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.

With Forgeworld finally releasing rules for the Exalted Greater Daemons, www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/fw_warscrolls/AOS-Exalted-Daemons.pdf
What are your thoughts on them and what would a fair points cost be for each of them.

I think that they are exactly the same and just have more wounds, attacks and a better save. What do you think?
P.S. Auticus or Atilla can help you with the point cost as it would be a simple matter for them to adjust the wounds and save into their equations. You can scale their number appropriately depending on which system you're using (GHB for example).

GW has said they'll add Matched Play points soon. I'll refrain from my personal opinion on that and just say it's not a bad thing.

 CoreCommander wrote:
I think that they are exactly the same and just have more wounds, attacks and a better save. What do you think?
P.S. Auticus or Atilla can help you with the point cost as it would be a simple matter for them to adjust the wounds and save into their equations. You can scale their number appropriately depending on which system you're using (GHB for example).

I think Forge World should have put alittle more effort in making these special, but anyways...

...here are the initial point values for using them with the PPC:

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF TZEENTCH
510 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF KHORNE
500 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF NURGLE
400 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF SLAANESH
525 pts

Attilla wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
I think that they are exactly the same and just have more wounds, attacks and a better save. What do you think?
P.S. Auticus or Atilla can help you with the point cost as it would be a simple matter for them to adjust the wounds and save into their equations. You can scale their number appropriately depending on which system you're using (GHB for example).

I think Forge World should have put alittle more effort in making these special, but anyways...

...here are the initial point values for using them with the PPC:

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF TZEENTCH
510 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF KHORNE
500 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF NURGLE
400 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF SLAANESH
525 pts

Lets hope they don't use those points for GHB since it would make them instantly unviable options. For example you are increasing the costs of the Nurgle Daemon by 160 points for an extra 5 wounds, +1 save and +1 attack? It may be an option at 320 (at the current GHB monster overcosted values) and likely at 300 in future versions. The points increase should not be more than 80 points.

broxus wrote:


Lets hope they don't use those points for GHB since it would make them instantly unviable options. For example you are increasing the costs of the Nurgle Daemon by 160 points for an extra 5 wounds, +1 save and +1 attack? It may be an option at 320 (at the current GHB monster overcosted values) and likely at 300 in future versions. The points increase should not be more than 80 points.

Attilla wrote:
,,,

...here are the initial point values for using them with the PPC[b]:

,,,

Project Point Cost is a separate and, as I've heard (and I'm very inclined to believe taking into account that it is older and probably had more effort put into it, akin to the Azyr comp), better balanced point system than the one in GHB. I suggest you have a look at it. Also, I've also heard that monsters are significantly undercosted in the GHB so a bigger point increase than you expect might actually be in order.

I'm rather sad that they released rules for all of these but not the Exalted Verminlord. Technically still an exalted greater demon, but it still has no Age of Sigmar rules. It's out of production now, but that's still hardly an excuse to not update the rules of models.

broxus wrote:

Attilla wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
I think that they are exactly the same and just have more wounds, attacks and a better save. What do you think?
P.S. Auticus or Atilla can help you with the point cost as it would be a simple matter for them to adjust the wounds and save into their equations. You can scale their number appropriately depending on which system you're using (GHB for example).

I think Forge World should have put alittle more effort in making these special, but anyways...

...here are the initial point values for using them with the PPC:

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF TZEENTCH
510 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF KHORNE
500 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF NURGLE
400 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF SLAANESH
525 pts

Lets hope they don't use those points for GHB since it would make them instantly unviable options. For example you are increasing the costs of the Nurgle Daemon by 160 points for an extra 5 wounds, +1 save and +1 attack? It may be an option at 320 (at the current GHB monster overcosted values) and likely at 300 in future versions. The points increase should not be more than 80 points.

Umm... Monsters are generally undercosted in the GHB, sometimes massively so. The theory shows it and the tournament lists show it, so there's not much debate there.

I think the Exalted GUO is off (maybe a typo and it should be 500?) since as a long time Nurgle player I can say it's certainly better than that. As an FYI for non-ppc'ers the regular GUO clocks in at 330.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

broxus wrote:

Attilla wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
I think that they are exactly the same and just have more wounds, attacks and a better save. What do you think?
P.S. Auticus or Atilla can help you with the point cost as it would be a simple matter for them to adjust the wounds and save into their equations. You can scale their number appropriately depending on which system you're using (GHB for example).

I think Forge World should have put alittle more effort in making these special, but anyways...

