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.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

alex87 wrote:
Are you suggesting spears should give a Parry save like a hand weapon as well as retaining their ability to fight in an extra rank? If so, no they shouldn't.

I said "as good as" not "have the same effect and have more as well".
Show me a unit that might actually want to upgrade to spears. I'll show you the one and only case: Saurus.

alex87 wrote:
There's no favouritism.

...really? Seriously?
Look at the Orcs & Goblins book. Look at the Tomb Kings book. Look at the Wood Elf book.
Now, look at the Dark Elf book.

The fact that the Dark Elves fared so well compared to books that came out before and after them is a pretty strong indicator that at least someone in the design team has the "I like these guys therefore they should be awesome!" goggles on. The fact that the last Dark Elf book was more of the same all but proves it.
Same thing with Vampire Counts.
And same thing, to a lesser extent, with Warriors of Chaos and High Elves.

When's the last time these armies were terrible? I mean, come on! Compare them to Ogre Kingdoms. Their book was in rough shape, back in 7th. They're doing pretty well, now! And then Daemons of Chaos are the opposite; the designers seemed to say, "well, we certainly don't want to make THAT mistake again!", and planned accordingly. And that's how it should be. Attempting to find balance and improve the game.

Since you asked, both High & Dark Elves especially were near to unplayable in 6th edition as their books were so lackluster.

So incredibly lacklustre. As a High Elf player 6th was an absolute nightmare for me amongst a playing group that comprised Chaos, Skaven, Bretonnia, VCs, 2 Empire and a Dark Elf. Dark Elves were poor but in a 1v1 vs a HE army they probably batted above their weight. Ever since that book we've been well looked after.

Overall, the only armies that have been consistently 'strong' across the various editions have been:
- Skaven
- Chaos Warriors and to a lesser extent, Daemons. (broken-good in 5th, horrible in 6th until the Storm of Chaos list, helped to completely break 7th, utterly dysfunctional in 8th)
- Bretonnians (no, seriously! These guys were filth in 5th, ended off very well in 6th, and in the right hands are still filth despite being 2 full editions out of date!)
- High Elves (they were to 5th edition what DoC were to 7th, they began the 'uber arms race of 7th, and they're a top dog in 8th... 6th was just a hiccup for the HE in all honesty.)

Everyone else has had major ups & downs across the various editions, or else have always been a simply 'average' army, such as O&G's... sure they get a lot of model-love, but they've never really had a super powered book or been accused of destroying the game in the way other armies have.

It's literally no joke. At the top end Bretonnia are still a force. Lack of options does mean they are a little 'samey'. I'd only consider High Elves as game breaking in a 1on1 against DoC. Against most everyone else they are well and truly upper-middle to lower-upper class. I'd still have Dark Elves and WoC as the true 'top-dogs'.

@alex87: Make no mistake, High Elves are definitely a top level book atm, they're simply more prone to being screwed over by Tournament scoring formats...
In strait-up win/loss scoring events, they do ridiculously well, and are definite contenders for taking 1st place.
Their downfall comes under those events which use the 20-0 scaled scoring system however, as while HE's are very good for winning games, they're not really a great army for outright steamrolling the enemy which that type of scoring encourages.

So it's really more so the tourney scene itself which has hamstrung the army, rather than the book itself being slightly below the typical 'winners' of WoC/DE's/DoC power build/etc...

To the OP:

Overall, I have really liked 8th edition. I play Skaven, High Elves, Bretonnia, and VC. I've never come across a situation that was insurmountable or found myself thinking "wow, there is no way I could ever win against -x- army".

The rules feel really quite solid compared to other games I have played, GW or otherwise. That being said, some do still seem as though they have room for improvement, and other issue's do need some addressing.

The test or die spells stay. As long as you have multiwound characters sporting rerollable 1+ armour saves and 4+ or better ward saves, this has to be the case. You cannot make breaking them in combat and running down the only option to deal with this. Multiple threats to everything keep a game level.

The principle behind the steadfast rule is solid. Weight of numbers should absolutely play a roll. However, there needs to be more of a way to negate it in a tactical sense, using the numbers currently used. Two ranks of infantry into the flank should deny rank bonus and steadfast if another facing is also in combat. Cavalry should be able to do the same with 1 rank of five models, provided the other facing has at least 2 ranks.

