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.

lindsay40k wrote:Why would I prefer a weakened rule for my army? Because it was getting boring, winning 90% of games I played, having what felt like two 'win buttons' in the form of ICFB Scorpions guaranteeing kills on artillery and forced flank or rear charges guaranteeing the breaking of any line unit. This is why I switched from TK to Night Goblins - I wanted an army that'd be a challenge to play. Whilst tournament stats might not agree, I found that the army I took along to friendly games was horrifically powerful. It was satisfying for a while, but then it became tiresome, being able to immediately punish the first mistake my opponent made and then be virtually guaranteed a win. Even if they formed a solid castle deployment, I'd have so many units appearing inside and charging on the same turn that I'd make a hole in the most determined wall.

RE magic items. Be honest, a large amount of army-specific items were duplicates of the weapon of +2 strength or the gem of 4+ ward or suchlike, or else pretty useless stuff that really didn't matter in the midst of a six-unit brawl. Whereas in 7ed we had a short list of generic items and a big list of 'our' items, we now have an absolute stack of generic items and a short list of 'our' items. In a couple of years, it seems a given that only Skaven will be on the old army book standard. We're the second army that's been thrown int he deep end of the new standard.

RE MWBD/!. The thing to bear in mind here is that this is actually the rule that Mummy Lords had when taking the Tomb King's Crown item in WHA: Undead. With our previous TK book, they became in effect low level wizards and contributed to the army's IMO overpowered magic phase. In this book, they've been returned to having their previous ability. Good thing? Bad thing? For me, it's 'interesting thing', and one I'll enjoy putting to the test when setting my minions upon the filthy Nagash-lovers.

All in all, it feels like TK are an army that'll be a challenge to play with and not one that immediately destroys the enemy the moment they make one mistake. I'm more inclined to field them now than I was a year or two ago.

Well, I guess that's fair enough. I just never saw TK as that overpowered. Maybe you were just a much better player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Units fulfilling what their role made them to be is not over powered.

Making things random for TK is not a way for to balance them , they are not Skaven or Goblins.

I felt there are better ways to "nerf" TK

It reminds me of the scene from Caddyshack where Chevy Chase quotes the Zen philosopher Basho: "A flute with no holes, is not a flute. A donut with no hole, is a Danish." A TK army without incantations, is not a TK army (as I was attracted to play it). I preferred donuts to Danish.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:It reminds me of the scene from Caddyshack where Chevy Chase quotes the Zen philosopher Basho: "A flute with no holes, is not a flute. A donut with no hole, is a Danish." A TK army without incantations, is not a TK army (as I was attracted to play it). I preferred donuts to Danish.

I liked warhammer ( both fantasy and 40k ) when each army had a unique flavor and play style to them.

Now they are all made from same template with some stat changes, they even got lazy on wargear and let us pick from common BRB list....
instead of letting us customize our character with their fluffy gears...

LunaHound wrote:
I liked warhammer ( both fantasy and 40k ) when each army had a unique flavor and play style to them.

Now they are all made from same template with some stat changes, they even got lazy on wargear and let us pick from common BRB list....
instead of letting us customize our character with their fluffy gears...

I completely agree.

So, what do you plan to do now?

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
I liked warhammer ( both fantasy and 40k ) when each army had a unique flavor and play style to them.

Now they are all made from same template with some stat changes, they even got lazy on wargear and let us pick from common BRB list....
instead of letting us customize our character with their fluffy gears...

I completely agree.

So, what do you plan to do now?

If can get anything

50 archers + khlida
2 casket
2 skull catapult
1 Heirotitan
2 lvl 2 priest
1 lvl 4 priest

something like that , 1k points ish left

TBH whilst I don't necessarily agree with all the OP's points, I agree with his sentiment. TK book has bad internal balance, but then it was written by the guy who wrote the IG and Nid Codices.... which have bad internal balance. What I don't like:

Skeleton Warriors: troops below a certain standard (like Slaves & Gobbos) should pay 1/2 points for gear. Warriors are in the bracket too IMO. I'd never take them anything other than as they come, IMO the Parry Save is better than the extra Attacks, and I'd rather have 25% more models for the cost of armour.

Skeleton Horsemen: way over-priced..... worth about 8 points IMO.

Chariots: fine, but why weren't the rules for Chariot units in the main rulebook?

Ushabti: 30 points is the maximum I'd consider paying for them with bows, 35 with additional hand weapons, and I might stretch to 40 for a great weapon.

Hierophant: having an army depend on one model in the age of laser-guided war machines, uber-magic, self-imolating magic etc is poor design IMO. Instead a living Hierophant should have provided more buffs that disappear if they die. Same comment applies to VC.

Tomb Scorpion: I'm ok with not being able to charge. Removing the wound and upping the cost was unnecessary.

EBTS: Compulsory? Why? Screw that.

Skulls of the Foe: wait, so it got harder to break stuff and the cost went up....?

War Sphinx: seriously, what is this guys obsession with adding unnecessary special rules?! It already Thunderstomps, if you want to have it cause more damage just give it more attacks!

Poison/Killing Blow: Envenomed Sting..... sigh.

Construct: would have liked there to be a way to do a full (Qatari?) construct list.

Things I don't mind:

Same magic system: don't see the need for a unique one, and it adds nothing to my experience.

MWBD: I prefer the new effect, and it's non-dispellable.

Casket: being a War Machine that doesn't tie down a Priest is a plus.

lindsay40k wrote:Okay. Soo...