...here are the initial point values for using them with the PPC:

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF TZEENTCH
510 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF KHORNE
500 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF NURGLE
400 pts

EXALTED GREATER DAEMON OF SLAANESH
525 pts

Lets hope they don't use those points for GHB since it would make them instantly unviable options. For example you are increasing the costs of the Nurgle Daemon by 160 points for an extra 5 wounds, +1 save and +1 attack? It may be an option at 320 (at the current GHB monster overcosted values) and likely at 300 in future versions. The points increase should not be more than 80 points.

Umm... Monsters are generally undercosted in the GHB, sometimes massively so. The theory shows it and the tournament lists show it, so there's not much debate there.

I think the Exalted GUO is off (maybe a typo and it should be 500?) since as a long time Nurgle player I can say it's certainly better than that. As an FYI for non-ppc'ers the regular GUO clocks in at 330.

Well I can't say I have play tested the PPC points and how they work in relation to one another. So if the GUO cost 330 in the PPC system it may be fair. However, if the GUO cost lets say 330 in GHB then it would be pointless to even play it. In the past I tried Azyr and it was not to my liking as it punished large models. From an initial review of the PPC it seems to heavily favor some types of armies and be punitive towards others, so it really isn't the point system for me. Some like lots of little troops; others like a mix between big monster and small models; others like only big monster models. I prefer the middle balance so those are the systems I lean towards using such as SCGT. It all depends on what players like i guess.

Now if we are discussing GHB points some of the units are way to expensive for many monsters. I am not saying that some may be undercosted, but as a general rule they are not worth the points. At 400 points (which you say should be 500) the Exalted GUO would never even close be worth its points in GHB. Why would I take him when I could 10 Blightkings for 40points less?? They can do far more damage and have 32 wounds.

I let Azyr off to pasture as soon as GHB was announced because it was pretty much dumped by the community that was using it as soon as official points were released, and I didn't have time to update something no one wanted to use.

However, as the PPC guys have said, and I will back up with my own formula showing me what their formulas show them, the monsters in the GHB / Clash Comp packet are cheaper than they should be. The author of clash (i think he was anyway) mentioned on warhammer.org.uk that that was intentional (this was before Clash Comp became the GHB official points) because they wanted to see more monsters on the table or something to that effect. Thats not a direct quote, it has been over a year, but that was my takeaway from his comments.

That being said, these stats by Forge World are basically copy/pasted versions of the normal versions with some added wounds and attacks.

The amount that the monsters are undercosted generally sit around 25% on average. However, as I learned from my time running Azyr and having people write about their thoughts, people don't really like things that are worth what they should be. They will always be skeptical about anyone other than GW doing the points as injecting personal bias, even if you show them the mathematical model directly. (and azyr's model was written by a doctorate statistician (no not me, a longtime friend of mine... i use the model in another game I am writing for PC) the biggest challenge was accounting for non numeric values that exist...all of the skills and abiliites that didn't do direct math)

Azyr hamstringing monster-heavy armies was in the comp rules where you could only take X number of monsters, which I altered later to allow an open format that didn't have type restrictions (too little too late). Points-wise I will stand behind the point values, they were not tainted or heavy at all, they were reflective of the monster's ability as if the monster were X number of dudes). The current GHB / Clash Comp is the opposite of Azyr in that regards in that it IMO heavily favors monster heavy armies and specialist low model count armies - I say that both from writing a data model comparison (http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx) but from also watching my own meta and watching tournament results leak in on fb pages and seeing the army compositions that seem to heavily favor those styles of armies. The 2017 tournament season will be definitely telling since there wern't a lot of big name tournaments for AOS last year that can be used for pattern-matching.

I have seen enough PPC points to know that they came up with a pretty spot-on formula as well and the Azyr cost for Greater Demons was close to the PPC version (adjusted since Azyr used a simpler point structure where you had 20 point rosters total) and I think that the greater versions are fairly accurate.

broxus wrote:
Well I can't say I have play tested the PPC points and how they work in relation to one another. So if the GUO cost 330 in the PPC system it may be fair. However, if the GUO cost lets say 330 in GHB then it would be pointless to even play it.

PPC points are scaled the same as the GHB, which is to say that they can be played against one another. Which I do, all the time. I even use the GUO specifically (at 330 points) when I am playing against GHB armies, and never have had trouble getting my points worth out of him. If a person's gaming style favors monsters being able to crush troops with only minor support then the GHB values work great, but for my group we want big blocks of infantry, monstrous infantry, etc, to all be on par for one another relative to points spent.

Why would I take him when I could 10 Blightkings for 40points less?? They can do far more damage and have 32 wounds.