Cavalry in general need some love. Impact hits make sense, single imlact hits at the strength of the mount makes sense. Having each model count as two for the purposes of rank bonus also makes sense. Think about it, if you were fighting 1v1 on foot against a mounted opponent, would you feel like you each represented the same weight of force?

I enjoyed the magic phase when it was more individualized, less pooled. I think I'd like a return to that. An idea I've enjoyed is keeping the power dice on a wizard by wizard basis. Every wizard may roll a single D6, and add a number of dice equal to their wizard level, to determine how many dice that one wizard can cast with. Exactly the same for dispeling wizards, as it never seemed fair a level four could do all the dispeling against multiple wizards. It would make taking different levels beneficial again, as you dont have to be as stingy allocating dice.

Just my two cents I suppose.

as a dwarf player I have to say this.

without my cannons how do I deal with

monsters
nagash
characters on monsters
terror thingies
vamp lords
chaos chariots
giants
etc.

Slayers will get minced normally and cost a lot more points, dwarf lord cant really go toe to toe with a DP or Tooled up vamp lord, all that being said I take only 1 and 2 organ guns, and a stone thrower (sometimes), most games I have zero artillery (odd I know) and slowly march up the board with infantry backed by crossbows.

as to my most hated rule... don't really have one, ASF doesn't bother me as I usually strike last anyway, skaven get on my nerves a tad with all there sheaningans, but nothing really stands out as being particually awful.. well apart from test or die spells.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Since you asked, both High & Dark Elves especially were near to unplayable in 6th edition as their books were so lackluster...Vampires were gross in 7th yes, but very bland overall with little in the way of real unit choices.

Okay, fair enough. So they sucked, and are now too good. That is a much more forgivable mistake. But it's still a mistake.
When it comes to game mechanics, I don't care if an army is bland or not. Is it good? If the answer is yes, then that's all I need to hear.
Now, if we were talking about a book's overall versatility or the models of a given army, then yes. That should be as balanced as how competitive the army is. Absolutely. I'll agree with you, 100%.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Overall, the only armies that have been consistently 'strong' across the various editions have been:
- Skaven
- Chaos Warriors and to a lesser extent, Daemons. (broken-good in 5th, horrible in 6th until the Storm of Chaos list, helped to completely break 7th, utterly dysfunctional in 8th)
- Bretonnians (no, seriously! These guys were filth in 5th, ended off very well in 6th, and in the right hands are still filth despite being 2 full editions out of date!)
- High Elves (they were to 5th edition what DoC were to 7th, they began the 'uber arms race of 7th, and they're a top dog in 8th... 6th was just a hiccup for the HE in all honesty.)

I'd agree on all counts (especially Bretonnians; I don't know why people underestimate them) except Skaven. I watched them do nothing but struggle before their new book came out.

 Formosa wrote:
as a dwarf player I have to say this.

without my cannons how do I deal with

monsters
nagash
characters on monsters
terror thingies
vamp lords
chaos chariots
giants
etc.

To all of those besides Nagash? Hordes of S5-6 models, as well as crossbows, Drake Guns, Grudge Throwers, and Organ Guns. Dwarfs have tons of options to take on T5 and 6 beasties. These options will take more casualties than a pair of cannons, but they also won't fold to a unit of 5 Marauder Horsemen with flails.

Honestly, there have been plenty of times where my Abomination has been minced into tiny, pallid cubes of worm-augmented-with-rat-bits meat, all thanks to the humble Dwarf Warrior with a great weapon. Hitting on 3's and wounding on 4's isn't bad against 6 wounds, even with Regeneration (2.5 wounds in a turn, not including Hatred).

dwarf warriors are str3? so str5 GW, still fair point about all the shooting stuff, can someone math hammer how many crossbow shots it would take to kill a necrosphinx, abomb, etc.

drake guns are not bad but very easy to bypass, grudge throwers are again not bad, but not as reliable, organ guns is absolutely correct, its why I have 2.

so long story short is that nothing dwarfs have is as good at killing monsters as cannons, which to me is clearly intentional.

 Formosa wrote:
dwarf warriors are str3? so str5 GW, still fair point about all the shooting stuff, can someone math hammer how many crossbow shots it would take to kill a necrosphinx, abomb, etc.

drake guns are not bad but very easy to bypass, grudge throwers are again not bad, but not as reliable, organ guns is absolutely correct, its why I have 2.

so long story short is that nothing dwarfs have is as good at killing monsters as cannons, which to me is clearly intentional.