With regard to ICFB compared to EBS. ICFB felt overpowered. Deepstriking and charging on the same turn, at the cost of announcing your dropzone? It was horrific. Two or three fairly modest units could put a solid eggtimer on an artillery base; when they arrived, they would charge a cannon without fear of taking a shot in return, wipe it out, overrun into the next war machine, and slaughter everything. Even one single scorpion would affect the game way more than its price warranted, by forcing an entire gunline to run away from its dropzone. It needed toning down.

See I've heard this argument before, about how powerful ICFB was against artillery pieces and really all I can say is: why shouldn't it be?

Put simply, I faced Empire and Dwarfs regularly enough with my old TK's, and occasionally my Beastmen, to know that if i put any monster on the table, it'll likely eat three facefulls of cannon fire before it moves an inch. Don't get me wrong, I've no huge objection with a strong war machine counter to monsters, but I don't see why those same machines shouldn't have something solid to fear. Anyway, It's not like ICFB was risk free, you might not get the unit in at all if you were unlucky, also there was always a chance of rolling a misfire and losing some of the army before it arrives and most importantly; It wasn't taking things apart in the first turn! a single cannon can earn up to 5 times it's points back on turn one if they get a lucky shot on your Greater Daemon.

GMR wrote:See I've heard this argument before, about how powerful ICFB was against artillery pieces and really all I can say is: why shouldn't it be?

Put simply, I faced Empire and Dwarfs regularly enough with my old TK's, and occasionally my Beastmen, to know that if i put any monster on the table, it'll likely eat three facefulls of cannon fire before it moves an inch. Don't get me wrong, I've no huge objection with a strong war machine counter to monsters, but I don't see why those same machines shouldn't have something solid to fear. Anyway, It's not like ICFB was risk free, you might not get the unit in at all if you were unlucky, also there was always a chance of rolling a misfire and losing some of the army before it arrives and most importantly; It wasn't taking things apart in the first turn! a single cannon can earn up to 5 times it's points back on turn one if they get a lucky shot on your Greater Daemon.

Agreed with him. One of the mission assigned to flyers / skaven burrowers / flank troops is usually anti-artillery, and some are better at that than others... The Dwarves had something to fear, regarding their artillery!

LunaHound wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
I liked warhammer ( both fantasy and 40k ) when each army had a unique flavor and play style to them.

Now they are all made from same template with some stat changes, they even got lazy on wargear and let us pick from common BRB list....
instead of letting us customize our character with their fluffy gears...

I completely agree.

So, what do you plan to do now?

If can get anything

50 archers + khlida
2 casket
2 skull catapult
1 Heirotitan
2 lvl 2 priest
1 lvl 4 priest

something like that , 1k points ish left

This is the start of a TK list destined for failure. I hope you're only planning to play for fun. Here's why:

Khalida is bad now, just accept it. She's not cost effective in any way. This is probably the one thing that made TK players angry more than anything else : we used to be the undead ranged army, and now we can't field such a thing competitively anymore.

There's no point in bringing a second Casket. You only get the bonus D3 power dice once, and you're not going to have so many power dice that you can actually cast both Lights of Death. Not if you're casting your real spells, which are worth so much more than Light of Death.

2 Catapaults is always awesome.

A Hierotitan is a big 175 point piece of wargear for your priest, that gets shot down and hands over kill points like they're candy. Really, you spend 175 points for +D3 to your casting rolls? That might end up being +1 to your casting rolls the whole game. You really think that's worth 175 points...?

TK players will now find that our choices haven't been opened up. They have been limited severely by what is now competitive, and what is pure garbage. Yes, Ushabti with great bows look awesome. But the fact is, they suck. Anything with EBTS is now far too random to be used competitively. All of our monsters are Undead, so if they lose combat, and they will, the opponent isn't even going to have to roll to hit or wound you for those last 2 wounds...they're just going to crumble off. So you can take all the sphinxes, colossus, and hierotitan out of the bag of competitive units. Let's see...what else we got? There's literally ONE reason now to take a Tomb King over a prince, and that is the Golden Death Mask. If you have another reason for choosing a TK over a Tomb Prince, I'd like to hear it. Tomb Heralds are only good for the BSB, which is probably the most cost effective thing in our entire list for what it does. Necrotects are far too squishy...if your opponent knows anything about TK, the Necrotect won't last one round in combat. So they're not worth it unless you spend more points on magic items to keep him alive, and by that point, he's no longer worth the price you're paying for his ability. Oh wow, 4 point Skeletons. With gear options that are so ridiculous, you can't help but laugh. You go ahead and put Light Armor and Spears on your Skeletons. I won't. Taken just as they are, Skeletons are probably the best thing in our army book now. I find it hard to resist the urge to just run blocks of 100 for points denial strategies. Skeleton archers are beast too...always hitting on 5's is good stuff, and the difference between Skeleton warriors and archers in combat is so slight, they can be used as an anvil unit with no problem. Skeleton horseman are still a joke, and that's all I really have to say about them. The chariots in the new TK book are exactly what I think they should be. If they charge, they're awesome. If they get charged, they suck. Overall, a pretty competitive unit when used right. Tomb Guard should be WS4 base, but w/e...we always put our Prince in there anyways, and I guess that's how the designers saw it too. But it just makes losing that Prince so much more painful...Ushabti are ridiculous. Why the nerf? Did anyone really see Ushabti dominating any tables in the previous edition? I sure didn't. On the plus side, Ushabti can take FC now...so there's hope for them. Nobody is going to spend their special points of scarab swarms. Probably the worst unit in the book now, since it's so weak, AND has to deal with EBTS. I really wish the rumours of these having an option of upgrading them to a flying unit were true...they might have been so good. So many missed opportunities...Carrion are broke as crap now. They nerf everything in the book, and buff this one unit, and probably for the sole reason that Carrion models weren't making enough sales (GW really does think like that), and now they're flying ogres with three attacks. Seriously, you can spam these and be in for some big surprises. Skull catapault, I already said was awesome, better in pairs. Having ONE Casket, MIGHT be cost effective. I know most people are screaming in their heads right now, "WHAT YOU NOOB, YOU ALWAYS TAKE A CASKET DUH", but hear me out...High Elves take a 80 point magic banner that gives them the same +D3 power dice every phase. Because it's a banner, it's on a character inside a unit. This standard is MUCH more survivable than our Casket, which sits on its own, begging to be shot at. So ask yourself this...what are you really paying those extra points for? Is it the Light of Death? Because Light of Death was SO super nerfed this edition, you're crazy if you think it's as good as it used to be. Just about every game I play with a Casket, I get mad at myself for bringing it, because I use all my power dice on my Nehekharan magic, rather than using the Casket's Light of Death, because that's where those power dice are better spent. So, IMHO, I don't see Caskets as cost effective. Note, I didn't say they weren't competitive, I just said I don't think they are cost effective. Don't flame me!

