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.

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!