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.

 vipoid wrote:
Maybe it's just bad design to give a ~500pt model the ability to resurrect itself, basically for free.

Would you rather he had more attacks or durability? Resurrection seems like a fine idea to me. Whether Angron is undercosted in 1k or 2k I have no idea.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Maybe it's just bad design to give a ~500pt model the ability to resurrect itself, basically for free.

I think perhaps the 10th edition version will be harder to succeed at reliably.

That's not a good thing, though.

This was one of the fundamental lessons of 7th - don't balance OP abilities by making them random.

 vict0988 wrote:

Would you rather he had more attacks or durability? Resurrection seems like a fine idea to me. Whether Angron is undercosted in 1k or 2k I have no idea.

If he is going to have a resurrection mechanic, I would suggest looking at other models that resurrect:

Necron Characters - Most HQs can be revived with a stratagem, but it can only be used once on each HQ, only works on a 4+, and only restores them with 1d3 wounds (probably about 1/3 of their maximum wounds on average).

St. Celestine - Revives once per game on a 2+ with all wounds remaining.

Rowboat Guilliman - Revives once per game on a 4+ with 1d6 wounds remaining (about 1/3 of his maximum wounds on average).

With the exception of Celestine, all of them come back with a fraction of their starting wounds (though even Celestine's 6 is a far cry from Angron's 16) and it's a 50/50 shot to do so at all. What's more, none of them can ever revive more than once per game.

From that, my suggestion would be that Angron only revives once - either automatically or on a 2+. Also, he revives with a number of wounds remaining equal to the highest roll on your blood dice (or whatever they're called) - so usually 6.

It gives him a last hurrah but means your opponent doesn't have to try and kill him multiple times from full wounds.

 vipoid wrote:


That's not a good thing, though.

This was one of the fundamental lessons of 7th - don't balance OP abilities by making them random.

It's a valid concern, but I think the new setup lends itself to more interactivity.

As a side note, Bobby now rezzes on a 3 with 6 wounds.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's a valid concern, but I think the new setup lends itself to more interactivity.

As a side note, Bobby now rezzes on a 3 with 6 wounds.

What's interactive about it?

What you have is an ability that won't come up much - but when on say turn 3 they get a whole new Angron it will feel like a gut punch.

Tournament players won't care, but for casual players I think its going to feel obnoxious and completely unfair. It shouldn't be in the game.

The question is "does the World Eater player lose enough utility from Blessing of Khorne when they bring Angron back?"

They have to get triple 6s and use those dice to bring back Angron, leaving just 5 dice remaining for picking blessings. There is a decent chance they can use one of the blessing, but getting 2 of them the same turn is pretty unlikely. Even getting the harder ones will be difficult that same turn.

That being said, a brand fully powered Angron is a lot. Still, he will be 9" away from your army the first turn he returns, making a charge difficult and even making it difficult for his Aura to get into play.

So the worst effect will be most demoralizing is if you blast him off the board on turn 1 and he immediately returns on your opponents next turn.

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's a valid concern, but I think the new setup lends itself to more interactivity.

As a side note, Bobby now rezzes on a 3 with 6 wounds.

What's interactive about it?

What you have is an ability that won't come up much - but when on say turn 3 they get a whole new Angron it will feel like a gut punch.

Tournament players won't care, but for casual players I think its going to feel obnoxious and completely unfair. It shouldn't be in the game.

Working down their reroll potential and keeping angron on the table longer.

Them dropping 3 6s at the same time angron is actually dead becomes less likely the more you disrupt and delay.

And depending on the game state bringing angron back could be the wrong choice over other buffs.

My gut says that Tyel and vipoid are right though. This seems likely to become a feels-bad mechanic. WE players are going to feel bad any time they try the rez and it fails or anytime they want to try the rez and decide it's a bad mvoe. Their opponents are going to feel bad any time the rez works (even if it was a bad move).

Even if GW makes the drawbacks sufficient to make the rez "balanced," it's going to be really tricky to make players feel good about the mechanic.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
My gut says that Tyel and vipoid are right though. This seems likely to become a feels-bad mechanic. WE players are going to feel bad any time they try the rez and it fails or anytime they want to try the rez and decide it's a bad mvoe. Their opponents are going to feel bad any time the rez works (even if it was a bad move).

Even if GW makes the drawbacks sufficient to make the rez "balanced," it's going to be really tricky to make players feel good about the mechanic.

I actually think that big showy models like these are better with swingy rules that keep them out of competitive play but make for stories about improbable odds at more casual tables. That said, most aren't like this and I think Angron's design makes him more difficult to balance than other centerpiece models would be.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
My gut says that Tyel and vipoid are right though. This seems likely to become a feels-bad mechanic. WE players are going to feel bad any time they try the rez and it fails or anytime they want to try the rez and decide it's a bad mvoe. Their opponents are going to feel bad any time the rez works (even if it was a bad move).

How exactly is that any different than "the feels" the current blood point system gives?
● I spend 6 pts & of course my opponent feels bad.
● I decide that those pts will be better spent on a different effect - & I feel bad because I can't also bring Angron back that turn.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I actually think that big showy models like these are better with swingy rules that keep the out of competitive play but make for stories about improbable odds at more casual tables. That said, most aren't like this and I think Angron's design makes him more difficult to balance than other centerpiece models would be.