So, let's review, shall we?
Units I find to be competitive/cost effective:
Tomb Prince
Tomb Herald with BSB
Liche Priest/ High Priest (We HAVE to take them...no choice in the matter)
Skeleton Warriors
Skeleton Archers
Tomb Guard
Skeleton Chariots (barely)
Necropolis Knights (if you take EBTS, you've screwed this up.)
Ushabti (if you run them with Great Weapons. Anything else, and you're asking for points sink.)
Carrion
Screaming Skull Catapault
Casket of Souls (again, just barely)

Everything else...is just a toy.

Tomb King - one reason for running him only, and it's not a GREAT reason, either.
Tomb Herald without BSB - Why you would ever run this, I have no idea...
Necrotect - Lame, just lame. He can build giant living statues but he can't fashion a suit of armor to keep him alive one round of combat?
Skeleton Horsemen - You know why they suck. You just do.
Everything with EBTS - The rule is garbage, and therefore, any unit with it are garbage. I know it seems rather black and white, but when it comes down to it, it's the truth. In a competitive enviroment, this rule sucks. Period.
Ushabti with anything other than great weapons - Wtf are you doing...? Really?
Sphinxes - Monsters suck in a competitive enviroment anyways. Top that off with some Undead crumble after combat res, and you have a bonafide bad unit that's sure to do nothing more than attract fire and die. Don't say "they're good when they flank tho!!!1!!!" EVERYTHING is good when it flanks, that's such a weak argument I can't stand it.
Colossus - This is the one unit I have the most trouble with. I really can't decide if it's worth it or not. Generally, I would say the same thing about them that I would Sphinxes. If you take a Bow of the Desert, then it obviously sucks. Really though, for a few more points you could get a Sphinx, which, even though I don't like Sphinxes, I will say that I think they are better than Colossus.
Hierotitan - I have been over this a hundred times with myself and others...it's a fancy 175 point piece of wargear. Would you pay 175 points for a piece of wargear that adds +D3 to all your casting rolls? Probably not. Add on to this, that said piece of wargear can get shot by a cannon on your opponent's turn one, die instantly, and you'll never even see the +D3 get used, and you just handed over 175 points to your surely smug faced opponent. It's NOT good, just flashy. Go look at High Elves. They have a banner that does what this thing tries to do, but it actually does it right.

So, what do we have here? Out of all the new units released for TK, only Necro Knights are Warsphinxes are really worth a damn. The COMPETITIVE TK armies that have been around since last edition are probably going to stay the exact same, maybe adding in one unit or two in the form of a Necro Knight squad or a Warsphinx if they're risk takers. This is going to break down into one inevitable end...

The nightmare that is the cookie cutter TK.

You talk of options? You're joking, right? Read everything I posted, and if it doesn't make sense to you, or you disagree, please, comment and give me your insight on the matter, I'd love to hear it. But IMO, TK are heading towards cookie cutter village, with 2x Catapaults, a Casket, a prince, a priest, skeleton warriors and archers out the ass, some chariots, some Tomb Guard...and that's about it. Huh, that's funny. That's the exactly same damn cookie cutter build we found ourselves with last edition, except it got nerfed a lot.

How was this new army book an improvement again?

Khalida is bad now, just accept it. She's not cost effective in any way. This is probably the one thing that made TK players angry more than anything else : we used to be the undead ranged army, and now we can't field such a thing competitively anymore.

I disagree. Her cost effectiveness is easily calculated. Poison is actually a force multiplier once things get harder to kill than t3, 5+as. Which is to say, with her in a unit, 100 skeletons with her against our very own t8 monster, 100 skeletons finish with 14.6652 wounds, assuming all can fire. That same unit of 100 skeletons will only do 3.6659 wounds without her. Which means you would need just a shade over 400 skeletons shooting bows to do the same job. That's a force multiplier of 4!

