast] Brotherhood of the Great Bolts - 300 pts, +35 per Vexillor/Relictor included beyond the minimum.

[Stormcast] Royal Victrians - Free. The requirements of this battalion are immense, to say the least.

[Stormcast] Hallowed Hunt - 185 pts. Note that as the rules stand, the 1d6" of movement can pull units out of combat without needing to retreat, or put them into combat without needing to charge.

[Khorne] Redblade Vanguard - Free. Another case of large requirements justifying the bonus alone.

[Undivided] Infernal Tetrarchy - 225 pts. Instead of using the summoning spell from a daemon's warscroll, use PPC's 'The Grand Invocation' (you do not need to pay additional points for its use in the battalion bonus -- this is already factored into the cost).

[Nurgle] Bloab's Swarmbrothers - 250 pts

[Seraphon] Klaq-Tor's Talons - 135 pts

[Fyreslayers] Guardians of the Great Chain - 165 pts

[Destruction] Sons of Behemat - 125 pts

[Humans] Tauroi Warclan - 50 pts, plus 25 per Warrior Priest and 75 per unit of Flagellants.

[Beastmen] Bloodscorch Wartribe - 175 pts

In other news... Seraphon Battalions! EXTREME!

[Seraphon] Eternal Starhost - 250 pts, this cost a bit more than normal because the requirements are very easy to meet for comparatively powerful bonuses.

[Seraphon] Firelance Starhost - 25 pts

[Seraphon] Shadowstrike Starhost - 200 pts, easy requirements but most of the bonus will be in a one-hit-wonder of deep strike Ripperdactyls

[Seraphon] Sunclaw Starhost - 225 pts, I anticipate people running two small units of Saurus to meet the requirements alongside one gigantic unit to benefit the most from the rend on top of +1 attack.

[Seraphon] Thunderquake Starhost - 200 pts, +100 per Bastiladon included. Note the battalion does not have to include any Bastiladons. I have also edited the Heavenwrath Starhost to include variable costing based on Bastiladons (see the master list in the other PPC thread).

[Seraphon] Starbeast Constellation - Free

[Stormcast] Drakesworn Temple - 150 pts. Its good but geeze you already paid for three of these things...

[Stormcast] Lightning Echelon - 215 pts

[Stormcast] Thunderwave Echelon - 185 pts

[Stormcast] Extremis Chamber - Free.

Here are the new point costs for them new Flesh-Eaters!

Abhorrant Ghoul King
250 pts

Abhorrant Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon
680 pts

Abhorrant Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
730 pts

Varghulf Courtier
320 pts

Crypt Haunter Courtier
230 pts.

Crypt Infernal Courtier
265 pts.

Crypt Ghast Courtier
110 pts

3 Crypt Flayers 165 pts
- Additional Models 55 pts.
- Upgrade to Crypt Infernal 10 pts.

10 Crypt Ghouls
Same as before (8pts/model and 11pts/models for larger units).

3 Crypt Horrors 145 pts
- Additional Models 48 pts.
- Upgrade to Crypt Haunter 10 pts.

Terrorgheist
430 pts

Zombie Dragon
370 pts

@Ninthmusketeer
Did you ever get around to pointcosting the battalions of the Bloodbound and Stormcast Eternals battletomes? I have a vague recollection that you did, but can't find the points anywhere.
That's pretty much what's missing before the may update is complete

Those are the two battletomes not costed out yet because I don't own them. They are the most expensive so I haven't gotten around to purchasing them just yet!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Those are the two battletomes not costed out yet because I don't own them. They are the most expensive so I haven't gotten around to purchasing them just yet!

Ah ok! I'll give them a value before the update then, and if you ever get the books you can take a look and adjust if you wish

PPC has just been updated to 2016.05!
Please check the blog for all changes.

Alright! Congrats on another update for PPC, and thanks especially to Attilla for making it all happen! As a bit of an ocd organizer I am particularly loving the new lists and their clearly marked subdivisions.

Heads up Attilla; Pink Horrors will need some work soon as a blue horror warscroll is being released alongside Silver Tower. It may be worth creating two entries; one for pinks that don't split and a higher priced version for ones that do. I say this because I'm sure a decent number of players will want to keep playing their pink horrors as they are now but the cost difference between having them split or not will be big.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Heads up Attilla; Pink Horrors will need some work soon as a blue horror warscroll is being released alongside Silver Tower. It may be worth creating two entries; one for pinks that don't split and a higher priced version for ones that do. I say this because I'm sure a decent number of players will want to keep playing their pink horrors as they are now but the cost difference between having them split or not will be big.