10 blightkings would do an average of 4.81 wounds to the exalted great unclean one (and take 1.1 average mortal wounds in doing so). An exalted great unclean one would deal an average of 5.18 wounds to blightkings. The great unclean one also casts magic, heals every turn, and has a shooting attack. So yeah, at 400 points I would go with the exalted great unclean one every time unless I needed the blightkings for a specific role.

 auticus wrote:
Azyr hamstringing monster-heavy armies was in the comp rules where you could only take X number of monsters, which I altered later to allow an open format that didn't have type restrictions (too little too late). Points-wise I will stand behind the point values, they were not tainted or heavy at all, they were reflective of the monster's ability as if the monster were X number of dudes). The current GHB / Clash Comp is the opposite of Azyr in that regards in that it IMO heavily favors monster heavy armies and specialist low model count armies - I say that both from writing a data model comparison (http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx) but from also watching my own meta and watching tournament results leak in on fb pages and seeing the army compositions that seem to heavily favor those styles of armies. The 2017 tournament season will be definitely telling since there wern't a lot of big name tournaments for AOS last year that can be used for pattern-matching.

Agreed. While I did not personally use Azyr (I preferred PPC's granularity) from a balance perspective it was very good.

@NinthMusketeer I am not sure how you did your math to get your numbers. If you compare units you need to make sure that you compare each unit to the same thing to really show diffrences.

I did my math having both Nurgle units attack a unit with an armor save of 4+ since it is such a common save in the game.
I did my Nurgle saves vs a unit with no rend, requiring a 4+ to hit and a 4+ to wound. I didn't take into account self healing that the Blightkings or GUO can do.

The Blightkings = 12 damage a turn and 256 attacks to kill them

The Exalted GUO= 4.8 damage a turn and requires 214 attacks to kill him (note this includes ranged attack)

As you can see the Blightkings outclass the exalted in every category and do approximately 250% more damage and is 20% more survivable at only 360points (10% less).

I think also the problem with PPC and other high cost monster systems are they do not account for the fact that monsters reduce in damage output when the become wounded. This really skews the numbers. I would agree they should cost massive amounts more if they didn't reduced damage when they took wounds. Also, I don't even want to show you the math for the original GUO if you are paying 330 points for him. He is not doing even close to enough to be viable mathematically for that cost.

Please note for comparison purposes I think even the Blightkings are to expensive in the GHB and the costs would be even worse if I used several Stormcast units. As I said everyone is entitled to like different systems.

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer I am not sure how you did your math to get your numbers. If you compare units you need to make sure that you compare each unit to the same thing to really show diffrences.

I did my math having both Nurgle units attack a unit with an armor save of 4+ since it is such a common save in the game.
I did my Nurgle saves vs a unit with no rend, requiring a 4+ to hit and a 4+ to wound. I didn't take into account self healing that the Blightkings or GUO can do.

The Blightkings = 12 damage a turn and 256 attacks to kill them

The Exalted GUO= 4.8 damage a turn and requires 214 attacks to kill him (note this includes ranged attack)

As you can see the Blightkings outclass the exalted in every category and do approximately 250% more damage and is 20% more survivable at only 360points (10% less).
.

The fact that you aren't counting the healing abilities is going to skew things heavily toward the blightkings. Blightkings have a 1 in 6 chance to heal d3 wounds, but that only matters if you have a model that has wounds on it, and even then you will only heal 1 or 2 wounds (as a model with 3 wounds on it would be dead). GUO heals d3 automatically and will always benefit as long as it has taken any damage at all. The Blightkings healing has a tiny fraction of the effectiveness of GUO healing.

The GUO also gets a save against mortal wounds and does not suffer battleshock. GUO defense will scale better against rendy attacks because it will always get that 5+ save.

On offense the Blightkings are definitely better, but there will be situations where you can't get all of your models into range in which case the difference will be less. Also, you aren't accounting for the fact that a GUO may have a command trait and an artefact. The Blightkings' offense will drop off more quickly as models die off. For example, when the Blightkings have taken half damage they will have lost half of their offense while the GUO will have only lost -1 to wound with one weapon and one fewer attack with another.

Last but not least, consider that Putrid Blightkings are generally considered to be among the better infantry units while GUO is decidedly medium in the grand scheme of monsters.

swarmofseals wrote:

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer I am not sure how you did your math to get your numbers. If you compare units you need to make sure that you compare each unit to the same thing to really show diffrences.