Against t3 AS5+ dudes, Khalida is 2x as effective with 100 archers with Khalida, she does the same as 200 archers without her. Which means that every skeleton in the unit counts as 2 skeletons when shooting. 365 points for Khalida, Which means a unit of 61 archers with Khalida is exactly equal to a unit of 122 archers both in points, and ability against t3 5+as stuff. What's really nice, is at 31 wide, you have an effective range of just a shade over 18 inches, something that can be game-planned around if your opponent goes first and marches at you. Cost effect, and a pretty scary shooting phase to boot.

There's no point in bringing a second Casket. You only get the bonus D3 power dice once, and you're not going to have so many power dice that you can actually cast both Lights of Death. Not if you're casting your real spells, which are worth so much more than Light of Death.

I have to agree here, about the idea of of not bringing a second. I disagree that LOD is inferior to the "real" spells. Clearly the LOD is designed to help offset the units that Khemri only has poor answers for in today's game: War-machines, killy knights, big monsters. It's one of the best 0 risk options we have. Since it always hits our primary target, it's better, than a cannon for average wounds scored.

2 Catapaults is always awesome.

Skulls of the Foe is something that should always get considered.

A Hierotitan is a big 175 point piece of wargear for your priest, that gets shot down and hands over kill points like they're candy. Really, you spend 175 points for +D3 to your casting rolls? That might end up being +1 to your casting rolls the whole game. You really think that's worth 175 points...?

It's also a small foot-print thunder stomper... You're thinking one dimensionally. Getting into the flank or rear of a RnF unit is GREAT. Being able to target characters and throw 6 dice with his bound death spell is pretty darn good too. It's only "free points" if it's deleted without contributing, something I would hope the owning player would try to offset, by hiding him behind buildings, and limiting LOS to stuff that wtfganks him on one turn. Anything with EBTS is now far too random to be used competitively. All of our monsters are Undead, so if they lose combat, and they will, the opponent isn't even going to have to roll to hit or wound you for those last 2 wounds...

-- Most of the time, the War-sphinx should only ever be in a -3 hole, (he's hit the flank of a unit and is stuck grinding) Youre telling me out of 4 attacks from tomb guard (potentially augmented), a super-stomp, or for more sphinx attacks (again, potentially augmented) and then a
regular d6 thunderstomp that warsphinx isn't regularly going to be able to find 2 or 3 wounds against an opponent? Even if you lose by one, Construct prevents crumbling, a BSB prevents crumbling further.

they're just going to crumble off. So you can take all the sphinxes, colossus, and hierotitan out of the bag of competitive units.

Wrong. They add to the competitiveness of the overall army.. but you HAVE to know how to use them. You cannot commit willy-nilly to the front on a one off basis. You have to pick something, crush it, and be out of there before they knew what hit them... Just like the Old Tomb Kings...
...Tomb Heralds are only good for the BSB, which is probably the most cost effective thing in our entire list for what it does.

Wrong, Tomb Heralds artificially inflate the life-span of a king who is offensively armed. If you give your king the destroyer of eternities, and a cheap ward, you give the Tomb Herald in his unit the armor of silvered steel so you have a 2+ armor save against the wounds he's soaking. Or perhaps a ward-save.

Necrotects are far too squishy...if your opponent knows anything about TK, the Necrotect won't last one round in combat.

There are ways to protect against this.. that are amazingly easy to achieve. You're just not thinking about ways to protect the Necrotecht, your'e just whining because you're seeing a 2 wound t4 dude who's easy to kill. Also, it's not magic items that I'm talking about, it's tactics

Oh wow, 4 point Skeletons. With gear options that are so ridiculous, you can't help but laugh. You go ahead and put Light Armor and Spears on your Skeletons. I won't.

I will.

Taken just as they are, Skeletons are probably the best thing in our army book now. I find it hard to resist the urge to just run blocks of 100 for points denial strategies. Skeleton archers are beast too...always hitting on 5's is good stuff, and the difference between Skeleton warriors and archers in combat is so slight, they can be used as an anvil unit with no problem.

Unarmored archer skeleton units as an anvil? What? If I use them as an Anvil, The next turn when the hammerl comes in, my opponent will focus on my "anvil" and even if I do a good handful of wounds to the offending unit, he's gonna swing the combat in his favor, by a lot. This is a bad statement. One of the universal truths of the skeletons has always been "when given the choice to commit, never commit a hammer to an anvil that is getting shredded. You'll lose 2 units instead of just 1.

Skeleton horseman are still a joke, and that's all I really have to say about them.

And there goes your credibility. They weren't a joke in 6th/7th, and they are far from a joke today.

The chariots in the new TK book are exactly what I think they should be. If they charge, they're awesome. If they get charged, they suck. Overall, a pretty competitive unit when used right.

Nothing to add, other than when given the choice, figure out a way to charge a flank and not the front.


Ushabti are ridiculous. Why the nerf? Did anyone really see Ushabti dominating any tables in the previous edition?

Yes, actually, properly used, Ushabti were game-winners.. They had this knack for destroying your opponents Heavy Cav, and other ogre units, because they always struck before every other ogre in the game, except for a few chaos-y type ogres... because everyone felt if they were taking ogres, they needed to have Great Weapons. They were also really good at getting into the flank of a death-star type unit and hacking it apart.

I sure didn't.

that's too bad.

On the plus side, Ushabti can take FC now...so there's hope for them. Nobody is going to spend their special points of scarab swarms.
Probably the worst unit in the book now, since it's so weak, AND has to deal with EBTS.

war... machine... hunters... They are the second best option we have (right behind our crappy light/heavy cav.)