Now that I've looked at the Blue Horrors warscroll, I think the solution could be quite simple - purchase the blue horrors if you want Pink ones to split, and don't buy any of them if you just want the Pinks as they are. That way Pinks will cost the same as they do now, and the cost for splitting is instead added to the Blue Horror unit.
How does that sound?

Hey, quick question: Is the Arch-warlock, formerly known as Ikit, considered a named character for this system? He's still listed as Ikit, despite being renamed.

 Swampmist wrote:
Hey, quick question: Is the Arch-warlock, formerly known as Ikit, considered a named character for this system? He's still listed as Ikit, despite being renamed.

Hi!
Hm, where is the Arch-Warlock listed as Ikit? In the v2016.05 on the blog I can't find Ikit at all in the Skaven list, only the Arch for 150 pts.
But to answer, the Arch-Warlock is not considered a named character in PPC.

Attilla wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Heads up Attilla; Pink Horrors will need some work soon as a blue horror warscroll is being released alongside Silver Tower. It may be worth creating two entries; one for pinks that don't split and a higher priced version for ones that do. I say this because I'm sure a decent number of players will want to keep playing their pink horrors as they are now but the cost difference between having them split or not will be big.

Now that I've looked at the Blue Horrors warscroll, I think the solution could be quite simple - purchase the blue horrors if you want Pink ones to split, and don't buy any of them if you just want the Pinks as they are. That way Pinks will cost the same as they do now, and the cost for splitting is instead added to the Blue Horror unit.
How does that sound?

This actually gives me an idea; add an option to pink horrors saying "allow models in the unit to split into Blue Horrors for +X points/model" since that maintains both options, and also allows the creation of a separate blue horrors entry if players want to bring them as a normal unit on their own (since that is also an option). This also allows the costs to be different, since blues deployed at the start of the game are obviously worth more than ones which only show up when the pinks die.

As a sidenote, normally I wouldn't suggest 'adding' rules like this (since by-the-scrolls all pink horrors split, not just some of them) but the issue with making all pinks split is that they would increase in price dramatically, causing a problem for players who don't own blues. At any rate, worth adding a note to say that Pink Horrors do not split unless they have the upgrade, but Blue Horrors always do.

I haven't read any new warscrolls for Pink Horrors, did they get an updated one with the Silver Tower release too?

Because if they didn't I think the easiest option is still to just have the blue horrors purchased as normal - if the player wishes he can have the option of using them as "splits" instead of deploying them normally. In most cases it might not be worth it, but in some cases it would. And it doesn't really cost any extra to have the option.

Making a cheaper variant of the Blues (and Brimstones) are another option as you say, but I feel it might add extra complexity for not many saved points in the end. Is it worth the complexity?

There are point costs for the Silver Tower baddies on the blog now, by the way.

I'm saying do not make a cheaper version of the blues; players don't have big units of blues lying around without brimstones to use with them. Players DO have big units of pinks without blues to use with them, thus including the option to have cheaper pinks without splitting. The pink warscrolls is indirectly changed because the blue warscroll says all pinks split, kind-of a tricky situation.

In regards to having blues purchased separately for normal use or splitting; presumably we say that you can't deploy more blues from splitting than you purchased. That creates some practical issues though, like having to keep track of how many blues have been deployed. Also, I don't see players using the splitting option much because its unreliable; I might buy 20 blue horrors only to have a mere 5 pinks killed during the game, making half my cost wasted. It also gives the opponent some control over what gets deployed from your list. Granted all of these are minor issues, but I think it makes the added complexity of distinct list options be worth it.

Maybe keep the normal pink entry as-is, but make two blue entries? One could be for blues that get deployed, while the other could be cheaper 'split-only' blues. Players would still need to keep track of how many blues they deployed but it avoids the other problems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Maybe keep the normal pink entry as-is, but make two blue entries? One could be for blues that get deployed, while the other could be cheaper 'split-only' blues. Players would still need to keep track of how many blues they deployed but it avoids the other problems.