I did my math having both Nurgle units attack a unit with an armor save of 4+ since it is such a common save in the game.
I did my Nurgle saves vs a unit with no rend, requiring a 4+ to hit and a 4+ to wound. I didn't take into account self healing that the Blightkings or GUO can do.

The Blightkings = 12 damage a turn and 256 attacks to kill them

The Exalted GUO= 4.8 damage a turn and requires 214 attacks to kill him (note this includes ranged attack)

As you can see the Blightkings outclass the exalted in every category and do approximately 250% more damage and is 20% more survivable at only 360points (10% less).
.

The fact that you aren't counting the healing abilities is going to skew things heavily toward the blightkings. Blightkings have a 1 in 6 chance to heal d3 wounds, but that only matters if you have a model that has wounds on it, and even then you will only heal 1 or 2 wounds (as a model with 3 wounds on it would be dead). GUO heals d3 automatically and will always benefit as long as it has taken any damage at all. The Blightkings healing has a tiny fraction of the effectiveness of GUO healing.

The GUO also gets a save against mortal wounds and does not suffer battleshock. GUO defense will scale better against rendy attacks because it will always get that 5+ save.

On offense the Blightkings are definitely better, but there will be situations where you can't get all of your models into range in which case the difference will be less. Also, you aren't accounting for the fact that a GUO may have a command trait and an artefact. The Blightkings' offense will drop off more quickly as models die off. For example, when the Blightkings have taken half damage they will have lost half of their offense while the GUO will have only lost -1 to wound with one weapon and one fewer attack with another.

Last but not least, consider that Putrid Blightkings are generally considered to be among the better infantry units while GUO is decidedly medium in the grand scheme of monsters.

I showed the math and it makes no sense for some of the proposed points if you are looking for point equity. Some of the proposals were for 40-140 more points than the 10 Blightkings. I showed that 10 Blightkings would be offensive, defensive and cheaper. If you want less "big" guys on the battlefield then these proposed points are fine, but in a balanced system they are not.

I didn't add the heal ability because it may or may not happen depending on how fast the Exalted GUO is killed. The same goes for Blightkings which can also inflict/heal D3 wounds on multiple units simultaneously. Both are situational abilites so it is hard to point them exactly they are roughly equal when you run 2 units of 5 Blightkings that double your odds of rolling a 6. In addition. Just like the Blightkings lose attacks when models die, the Exalted GUO drops off even faster in damage in comparison.

I also understand the mortal wounds the Exalted GUO actually gets a save which is very nice. The point being it is silly to point the exalted GUO 40-points more than 10 Blightkings (2 units of 5) which does far more damage and is almost as resilient. Not to mention you can be at more than one location and have double the chance for their discharge. Also, most missions require # of models near the objective which again gives the Blightkings an advantage.

The Blightkings, GUO and all other infantry should be equitable in their points value computations depending on how good they are. If you are using the GHB Blightking points of 180-points for a unit of 5. The Exalted GUO should likely be 320-340 to be an equitable and viable option. Otherwise it would never make sense to take him other than the fact he looks cool. So you would just suffer the cool model tax in your army.

Well you can believe your math and we'll believe ours. I'll also trust my actual gameplay experience over either.

broxus wrote:
[

I showed the math and it makes no sense for some of the proposed points if you are looking for point equity. Some of the proposals were for 40-140 more points than the 10 Blightkings. I showed that 10 Blightkings would be offensive, defensive and cheaper. If you want less "big" guys on the battlefield then these proposed points are fine, but in a balanced system they are not.

I didn't add the heal ability because it may or may not happen depending on how fast the Exalted GUO is killed. The same goes for Blightkings which can also inflict/heal D3 wounds on multiple units simultaneously. Both are situational abilites so it is hard to point them exactly they are roughly equal when you run 2 units of 5 Blightkings that double your odds of rolling a 6. In addition. Just like the Blightkings lose attacks when models die, the Exalted GUO drops off even faster in damage in comparison.

I also understand the mortal wounds the Exalted GUO actually gets a save which is very nice. The point being it is silly to point the exalted GUO 40-points more than 10 Blightkings (2 units of 5) which does far more damage and is almost as resilient. Not to mention you can be at more than one location and have double the chance for their discharge. Also, most missions require # of models near the objective which again gives the Blightkings an advantage.

The Blightkings, GUO and all other infantry should be equitable in their points value computations depending on how good they are. If you are using the GHB Blightking points of 180-points for a unit of 5. The Exalted GUO should likely be 320-340 to be an equitable and viable option. Otherwise it would never make sense to take him other than the fact he looks cool. So you would just suffer the cool model tax in your army.