I really wish the rumours of these having an option of upgrading them to a flying unit were true...they might have been so good. So many missed opportunities...Carrion are broke as crap now. They nerf everything in the book, and buff this one unit, and probably for the sole reason that Carrion models weren't making enough sales (GW really does think like that), and now they're flying ogres with three attacks.
Seriously, you can spam these and be in for some big surprises.

What? So you're suggesting super effective lists might include a sort of Tomb-Kings-Royal-Pegasus-Cavalry-But-With-Carrion type philosophy? Now I've seen it all...

So, let's review, shall we?


So, what do we have here? Out of all the new units released for TK, only Necro Knights are Warsphinxes are really worth a damn. The COMPETITIVE TK armies that have been around since last edition are probably going to stay the exact same, maybe adding in one unit or two in the form of a Necro Knight squad or a Warsphinx if they're risk takers. This is going to break down into one inevitable end...

Negatory. Competitive armies from last edition don't stand a lick of a chance in 8th. I know, because I refused to upgrade my army until my new book came out.


Options? You're joking right?

Nope, no joke. We have the option to do an all mounted army. A heavy construct/elite army, a footslogging horde army, a footslogging elite army, or a castled army, magic heavy, effectively.

UberhAxTHC wrote: Cropped Out
How was this new army book an improvement again?

? Never said it was an improvement?

Wow what a HUGE POST OF WHINING. If that $40 was THAT much of a waste trade it with someone or put it up on ebay.

As a old tomb kings player I can say I am extremely pleased with the new army book. The pictures are great, the story is solid, the rules are good. They got great model support right off the bat, and the rules to support them make them worth taking. I'm having a great time with mine.

You just said Khalida was good, you said Skeletal Cavalry was good, you actually went so far as to say spears on Skeleton warriors are good...and you're saying I've lost MY credibility?

Yeah....ok. o.0

Also, how about instead of saying WRONG, you say, IMO, because thats what it is. Your opinion. I'm not wrong about anything.

How about you guys try, just once, NOT to flame others for their opinions? Just wow...

UberhAxTHC wrote:
Everything with EBTS - The rule is garbage, and therefore, any unit with it are garbage. I know it seems rather black and white, but when it comes down to it, it's the truth. In a competitive enviroment, this rule sucks. Period.

My friend who destroyed 3 Hellcannons in an 'Ard Boyz using Sepulchral Stalkers would like to denounce the absurdity of this statement. EBTS is situational-but it does have its uses. If you can't find any use for it, you're doing it wrong.

Couldn't help myself. I like this guy too:

Hargus56 wrote:Couldn't help myself. I like this guy too:

If only we had W back now instead of that Kenyan impostor! But I digress.

Ragnar4 wrote:stuff he said

+1 I agree with alot of this and the rest gave me stuff to ponder.

(must resist urge to buy more TK, dark eldar must be finished)

Ragnar4 wrote:
*Tomb Swarms [sic: scarab swarms (fantasy Necrons!)]* snip
war... machine... hunters... They are the second best option we have (right behind our crappy light/heavy cav.)

EBS. Can't rely on them showing up. Can't charge when they do. Squishy.

But you may be right. They may be the second best option we have. Which says all you need to say about the new book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:

UberhAxTHC wrote:
Everything with EBTS - The rule is garbage, and therefore, any unit with it are garbage. I know it seems rather black and white, but when it comes down to it, it's the truth. In a competitive enviroment, this rule sucks. Period.

My friend who destroyed 3 Hellcannons in an 'Ard Boyz using Sepulchral Stalkers would like to denounce the absurdity of this statement. EBTS is situational-but it does have its uses. If you can't find any use for it, you're doing it wrong.

EBS units do have some use, but they are very situational. The issue isn't whether EBS is completely useless, but whether it's an improvement over ICFB.

IMO it is not, for reasons stated by myself and others. Furthermore, consider: in a six-turn game, you get nothing out of an EBS unit on turn one. It may not turn up at all, in which case you've wasted the point value. If it comes in on turn six, you might as well not have it come in at all because it can't charge. If it comes in on turns four, three or two, you get two, three or four turns' worth of use, if you manage to survive being charged by whatever enemy unit(s) you place the EBS unit near. The only good thing about EBS compared to ICFB is mishap 3-4, which doesn't prevent the unit from entering on a later turn.

So again, IMO the EBS rule is a net negative.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:
*Tomb Swarms [sic: scarab swarms (fantasy Necrons!)]* snip
war... machine... hunters... They are the second best option we have (right behind our crappy light/heavy cav.)

EBS. Can't rely on them showing up. Can't charge when they do. Squishy.

But you may be right. They may be the second best option we have. Which says all you need to say about the new book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:

UberhAxTHC wrote:
Everything with EBTS - The rule is garbage, and therefore, any unit with it are garbage. I know it seems rather black and white, but when it comes down to it, it's the truth. In a competitive enviroment, this rule sucks. Period.

My friend who destroyed 3 Hellcannons in an 'Ard Boyz using Sepulchral Stalkers would like to denounce the absurdity of this statement. EBTS is situational-but it does have its uses. If you can't find any use for it, you're doing it wrong.

EBS units do have some use, but they are very situational. The issue isn't whether EBS is completely useless, but whether it's an improvement over ICFB.