I blame my English for any misunderstandings - this is exactly what I meant in my post above Except not making two separate scrolls, but one with the deployment as an upgrade.
Any changes we make should be made to the Blues because they have the special rule in their scroll.

Ninth wrote:
I might buy 20 blue horrors only to have a mere 5 pinks killed during the game, making half my cost wasted. It also gives the opponent some control over what gets deployed from your list. Granted all of these are minor issues, but I think it makes the added complexity of distinct list options be worth it.

On the other hand, this can also be used to your advantage - if your opponent knows you bought 20 Blues for your Pinks...will he really want to destroy them? If he does, the Blues bursts forward. If he don't, the Pinks will cause havoc without retaliation.

Ah, ok. It looks like we are on the same page then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Such flesh
So eaten
Battle-lions costed
Wow

[Death] Abattoir - 115

[Death] Attendants at Court - 285

[Death] Deadwatch - 200

[Death] Ghoul Patrol - 215

[Death] King's Ghouls - 50

[Death] Royal Family - 275 +25 per Haunter, Infernal, or Varghulf Courtier present in the army (note: the army, not the battalion!).

[Death] Royal Menagerie - 75

[Death] Royal Mordants - 65

[Death] Flesh-Eater Court - Free

[edit] I missed a key point when initially pricing the "Attendants at Court" battalion... the new value should better reflect its potency!

Ladies and gentlemen, for too long Project Points Cost has been missing a fundamental keystone of the AoS experience.

NO LONGER!

I am talking, of course, of terrain battalions.

Fortified Manor - 65

Direstone Redoubt - 100

Infernal Realmfort - The contents of your bank account, but 0 pts.

Ironskull Bastion - 75

Magebane Wall - 50

Malefic Dreadhold - Free

Octadic Dreadhold - Free

Skullcoven Forge - Free

Summoner's Hellgate - 35, note the "Summoner's Call" rule is ignored.

Hey All,

Rather epic battle happened last night, one of our guys was playing the new Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with "Attendants at Court" battalion

For 75 points he's bringing an extra Courtier on, and then bolstering units in the same phase, this seemed like a LOT of extra points being on the board for just a 75pt

He was playing against a more normal VC list so maybe it was just weak against the army, but I'm interested in the thoughts behind the low cost?

Again as always, many thanks for the continued work everyone

Jorthax wrote:
Hey All,

Rather epic battle happened last night, one of our guys was playing the new Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with "Attendants at Court" battalion

For 75 points he's bringing an extra Courtier on, and then bolstering units in the same phase, this seemed like a LOT of extra points being on the board for just a 75pt

He was playing against a more normal VC list so maybe it was just weak against the army, but I'm interested in the thoughts behind the low cost?

Again as always, many thanks for the continued work everyone

I received the Flesh-Eater tome today, and yes, it does seem abit cheap for what it does now that the CMD abilities of the Ghoul King is basically summoning a 100pts+ every hero phase.
I'll wait a few more days before updating the Death list with these new battalions so we can discuss this further.

I believe we need a few Stormcast Battalions changed pointwise as well, due to reports from a recen tournament in Greece so I'll make both updates at the same time.

Ninth wrote:I am talking, of course, of terrain battalions.

Excellent, thanks Ninth!

Jorthax wrote:
Hey All,

Rather epic battle happened last night, one of our guys was playing the new Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with "Attendants at Court" battalion

For 75 points he's bringing an extra Courtier on, and then bolstering units in the same phase, this seemed like a LOT of extra points being on the board for just a 75pt

He was playing against a more normal VC list so maybe it was just weak against the army, but I'm interested in the thoughts behind the low cost?

Again as always, many thanks for the continued work everyone

My mistake, I missed the note on "using the same command ability twice" and thought it would merely allow him to use inspiring presence or a scenario-specific ability alongside a courtier summon! I will edit that value immediately!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jorthax wrote:
Hey All,

Rather epic battle happened last night, one of our guys was playing the new Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with "Attendants at Court" battalion

For 75 points he's bringing an extra Courtier on, and then bolstering units in the same phase, this seemed like a LOT of extra points being on the board for just a 75pt

He was playing against a more normal VC list so maybe it was just weak against the army, but I'm interested in the thoughts behind the low cost?

Again as always, many thanks for the continued work everyone

My mistake, I missed the note on "using the same command ability twice" and thought it would merely allow him to use inspiring presence or a scenario-specific ability alongside a courtier summon! I will edit that value immediately!