Yes, the blightkings also have that ability to deal mortal wounds to units within 3", and the GUO has a shooting attack plus magic (plague wind is FAR more powerful than the blightking's mortal wounds ability) plus the ability to deal mortal wounds from its special save ability. I disagree with your logic to wholly discount the healing ability because either unit might get one shot in a single turn. That is certainly something that can happen, but it's also something that is not going to happen in a great many situations, and the healing ability on the GUO is *clearly* far superior.

You also claim that the GUO drops off with damage faster than the blightkings.

At 100% health GUO averages 4.44 rend -1 and 2.67 rend -2 damage.
At 75% health GUO averages 4.44 rend -1 and 1.5 rend -2 damage. (100%/56%)
At 50% health it's 3.56/1.33. (80%/50%)
At 25% health it's 2.67/.67. (60%/25%)

By comparison, at 25% damage the blightkings lose about 20% of their offence, at 50% damage they lose 50%, and at 75% damage they lose 70%.
Weighting the rend -2 vs. the rend -1 damage is a bit tricky, but I think it's fair to say that the GUO drops off a tiny bit faster at the start but then after the 75% mark the blightkings lose offensive power FAR faster than the GUO.

I also think your math was wrong. A 4+/4+/0/1 attack has a 5.55% chance of wounding the GUO. That's 18 attacks per wound caused. At 15 wounds, it would take 270 attacks to kill the GUO, not 214. Also, for "heroic" attacks (3+/3+/-2/2) it would take about 40 attacks to down the GUO and about the same to take down the blightkings.

On the offensive side, a full health GUO averages 5.18 wounds per turn against a 4+ save without considering the ranged attack at all. With the ranged attack it's 6.8, not 4.8.

And again, all of this is not even factoring in the fact that the GUO can take a command trait and an artefact which can *substantially* boost it's offense and/or defense.

Your points about the blightkings being able to be split into two units and contest objectives more effectively is well taken, but also consider that they have a wider contact area (and thus enemies can get more models into melee range more easily) and may have trouble getting all their models into range to get full offensive effectiveness against some targets. Also some objectives can only be contested by heroes, which the GUO can do but the blightkings can't.

This is a bit of an arbitrary example, but imagine incoming attacks manage to inflict 50 rend 0, damage 1 wounds. Ultimately, the GUO will take an average of just over 11 wounds from that (dealing 2.78 mortals back). The Blightkings take an average of just under 25 wounds from that, losing 8 models and likely losing the rest to battleshock.

Finally, the cherry on the sundae is that Blightkings actually cost 200 points per 5 models plus 15 points for the command models in PPC. The Exalted GUO costs 400 points. So your 10 BKs costs 400-430 points in that comp system.

Basically, all told I think you could make an argument for either the Exalted GUO or the Blightkings being better. The BKs have a higher offensive potential but they also lose their offense more quickly (for the most part) and will have a harder time getting their full offensive output. Meanwhile, the GUO has better supporting abilities and equal to significantly better defense (depending on the type of incoming attack). In most situations the BKs will be more effective on objectives, but there are some where the GUO will be more effective.

All in all I think you can make a coherent case for either side being superior, although once you factor in a command trait and an artefact I think the GUO is pretty clearly ahead.

Lo and behold, in PPC the points cost for the two is about equal and even a bit higher for the BKs. That hardly sounds like a system that unfairly penalizes monsters to me (at least in this specific comparison).

I don't really want to debate it anymore. I showed the math and can post my work if someone needs it. Everyone can play what points system they want. My entire point is that for the GHB the points should 300-320. I am not trying to state what it should be in PPC. I don't play PPC because of the reasons above. I see nothing wrong with those people who do prefer PPC and like games with different troop/monster ratios.

Thanks for all the replies.
I was asking for points cost for Age of Sigmar only, not homemade systems.
Looking at them again, I think they should all be between 350 - 400 points.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
I was asking for points cost for Age of Sigmar only, not homemade systems.
Looking at them again, I think they should all be between 350 - 400 points.

Are you looking for a fair value or a value in line with other GHB monsters? If the latter then I agree 350-400 appropriate given GHB costs for other monsters, but I think most of us were responding to the request for a fair measurement specifically. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

well technically the GHB system is also a homemade system. It was made by a tournament club and GW adopted it. Up until the GHB came out it was one of several systems that were being used.

 auticus wrote:
well technically the GHB system is also a homemade system. It was made by a tournament club and GW adopted it. Up until the GHB came out it was one of several systems that were being used.

Don't bring this up now.. I was just beginning to sink

Has anyone heard if the points have been released or are coming very soon?