IMO it is not, for reasons stated by myself and others. Furthermore, consider: in a six-turn game, you get nothing out of an EBS unit on turn one. It may not turn up at all, in which case you've wasted the point value. If it comes in on turn six, you might as well not have it come in at all because it can't charge. If it comes in on turns four, three or two, you get two, three or four turns' worth of use, if you manage to survive being charged by whatever enemy unit(s) you place the EBS unit near. The only good thing about EBS compared to ICFB is mishap 3-4, which doesn't prevent the unit from entering on a later turn.

So again, IMO the EBS rule is a net negative.

According to UberhAxTHC, the issue is that EBS is completely useless. I'm arguing that it isn't completely useless. The unit I mentioned costs 165pts and took out 615pts with ease in a single game. Will it do that every time? No. No unit is 100% effective every game. And no unit SHOULD be like that. That's why level 6 spells exist-to kill off death star units which are like this. This unit has its uses, and I was merely stating that there are uses. Saying it's a black and white rule is ignorant and foolish. 8th edition armies don't have 'point and click' options anymore (other than level 6 spells). It's a pull in the right direction. I hope Ogre Kingdoms come out very similarly to O&G and TK. In fact, I happen to LOVE the 8th ed O&G book. I think it's more flavorful and better-balanced than before. I quit playing O&G in 7th, and rebought my entire army in 8th because I think the book is 100x better. I am also used to the 6th ed TK and I feel the 8th is a much better book-it is more polished and well rounded. But, I'm done arguing in this thread-having gotten my first warning and having everyone disagree with me is getting old. I guess my group is just a different type of gamer-we play a different way and we figured out how awesome the book is (and it's winning every game [except one] that it plays). Maybe someday you guys will too. Hope it's soon, so you can enjoy the book.

Since when was random arrival not a problem with ICFB? Sure, you could charge on the same turn, but you still might waste your points if you roll a "Buried in the Sands" result or something. Just because ICFB had some advantages over EBTS doesn't make EBTS useless. Blanket statements like "it's 100% wrong and everything sucks" is an OPINION. Keep that in mind. There are people out there who have great success with it. It's not perfect, but jumping to conclusions based on personal bias isn't really that useful.

TK did, IMHO, deserve a simple d6 wounds spell, but it's still not too bad. Sure, their magic was unique, but their spells were kinda sub-par really. Extra Attacks, Movement and Heals were really the only spells worth casting...

IMHO the Warsphinx, Necrosphinx and Sepruchal Stalkers are great units, and I've never seen TK players get bad performance out of them.

Uber, unless you show me facts<--- (and this is key here. I don't want "But look at it on paper! No one takes this!" when it's clear to many people that this option is well taken, such as Necrotects ) that show that TK are 80% uncompetitive, then come back to me. The new TK book is hardly garbage, and I don't need to be a GW fanboy to know that.

And why can't Arkhan the Black be in there? He was around with Nagash in the main storyline of Nehekhara... I really doubt that anyone else finds him out of place there.

UberhAxTHC wrote:You just said Khalida was good, you said Skeletal Cavalry was good, you actually went so far as to say spears on Skeleton warriors are good...and you're saying I've lost MY credibility?

Yeah....ok. o.0

Also, how about instead of saying WRONG, you say, IMO, because thats what it is. Your opinion. I'm not wrong about anything.

How about you guys try, just once, NOT to flame others for their opinions? Just wow...

1) Stop putting words in my mouth.
A) You declared: "Khalida is not cost effective in any way." I said because Khalida has a clear point in which she increases a skeletons efficiency (100% efficiency increase) that spending the same number of points on skeleton archers as khalida = 0 sum efficiency. Furthermore every point you spend on skeleton archers after that is at a 2-1 bonus. I didn't say she was good, I there's a metric that defines her efficiency. But I'll come out and say it. She's good. There. Are you happy?
B) Yep, Skeleton Cavalry WAS good. In 6th ed a unit of 16 (4x4) with full command and the war-banner in the flank of just about anything was a win for the skeleton cavalry. Since most opponents didn't care about your skeleton cav (because really, the stats are laughable) When you put your heavycav unit in the on the faaaar flank, facing the center, they usually didn't freak out about it. Then suddenly the only stat that mattered in 6th and 7th ed (M value) your cav had a 24 inch effective range. 3 ranks, standard, outnumber, flank, and war-banner? This unit clocks in at just a shade over 300 points... it roffelstomped stuff worth 5-600 routinely. Even heads up against 1 attack units this unit would run my opponent off with continual efficiency. If your brutal killing power can't run them off, the fact that you cause fear and out-number is a godsend. So yes. Cavalry were good in 6th and 7th (they got nerfed in 7th because they had to run 5x3, but it was pretty much a wash) So what's this about my credibility? Light Cavarly was great too, as long as you understood how, and when to sacrifice them.
C) Again, Words placed in my mouth. I didn't say that Spear Skellies were good, I just said that I would take them. As far as all of that shakes out. I'm pretty sure it's a wash against most armies. 6+ ward-save against attacks from the front is going to save 1 more skeleton per 6 wounds, 7 more attacks ought to get you one more wound against most things. (obviously there are exceptions, Chaos you want the save, goblins you want the wounds) Spear Skellies with the 6+ Regen are decidedly "worth it" since they usually get the best of both worlds.

I'm not going to say 'blah blah blah' it's my opinion, when you're blatantly wrong. I just can't do it. The vitriol you were spreading was wrong. If you can prove through some sort of argumentation that you aren't wrong, I'm all ears...