Good value there, in my mind I got it to 250-300pts so 285 seems spot on

Attilla wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jorthax wrote:
Hey All,

Rather epic battle happened last night, one of our guys was playing the new Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with "Attendants at Court" battalion

For 75 points he's bringing an extra Courtier on, and then bolstering units in the same phase, this seemed like a LOT of extra points being on the board for just a 75pt

He was playing against a more normal VC list so maybe it was just weak against the army, but I'm interested in the thoughts behind the low cost?

Again as always, many thanks for the continued work everyone

My mistake, I missed the note on "using the same command ability twice" and thought it would merely allow him to use inspiring presence or a scenario-specific ability alongside a courtier summon! I will edit that value immediately!

Good value there, in my mind I got it to 250-300pts so 285 seems spot on

Thanks, I like to think I've gotten better at it after all those costings!

Thanks for the quick feedback on that one guys, I think that would have made that battle a draw at the very least.

So awesome to be able to feedback directly to the rule makers!

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.

 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.

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?

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.

Lots of good stuff here Ninth!
I will make sure to add them all for the next update in a few weeks, along with point changes and comp updates.

So a straight feedback note; basic Ogors (Ogre Bulls for those of us who remember the old days) are 115 points for 3, adding additional models for +38 points each, and adding ironfists for +2 pts per model. First off this is really annoying when it comes to listbuilding! Secondly, the difference in cost here between ironfists and dual weapons is pretty much irrelevant when the ironfists are a notably better option (though not significantly so). The mortal wound effect does go away with rend -1, but cover brings that right back and means you deal mortals on a 5+ save if the enemy doesn't have rend. Mystic shield also helps. Accordingly, I think Ogors would be better priced at 105 pts for three, +35 to add new models, and +5 pts/model for ironfists.

And finally we have Sylvaneth battalions!

Free Spirits - 75 pts.

Lords of the Clan - 50 pts.

Household - 100 pts.

Forest Folk - 125 pts.

Outcasts - 85 pts.

Sylvaneth Wargrove - Free

Oakenbrow Wargrove - 185 pts. Note that as per the FAQ models can chose not to swing in melee. Keep this in mind if your opponent attempts to abuse this battalion with a deathstar unit!

Gnarlroot Wargrove - 150 pts, +25 per Treelord Ancient, Branchwych, or Branchwraith included individually (this does not apply to models taken as part of an included battalion). [This battalion's benefits provide a strong incentive to simply take wizards on their own ("Any number of additional Sylvaneth units") rather than including any optional battalions. The point tax allows the base cost to be cheaper so not to penalize the latter option.]

Heartwood Wargrove - 200 pts.

Ironbark Wargrove - 250 pts.

Winterleaf Wargrove - 115 pts.

Dreadwood Wargrove - 185 pts.

Harvestboon Wargrove - 100 pts, +15 per Branchwraith included individually (this does not apply to models taken as part of an included battalion).

Guardians of Alarielle - 275 pts.

Here are the points for Bonesplitterz & Azgorh Shar'Tor:

LEGION OF AZGORH (Forgeworld)
Bull Centaur Shar'Tor The Executioner 280pts


BONESPLITTERZ
Maniak Weirdnob 100pts

Wurrgog Prophet 160pts

Wardokk 80pts

10 Savage Orruk Morboys 100pts
Additional Models +10pts
- Bone Totem 5pts
- Morboy Boss 5pts
- Skull Thumper 5pts

10 Savage Orruks 80pts
Additional Models +8pts
- Savage Boss 5pts
- Skull Thumper 5pts
- Bone Totems 5pts

2 Savage Big Stabbas 100pts
Additional Models +50pts

10 Savage Orruk Arrowboyz 100pts
Additional Models (up to 20) +10pts
Additional Models (over 20) +12 pts
- Savage Boss 5pts
- Skull Thumper 5pts
- Bone Totems 5pts

5 Savage Boarboy Maniaks 160pts
Additional Models +32pts
- Savage Boar Boss Maniak 5pts
- Boar Totem 5pts
- Boar Thumper 5pts

