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

I don't think skeletons should be more than 80 though for 10. It's only in the massive regiments that they get very points efficient.

removing the massive regiment discount might be enough to balance them a bit more. Then again, it's not the first unit in the game at all that turns out a bit too efficient in higher numbers... And so far, GW seems to like to sell large hordes.

Also, skeletons haven't changed a lot except for the all round ressurection/summonable changes. They were pretty solid before true. Main difference is that people were kind of used to death being slightly more of a push-over.

 Elmir wrote:
I don't think skeletons should be more than 80 though for 10. It's only in the massive regiments that they get very points efficient.

removing the massive regiment discount might be enough to balance them a bit more. Then again, it's not the first unit in the game at all that turns out a bit too efficient in higher numbers... And so far, GW seems to like to sell large hordes.

Also, skeletons haven't changed a lot except for the all round ressurection/summonable changes. They were pretty solid before true. Main difference is that people were kind of used to death being slightly more of a push-over.

Mathematically speaking skeletons should have a higher price for the first 10 due to the command group, the lowest price for the second 10, a higher price for the third 10, and the highest price for the last 10. This is due to their bonus scaling with unit size. Something like:

80 for a 10-man
140 for a 20-man
220 for a 30-man
320 for a 40-man

Those values are a much better representation of a given size's performance on the tabletop. And this is objective--math backs it up, playtesting backs it up. But note that were the massive unit discount removed these values would be very close to what 80 per 10 would be. This is why even using GW's system values can be vary close to what they should be for basic infantry (things get more complicated when it comes to units with options like multiple weapon choices or very powerful command groups) and are decent in the 'good enough' sense. This is even more true for units that have no or only small bonuses based on size.

However, we also see how the massive unit discount is the worst possible way to balance the various sizes; it is downright silly from a balance perspective and a half hour of high-school math and/or playtesting will clearly show that. The sheer stupidity is what I find so dam frustrating, far more than the imbalance itself. The only place where the discount is appropriate is for melee units that do not have size scaling AND without means to utilize a significant portion of the unit at larger sizes. So a unit like plague monks doesn't need a discount despite a lack of scaling bonuses--the nature of the unit means it's very easy to take advantage of the large size. Something like say, basic ogors do deserve one since a large unit is simply going to have half of the models stranded outside combat most of the time. Unfortunately the number of units for which the massive discount is appropriate is a mere fraction of the units that actually have it.

I would think the best way to balance that kind of an effeciency curve would be to change the min/max unit sizes then. Make them 20-40 or so.

Added costs for the first 10 has never been a thing in AoS though. Just adding them as a unit bonus is just fine for me.

And I do like the fact that horde units have made a come-back since GHB17(not just for death btw). Might just be me, but I like the fact that basic troops are more prevalent now and that AoS isn't just a "bring the largest monster" game.

Well, there is somewhat of a "cost" to having, say, 1 unit of 40 instead of 2 units of 10. The cost is that it only gives you one battleline unit, so you have to buy another and have fewer points left for other stuff. I'm not saying that entirely makes up for it, especially now with the discount for taking 40. Basically it just means you'll always try to take 40, or just take 10. But it's also somewhat psychological, since you'll feel like you aren't getting your points worth with a unit of 30 and will want to drop something else if necessary to get that last 10 because they are such a good deal.

When I break my roster out on the spreadsheet, there is never a reason to not take the max because the numbers tell me that the skeletons are operating as near elites for their cost.

They aren't unbeatable and invincible by any stretch but they make the decision for me by making them so cheap for what they do compared to other similarly costed models.

Their performance with the size bonuses on top of what else I can do to them with casters makes them a unit that casuals don't like playing against, and thats' my primary concern.

At the tournament level all bets are off but thats why my primary goal is better balance across the game because it benefits everyone and why I was annoyed when they did the regimental costing the way they did.

Yes it is good to see basic troopers used ... I prefer armies and not elite gak every game... but at the same time more prefer that things be pointed the way they are supposed to be pointed. The only thing that stops the skeletons from being as busted as skyfires and all of the other bent models in the game is that they don't have any ranged or mortal wound attacks.

If you want to make skeletons get bonus attacks or better wounding chances or whatever the larger the unit size, I'm all for it... but don't make them not pay anything for that bonus and in addition give them a further discount on top of that.

 Elmir wrote:
Added costs for the first 10 has never been a thing in AoS though. Just adding them as a unit bonus is just fine for me.

And I do like the fact that horde units have made a come-back since GHB17(not just for death btw). Might just be me, but I like the fact that basic troops are more prevalent now and that AoS isn't just a "bring the largest monster" game.

I like that it isn't 'spam the biggest stuff you can' but am dissatisfied that it was replaced with 'spam the biggest units you can'. The saving grace here is that the latter is physically & financially harder to do.

Yeah. Thats why its not as widespread. I read a lot of grumbling that people WANT to do it but don't want to fork over the dough or spend time painting that many models.

But then complaining about needing a lot of models has been a thing since 6th edition came out and got rid of 5th edition hero-hammer when armies were literally 10-20 models total.

At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

 Galas wrote:
At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

40k tends to get more expensive point wise once you get into elite units because there are powerful special weapons that cost a lot of points to add in. Even more basic stuff like combi-weapons or plasma guns really add up quickly. Also factor in that 40k armies tend toward the more elite end (and thus lower model count) anyways due to the sheer popularity of MEQ armies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

40k tends to get more expensive point wise once you get into elite units because there are powerful special weapons that cost a lot of points to add in. Even more basic stuff like combi-weapons or plasma guns really add up quickly. Also factor in that 40k armies tend toward the more elite end (and thus lower model count) anyways due to the sheer popularity of MEQ armies.

Pretty much this. Don't look at a Space marine and a Sister of Slaughter being basically the same points, look at a lascannon being the same price as both of them put together.

Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

oz of the north wrote:
Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

Its short on fluff to be honest, and lacks alot of interesting options:

No Vampire handmaidens / courtiers on foot, no living troops, talks very briefly about interesting variant vampires but does not bother to expand upon them

Could have taken so much more from the novels

 Mr Morden wrote:

oz of the north wrote:
Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

Its short on fluff to be honest, and lacks alot of interesting options:

No Vampire handmaidens / courtiers on foot, no living troops, talks very briefly about interesting variant vampires but does not bother to expand upon them

Could have taken so much more from the novels

What kills me about this book is it feels very much like the best of a bad situation. A lot of our units seem over priced, or are just more expensive copies of other factions units.

I was underwhelmed. In particular I found the three legions to be glorified meta-battalions that primarily serve to make it seem like there's more content when much of them is copies of other artifacts/traits with slight changes. There's a bunch of allegiance content overall but it feels very shallow. I also dislike how the Grand Host/Legion allegiances are basically just Death allegiance +1, such that there really isn't a good reason to take Death allegiance at all anymore. Add it all up and what Death is effectively left with is a mere re-work of the generic allegiance rather than new ones. That is why the book feels so shallow, because it's stretching about 1.5 allegiances of new content across four versions of it while the old Death is made obsolete. Battalion options are seriously lacking as well (it seems like a trend with Nurgle too, I'm hoping it doesn't stick).

That said the new allegiance is still really cool and the switch from summoning spells to deathly invocation streamlines the alliance in a very good way. The Nighthaunt changes bring their allegiance up to decently playable (if still a bit sub par) and also make them less reliant on gimmicky play. No new kits but new warscrolls from existing ones are still a great way to expand options.