As to flaming. I was under the impression that "flaming" was the act of dismissing what someone had to say with an insult that is unrelated to the actual situation at hand, AKA an Ad Hoc Logical Fallacy: Ie: "Uberhaxthc you are wrong because your clownshoes you seem so keen on wearing are waaaay too tight."** At no point did I flame, or attack you personally, just because you're insulted by my response doesn't make it a flame.

I was just a jerk about the way I went about correcting the wrong-ness of your post, something I'll own with full openness and honestly.

**Note: I'm not actually trying to insult you here, this is just an example, I'm certain you have lovely feet sans clownshoes.

Cryonicleech wrote:
And why can't Arkhan the Black be in there? He was around with Nagash in the main storyline of Nehekhara... I really doubt that anyone else finds him out of place there.

This is like putting Morathi in the High Elves book. She was around Maleketh in the main storyline of Ulthuan, i doubt anyone would find her out of place there too.

Well, if Morathi came back, apologized profusely and swore fealty, again, the High Elves might take her back, if there weren't years, and years of blood feud to get past.

There's a story about how Tomb Kings are just really, really senile, and angry about their senility. Perhaps Settra's mind has forgotten about some of the most Heinous crimes committed against the Tomb Kings which has helped gloss over the far, far past.

Or perhaps when he does remember the crimes, he can't remember who, exactly amongst his ranks committed the crimes against him... Then he wonders why he's not wearing any pants...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:
*Tomb Swarms [sic: scarab swarms (fantasy Necrons!)]* snip
war... machine... hunters... They are the second best option we have (right behind our crappy light/heavy cav.)

EBS. Can't rely on them showing up. Can't charge when they do. Squishy.

But you may be right. They may be the second best option we have. Which says all you need to say about the new book.

Meh. We used to be able to depend on them, now we can't.

At very best, you're in your opponents war-machine line on turn 3, but a unit of 3-4 swarms against most war-machines, is usually going to be able to present enough gusto to roll up a war-machine line even after taking some wounds.

Apophas is also really good at dealing with war-machines. Regenerate makes him ignore 50% of the non-flaming cannon shots that *do* manage to hit him...

As to "The odds the unit never shows up"

Starting on turn 2:
Raw Rate of 66%
61% of the time he actually hits the table without just up and dying.
Turn 3.
The math gets a bit wonky here, you have to take the number of times he doesn't show up (33%) and then calculate for that 33%.
88% of the time he's shown up by turn 3
83% of the time he hits the table without just up and dying
Turn 4
95% of the time he's shown up by now
90% of the time he's shown up on the table and not died to a bad roll
Turn 5
98% of the time he's shown up
93% he's shown up without dying because you're unlucky
Turn 6
99% of the time, he's shown up
94% of the time he's not dead because of a roll of a misfire, and then a roll of a 1 or a 2
Turn 7
99% of the time he's shown up
94% of the time he's denying your opponent the points he would get if he died.

So yes, 1 out of 50 times in a 5 turn game,
and 1 out of 100 times in a 6 turn game, Your unit will fail to show up.

I guess that's just part of the price we pay for being able to show up in an opponents rear and put immediate pressure on his entire battle-line with one unit.

What I find alarming is that Khalida was considered effective... when thrown in a unit of 100 Skeletons.

Most TK players are not going to throw Khalida in a unit of 100 models. They're going to throw her in a unit of about 30-50 Archers. I do not remember the new Skellie Archer prices by heart... but the "double effectiveness" versus T3 5+ save there? At 360-ish points for Khalida, I'm... pretty positive the second archer unit will - at the same size - not cost 360-ish points. Furthermore, that's two units that must be tied up instead of one to deny shooting prowess, along with two units that must be torn apart instead of one (as in the one big unit case, each casualty is felt twice as hard).

Khalida and her bodyguard / bowmen only really show their cost when getting the Multi-Shoot bonus... but that is by no means a stable thing, and even with Multi-Shoot you once more return to only x2 potential if going for the bubble instead of just her unit.

Brotherjanus wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:
And why can't Arkhan the Black be in there? He was around with Nagash in the main storyline of Nehekhara... I really doubt that anyone else finds him out of place there.

This is like putting Morathi in the High Elves book. She was around Maleketh in the main storyline of Ulthuan, i doubt anyone would find her out of place there too.

That is... such a bad comparison. The difference here is that an army built with the Tomb Kings list lead by Arkhan the Black can represent the undead fighting AGAINST Nehekhara and Settra. Just because the general idea of the book is to make a list that represents the Khemrans (?) who fought against Nagash doesn't mean they couldn't represent the same army fighting against Settra. It's not like Nagash and Arkhan didn't use undead themselves, for christ's sake they created them (Well, Nagash, really.)

@ragnar4 , you forgot to factor in that all the time hes showing up late = times the warmachine are firing away carefree.

Which pretty much defeated the purpose of someone thats supposed to be warmachine hunting.

Your logic is almost like , the intention was the "eventual" elimination of the warmachine, which i agree you get the KP if he finally got to them .... bit too late though dont you agree?

LunaHound wrote:@ragnar4 , you forgot to factor in that all the time hes showing up late = times the warmachine are firing away carefree.

Which pretty much defeated the purpose of someone thats supposed to be warmachine hunting.

Your logic is almost like , the intention was the "eventual" elimination of the warmachine, which i agree you get the KP if he finally got to them .... bit too late though dont you agree?

It always felt like turn 3 was the sweet turn for dealing with war-machines unless I had carrion 40 inch charging war machines on turn 1. You honestly don't think that it's fair to have your opponent buy something and not get to use it at least once, or twice... do you?