5 Savage Boarboys 120pts
Additional Models +24pts
- Savage Boar Boss 5pts
- Boar Totem 5pts
- Boar Thumper 5pts

---------------------------------

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So a straight feedback note; basic Ogors (Ogre Bulls for those of us who remember the old days) are 115 points for 3, adding additional models for +38 points each, and adding ironfists for +2 pts per model. First off this is really annoying when it comes to listbuilding! Secondly, the difference in cost here between ironfists and dual weapons is pretty much irrelevant when the ironfists are a notably better option (though not significantly so). The mortal wound effect does go away with rend -1, but cover brings that right back and means you deal mortals on a 5+ save if the enemy doesn't have rend. Mystic shield also helps. Accordingly, I think Ogors would be better priced at 105 pts for three, +35 to add new models, and +5 pts/model for ironfists.

I've thought about this, and I'm beginning to wonder if it wouldn't be a better choice to just make both options the same cost.
- The Dual wield means approx. +0,2 higher damage output, which goes up higher when they charge.
- The Ironfists in their basic form means approx. 0,17 dmg from saving rolls, which can be lowered or upped by rend/cover/shield to. In cover+shield they do 0,5 dmg, but then against -1 rend and no cover/shield they do 0. I don't think that's really worth 5pts, but agree that 2pts is somewhat annoying.

Thanks for the new Battalions mate! Will add these along with all new units once I get back home from my vacation
---------------------------------

Always happy to provide battalion costs!

In regards to Ogors, the trick is that the Ironfists deal mortal wounds, allowing to unit to put damage on high-save enemies they would otherwise have trouble damaging with their no-rend attacks. The synergy with other Ogor units is also worth note, since the basic Ogor Bulls' damage output is less useful in when all the other units are so hard-hitting. Their most likely battlefield role is to be support or objective-holding. But it's ultimately a minor difference and that's just my two cents. I think equal cost is still much better than the 2 pts thing!

Apologies PPC players, for I forgot to point out the new terrain model! But you may cease weeping now, for here is the number you so desperately crave! [/sarcasm]

Crucible - 165 pts.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Always happy to provide battalion costs!

In regards to Ogors, the trick is that the Ironfists deal mortal wounds, allowing to unit to put damage on high-save enemies they would otherwise have trouble damaging with their no-rend attacks. The synergy with other Ogor units is also worth note, since the basic Ogor Bulls' damage output is less useful in when all the other units are so hard-hitting. Their most likely battlefield role is to be support or objective-holding. But it's ultimately a minor difference and that's just my two cents. I think equal cost is still much better than the 2 pts thing!

After some more considerations, we will make it a free choice of equipment for the Ogors.
I've ordered my Handbook now, can't wait to dig into it properly! I almost (just almost) wish my vacation was over so I can get back home and start working on the next update properly

I like your new signature alot, Ninth!

Haha thanks!

In other news, the Fatesworn Battalion has had its value change due to the GHB FAQ giving us a clear ruling on spell-repeating battalions (they can't).

[edit] Also, I somehow missed the Daemon Cohort of Tzeentch in my repointening! Suffice it to say that the battalion has been nerfed into the ground and the cost has similarly come down a great deal.

Splitting bones and pointing battalions! I am also taking the GHB values into account and matching them if the value is close to what I'd put it at. These battalions are marked with a *.

Kop Rukk* - 100 pts

Snaga Rukk - 75 pts

Brutal Rukk* - 40 pts

Kunnin' Rukk - 150 pts

Teef Rukk - 100 pts. Note that the extra attack round does not need to target the monster...

Savage Warclan - Free

Bonegrinz Warclan - 200 pts

Icebone Warclan - 150 pts.

Drakkfoot Warclan - 125 pts.

So the General's Handbook has arrived (and what a great book it is!). We've been discussing how to change the PPC to better reflect these new times, and this is what we're thinking. It is as always open for discussion!

New Comp Document

Force Organisation
We have yet to decide if we should:
1) Keep the current one (50%/50%). This gives people freedom of choice but keeps mono-artillery/heros/monsters lists at bay.
2) Use the same as GH (Battleline, Leaders, Behemoths etc). This is what people will be accustomed to anyway.
3) Remove alltogether and let Tournament Organizers do as they wish. With proper points, stuff is balanced either way so who needs limits.

We are leaning towards alternative 2 or 3 here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Remove the Grand Alliance limits, and instead use GH:s bonuses for being in alliance.