Interesting point of view. I'd not thought of it in that way. Also means that by taking this swingy character in your tournament list you are acknowledging that sometimes it'll be amazing, but other times it won't be something you can rely on with any consistency.

That seems like an interesting trade-off.

It was why ork players took shokk attack guns. Sure most games they'd do a couple wounds but occasionally they'd one shot a knight, it was worth the risk of having a dead weight, or 3.

Take them their fun; AM 1k you get a command squat, 3 shock troopers, 3 commisars, and a shadowsword fully geared up with pretorian (tank orders) or knight upgrade for invul + 90 points for other fun units.
The shadow takes Angron out pretty easy with his vulcan +4 lascannon + 5 heavy twin bolters, the shock troopers screen the superheavy to 3 sides, the commisars order stay vigilant so the respawning angron must stay more than 12" away and next round you eat it up again. You will wonder how fast they lose ther enjoyment in taking Angron to small games.

I'm amazed this is even an argument. I remember when everyone agreed that taking knights in less than 2000pt games was a douche move. Now people unironically defend daemon primarchs in 1000pts? What happened?

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm amazed this is even an argument. I remember when everyone agreed that taking knights in less than 2000pt games was a douche move. Now people unironically defend daemon primarchs in 1000pts? What happened?

I don't think anyone is defending taking big models directly. There's sort of two conversations happening right now though. However, personally, I'm ok with big models in smaller games provided the players aren't too green.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm amazed this is even an argument. I remember when everyone agreed that taking knights in less than 2000pt games was a douche move. Now people unironically defend daemon primarchs in 1000pts? What happened?

I don't think anyone is defending taking big models directly. There's sort of two conversations happening right now though. However, personally, I'm ok with big models in smaller games provided the players aren't too green.

The problem isn't 300 point models in 1000 point games, or even Primarch/Knight level (because 300 point Land Raiders are even less of a problem) models in 1,000 point games. The problem is expectations/assumptions. Someone dropping Angron on the table is not a problem if their opponent drops Morty. But its entirely different when you're expecting to stretch 1,000 points over a 6 objective game that's more about movement/scoring than a battle of two Titans.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
My gut says that Tyel and vipoid are right though. This seems likely to become a feels-bad mechanic. WE players are going to feel bad any time they try the rez and it fails or anytime they want to try the rez and decide it's a bad mvoe. Their opponents are going to feel bad any time the rez works (even if it was a bad move).

Even if GW makes the drawbacks sufficient to make the rez "balanced," it's going to be really tricky to make players feel good about the mechanic.

People will eventually adapt to the odds and how it flows.

Removing Angron early means you risk multiple chances for revival. At the same time keeping him around longer means you need to prepare for him to eat a thing or two. Putting a lot of shooting into him early is a gamble that might pay off, but not much different than the gamble of the WE player trying to reroll into the yahtzee.

Occasionally you'll kill him mid-game and he could rez right back.

He doesn't seem particularly hard to kill if you really wanted to focus him down - and he's slightly easier to kill than he was before. But points and all that good stuff.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
He doesn't seem particularly hard to kill if you really wanted to focus him down - and he's slightly easier to kill than he was before. But points and all that good stuff.

Maybe this is pedantic - but how is he easier to kill now?

Okay, 16 wounds rather than 18. But S5 attacks will now wound T11 (vs T7) on 6s. S8, 9, 10 weapons will wound on 5s rather than 3s.
That's half damage (before other effects etc) from a huge range of the game.

For "playing your friends/that guy" sure, just build full MSU and let him munch a few 50 point units while you focus on everything else. But that's a hard meta skew.

I don't think you really want to throw middling weapons at him given the 2+ save and general AP decrease unless it's something with a lot of shots and DW like the Particle Whip.

Anti-tank into him seems like it will be improved. A Doomsday will do 6 or 7, Heavy Laser Destroyer 4 to 5, BS4 Demolisher is 4, etc. Softening him up to "bracket" and make it harder for his sweeps to tackle chaff could work. Depends how many land raiders are also on the table.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Kill everything else and ignore Angron.

This... play the mission, plow around the giant rock in your victory's field... there are so few turns in a game that just finding something that slows him down for 2 turns is all you need to do... I typically feed a dreadnaught to something like Skarbrand or Angron and just win the game via mission... won't even shot at him unless I'm confident I can kill him in 2 turns (because that fire power and attention will do so much more in other places). 40K is board/objective control, and Angron stinks at that (I'm happy when I see a point sink like him on the table)

How is a dreadnought going to catch Angron, before he kills the mission/objective takers, considering he is much faster then a dreadnought and practicaly every marine not mounted on a bike.

A dread would die too fast.

Considering you can now shoot angron while he's in melee on top of dropping mortal wounds via grenade or shock I'm very unconcerned about him rezzing.

Karol wrote:
How is a dreadnought going to catch Angron, before he kills the mission/objective takers, considering he is much faster then a dreadnought and practicaly every marine not mounted on a bike.

I suppose the dread would have to be near enough to Angrons victims to catch him by moving &/or charging on its turn.
Or maybe a heroic intervention in some cases?