You can either commit some form of redundancy to war-machine hunting... such as light cav, carrion, and 3 stalkers... That way if the stalkers are late to the party, the carrion can go after the war-machines, if the carrion get tied up, the light cav can go after the machine... Or "pure" redundancy, which is to say 2 units of 3 stalkers... or even 3 units of 3 stalkers.

You're sounding like there's some sort of "not going to do anything ot anyone" because they aren't here on turn 2 sort of logic.. which, believe me, sometimes a magical unit in the rear of my opponent is a good thing!

Big cry baby flagging my post.



Scorpions really have a tough time killing warmachines in time. 3 carrions do a GREAT job of warmachine hunting as they are basically 2 wound flying orges. Stalkers are where its at.

Stalkers offer something that the scorpions and carrion don't... the psychological effect of not knowing when or where they will deploy. I take 2 squads of 3 with tremendous success. 2 offers much more control then just one squad that could get set off course. The stalkers aren't a squad obliterating unit, BUT, they DO put more wounds then warmachines have on VERY easily. I have noticed that friends I have played game after game against are deploying in completely different ways then they used to, rarely to their advantage. Knowing the stalkers are going to come and get ya significantly changes the way you deploy. In REAL LIFE playing REAL GAMES I have found that stalkers are worth their weight in gold. They are not the knock out first punch of the fight, they are the FINISH HIM of the battle.

The Grundel wrote:Big cry baby flagging my post.



Scorpions really have a tough time killing warmachines in time. 3 carrions do a GREAT job of warmachine hunting as they are basically 2 wound flying orges. Stalkers are where its at.

Stalkers offer something that the scorpions and carrion don't... the psychological effect of not knowing when or where they will deploy. I take 2 squads of 3 with tremendous success. 2 offers much more control then just one squad that could get set off course. The stalkers aren't a squad obliterating unit, BUT, they DO put more wounds then warmachines have on VERY easily. I have noticed that friends I have played game after game against are deploying in completely different ways then they used to, rarely to their advantage. Knowing the stalkers are going to come and get ya significantly changes the way you deploy. In REAL LIFE playing REAL GAMES I have found that stalkers are worth their weight in gold. They are not the knock out first punch of the fight, they are the FINISH HIM of the battle.

So now, in place of an 85-point Tomb Scorpion that reliably showed up and could deal with war machines consistently, you need TWO units at 165 POINTS EACH to get the job done, and with less reliability. I.e., 330 points to do what 85 points could do, but less predictably. I fail to see how that's a net improvement. Stalkers have some utility, no doubt, but at what cost?

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

The Grundel wrote:Big cry baby flagging my post.



Scorpions really have a tough time killing warmachines in time. 3 carrions do a GREAT job of warmachine hunting as they are basically 2 wound flying orges. Stalkers are where its at.

Stalkers offer something that the scorpions and carrion don't... the psychological effect of not knowing when or where they will deploy. I take 2 squads of 3 with tremendous success. 2 offers much more control then just one squad that could get set off course. The stalkers aren't a squad obliterating unit, BUT, they DO put more wounds then warmachines have on VERY easily. I have noticed that friends I have played game after game against are deploying in completely different ways then they used to, rarely to their advantage. Knowing the stalkers are going to come and get ya significantly changes the way you deploy. In REAL LIFE playing REAL GAMES I have found that stalkers are worth their weight in gold. They are not the knock out first punch of the fight, they are the FINISH HIM of the battle.

So now, in place of an 85-point Tomb Scorpion that reliably showed up and could deal with war machines consistently, you need TWO units at 165 POINTS EACH to get the job done, and with less reliability. I.e., 330 points to do what 85 points could do, but less predictably. I fail to see how that's a net improvement. Stalkers have some utility, no doubt, but at what cost?

Your argument that the book has to be better than the last is myopic and fallacious.

It simply needs to be in-line with 8th.

Ragnar4 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

The Grundel wrote:Big cry baby flagging my post.



Scorpions really have a tough time killing warmachines in time. 3 carrions do a GREAT job of warmachine hunting as they are basically 2 wound flying orges. Stalkers are where its at.

Stalkers offer something that the scorpions and carrion don't... the psychological effect of not knowing when or where they will deploy. I take 2 squads of 3 with tremendous success. 2 offers much more control then just one squad that could get set off course. The stalkers aren't a squad obliterating unit, BUT, they DO put more wounds then warmachines have on VERY easily. I have noticed that friends I have played game after game against are deploying in completely different ways then they used to, rarely to their advantage. Knowing the stalkers are going to come and get ya significantly changes the way you deploy. In REAL LIFE playing REAL GAMES I have found that stalkers are worth their weight in gold. They are not the knock out first punch of the fight, they are the FINISH HIM of the battle.

So now, in place of an 85-point Tomb Scorpion that reliably showed up and could deal with war machines consistently, you need TWO units at 165 POINTS EACH to get the job done, and with less reliability. I.e., 330 points to do what 85 points could do, but less predictably. I fail to see how that's a net improvement. Stalkers have some utility, no doubt, but at what cost?

Your argument that the book has to be better than the last is myopic and fallacious.

It simply needs to be in-line with 8th.

No, my argument is in line with what most TK players had been hoping for, an IMPROVED army book. As far as I'm aware, there were NO TK players who went around saying, "Dang, I sure wish I had a new army book that's simply in line with 8th!"

Yes, a book SHOULD be better than the last version. Or at least, not worse. I remain of the opinion that the new TK book is worse than the previous version.