We first thought about putting points to the abilities and items and open them up to use multiple times/army. We really miss the days when you could sit for hours adjusting your list with which magic item to put on which hero. In the end it felt like it would be too much work though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Keep the section on Battalions.

We have LOTS of Battalions in PPC thanks to the hard work of Ninthmusketeer, so we might as well keep this text in the Comp Doc as well
---------------------------------------------------------------------

House Rules
- Keep base measuring.
- Add all three GH "rules of one". Remove the current PPC rule about Dice Rolls.
- Use the GH way to use summoning (pre-paid points pool!). Remove the current PPC way of doing it.
- Not use GH "Triumphs" for having less points than your opponent, as its way easier to use all your points in PPC...just add a few more models!
- Keep the Silly Rules always active. Not much of a problem these days but should be included nontheless.
- Keep the scaling cost of models such as Zombies/Freeguild Guard etc.

Battleplans
-Re-write the PPC battleplans to feel more in line with the ones from GH. Remove the section on Tie Breakers in Tournaments. Haven't had any feedback on them so far from tournamnets so possibly not used (or the tournaments didn't come down to ties).
- Models deploying or re-deploying (using special abilities) can not score victory points or objectives on the turn they arrive. This will also affect the official battleplans.


What to you guys and gals think about these changes?

Cheers!

I would say to make PPC an explicit add-on to the GHB, the 'next step' for players who want more balance and granularity. This is to say use the GHB force org, rules of 1, and summoning rules. From there, alter things as little as possible. B2B measuring is a given, and silly rules always active should probably stay too. I think removing the Triumph rule is a good idea but include a note as to why. Going back to army composition, I would strongly recommend leaving Allegiance abilities unpointed as I think having to factor those would drive people away. Also Fyreslayers should be moved into Order, since GW has been pretty explicit at this point about putting them there. Either use the GHB restriction of Grand Alliance only (easy to miss but it's in there) or add a rule that players can mix Grand Alliances but will give up any Allegiance abilities in doing so (as the GHB should have done). I don't consider the scaling point costs a house rule as much as just part of the points cost, but that is one of the big pulls for PPC so definitely keep it. And finally, I think PPC should use the unit maximums from the GHB but not the unit minimums (use the minimum from the warscroll instead).

So in other words:
-Option 2
-Everything else you said
-Put Fyreslayers in Order
-Use Warscroll minimums and GHB maximums

[edit] One other suggestion! Add a rule that states "Factions without their own allegiance abilities (Ironjawz, Flesh-Eater Courts, etc.) may utilize those of their Grand Alliance instead. This allows said factions to access their unique battleline choices without giving up allegiance abilities entirely."

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I
So in other words:
-Option 2
-Everything else you said
-Put Fyreslayers in Order
-Use Warscroll minimums and GHB maximums

[edit] One other suggestion! Add a rule that states "Factions without their own allegiance abilities (Ironjawz, Flesh-Eater Courts, etc.) may utilize those of their Grand Alliance instead. This allows said factions to access their unique battleline choices without giving up allegiance abilities entirely."

Other people have also suggested option 2 so we will go for that and make the new force org similar to GH.

Some people have been asking to place Fyreslayers in order, while some have been wanting them to stay in Mercs (to use them with Azgorh and others). I will make a post on the blog about it and let people vote, and we'll do as the majority wants. I will include the option to mix GA but lose the Allegience abilities as well, that is how my group would want it!

Using the GH maximum numbers of models seems like a good idea, we'll probably go for that. Using the warscroll minimum will not change, we don't care much for some of the changes in GH (looking at you Bret units).

Your suggestion about specific allegience using their GA bonuses is very sound! I thought it worked that way up until now that I re-read it because of your post...it's definately going into the PPC comp.
EDIT: Looks like its been FAQ:d to work this way - good news!

Btw, I saw your post about Firebellies and Fanatics on the blog. Seems like good suggestions but haven't brought it up with the group yet. Our Ogors player will be happy though

Cheers!

Attilla wrote:
Your suggestion about specific allegience using their GA bonuses is very sound! I thought it worked that way up until now that I re-read it because of your post...it's definately going into the PPC comp.
EDIT: Looks like its been FAQ:d to work this way - good news!

Where was it FAQ'd like that? I'm looking at the one for the GHB and there's nothing which changes it. I'd love for them to errata that but I'm not sure they have...

This is what I was referring to:

You can choose to take
either the allegiance abilities for the allegiance your
army belongs to, or the allegiance abilities for the Grand
Alliance your army belongs to.

It doesn't say you must change your allegiance, only that you can choose either bonuses.

Attilla wrote:
This is what I was referring to:

You can choose to take
either the allegiance abilities for the allegiance your
army belongs to, or the allegiance abilities for the Grand
Alliance your army belongs to.

It doesn't say you must change your allegiance, only that you can choose either bonuses.

Ahhh I see now, thanks for explaining!

While the Batletome: Dominion of Chaos may have snuck in under the radar for some, not so for the keen-eye'd Musketeer! After review, I'm putting the terrain battalions within (Realmgate Matrix, Bound Arcanabulum, Mythic Ruin, and Magebound Gate) as free. For starters they are really more cinematic pieces anyways, and in a strictly rules sense they aren't all that good for one player over the other.


[edit] Also, some Start Collecting battalions!

[Flesh-Eaters] Royal Hunt - 100 pts

[Ironjawz] Smasha Boys - 100 pts

[Khorne] Murderband - 60 pts

[Stormcast] Blessed Host - 150 pts

[Sylvaneth] Heartwood Host (? - not sure on the name) - 100 pts

Hi Guys,

What's the overall opinion of the balance between Grand Alliance bonuses? Any need for weighting some of them or maybe giving handicaps.

I hadn't seen any discussion on this yet (sorry if I missed it?)

Jorthax wrote:
Hi Guys,

What's the overall opinion of the balance between Grand Alliance bonuses? Any need for weighting some of them or maybe giving handicaps.

I hadn't seen any discussion on this yet (sorry if I missed it?)

We've only briefly touched upon this subject with an idea to point cost each ability/artefact, to make a system similar to the one in Fantasy Battles where you could tailor your heroes with different magic items. This will not happen for a long time, if ever. We need to see how good each battletome's bonuses are first.

The same goes for the GA bonuses. While many people will find some bonus better than the other, it's abit early to tell how things will pan out with new battletomes arriving. If there are obvious balance issuen down the road, the PPC will definately adress them

FWIW here's my two cents. PPC strives for good balance, but it isn't perfect balance nor will it ever be. Simply speaking there will always be bad lists that bring choices of units that don't work well together, and there will always be scenarios that make some units more useful while putting others on the back foot. When it comes to allegiance abilities and items there definitely is variation in how potent each option can be but that is incredibly dependent on what is in your army and what models they go on. Further, I suspect paying for those options is something the majority of players would rather not bother with even if it does improve balance somewhat, and that forcing points onto those options would make it less appealing to newcomers. Thus, I do not think that PPC will ever point cost those options (unless future releases cause issues) nor do I believe that PPC needs to do so.

In short: while pointing allegiance stuff would improve balance it would ultimately be a minor difference not worth the effort to integrate.

Hey Attilla, when is the next update coming? I want to get the Beastclaw points in before then.

Also, add this note to the Sylvaneth Wyldwood:

"The Wyldwood received as part of Sylvaneth Allegiance is free, but any additional Wyldwoods (including those summoned during the game) will cost the appropriate number of points."

Heya,

Came back home yesterday, first day at work today, but got alot of things done for the update. Most calculations and feedback has been gone through so now it's mostly updating the actual lists left. So...should be done wednesday or thursday I reckon!

The Beastclaw units will be up on the blog tomorrow for a final review by the community before we finalize their points in the updated lists.

Will add that to the Sylvaneth army list, cheers!

The Afro-Stuns strike with Beastclaw battalions!

Jorlbad - 80 pts

Eurlbad - 60 pts

Torrbad* - 60 pts

Skal - 135 pts

Alfrostun - free

Svard Alfrostun - free

Olwyr Alfrostun* - 120

Braggoth's Beast Hammer* - 160 pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And thanks to [redacted] I got the rules for...

King Vlagorescu's Ghoulish Host - 100 pts

The points for the Beastclaw Raiders have been calculated are can be found on the blog!. If you guys and gals have any thoughts on them, now is the time to let us know because the update will come soon



Thanks for the battalions, Ninth. I'll be sure to add them to the Ogors list!

EDIT: What does the asterisk for the Torrbad and Olwyr Alfrostun mean?

Cheers!