60+ models hitting on 4s kill a sphinx.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
dwarf warriors are str3? so str5 GW, still fair point about all the shooting stuff, can someone math hammer how many crossbow shots it would take to kill a necrosphinx, abomb, etc.

drake guns are not bad but very easy to bypass, grudge throwers are again not bad, but not as reliable, organ guns is absolutely correct, its why I have 2.

so long story short is that nothing dwarfs have is as good at killing monsters as cannons, which to me is clearly intentional.

60+ models hitting on 4s kill a sphinx.

In general the problem is getting those dwarves up close to a monster with far better movement.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
In general the problem is getting those dwarves up close to a monster with far better movement.

Or those models shooting the enemy from 30" away.

 Formosa wrote:
dwarf warriors are str3? so str5 GW, still fair point about all the shooting stuff, can someone math hammer how many crossbow shots it would take to kill a necrosphinx, abomb, etc.

15 Dwarf Warriors are carving 3.3 wounds of an Abomination.
20 Quarrelers strip 1.7 wounds off said A-bomb in one volley.
15 Irondrakes knock him down by 3.8. wounds.
15 Hammerers dish out 6 wounds.

 Formosa wrote:
drake guns are not bad but very easy to bypass, grudge throwers are again not bad, but not as reliable

Irondrakes are easier to avoid and harder to get rid of. And if you've got Quarrelers, a Grudge Thrower, an Organ Gun, Irondrakes, Hammerers, and other misc. Dwarf-y things...where, exactly, is that monster going to go?
And Grudge Throwers aren't as reliable. But they're harder to hide from, and can take on other units more effectively, too. And are cheaper.

 Formosa wrote:
so long story short is that nothing dwarfs have is as good at killing monsters as cannons, which to me is clearly intentional.

That's not a Dwarf-thing. That's a cannon-thing. Nothing is as good at killing monsters as cannons. Which is a problem.
The other options in a Dwarf army might not be as stupidly efficient (and they shouldn't be!), but they're not awful at it, either. I say: strip a few wounds off as it closes, let it take out a few ranks, and then drag it down to an axe-y doom.

Things I hate.


- Chaos Dwarves being allowed at tournaments.

That army was built out of scale with the rest of Warhammer. It does things in the magic phase that should never have passed muster, its monsters have 1-2 wounds too many and 1 pt of toughness too many. Pain Trains and Magma Cannons just highlight the sheer stupidity.

- Artillery Dice Rerolls

Taking the only small offchance a monster lives through a cannon, and nullifying it. Let Engineers add +1 to the misfire result or something.

- People saying Demons are no good.

They have a single bad matchup. RoC is NOT worse for them than the enemy, because they can mitigate results. Further, with Legions of Chaos, they get the top two of four dice and have had their chart reworded heavily in their favor.

Demons have won 4 of 8 tournaments this year that I've attended, including 100+ people cons like Rockwars and Slobberknocker, both of which were Grand Tournaments.

Two things.

1: Sniper cannons. A cannon should not be able to snipe a single character on a small base. Make the "line" scatter up to 1d3 to either side, could be one solution, then they can still hurt large monsters, but not snipe.

2: Tomb Kings can't march. Tomb Kings are way to slow, and can't compensate like VC can.

Or those models shooting the enemy from 30" away.

So basically you are expecting what will most likely be 6's to hit and 6's to wound (BS3, long range shooting, cover, 7+ if in hard cover) to ping it? Have you actually ever seen this happen before out of curiosity? If so, props to whoever done it.

Honestly my main issue is with Cannons being as accurate/strong as they are, I love monster units and having them auto counter such models makes it irritating, along with instant death spells.

 Thunderfrog wrote:


- People saying Demons are no good.

They have a single bad matchup. RoC is NOT worse for them than the enemy, because they can mitigate results. Further, with Legions of Chaos, they get the top two of four dice and have had their chart reworded heavily in their favor.

Demons have won 4 of 8 tournaments this year that I've attended, including 100+ people cons like Rockwars and Slobberknocker, both of which were Grand Tournaments.

1. If you only care about curbstomping opponents, then yes, DoC are very good because their 2-3 filthy lists are 'uber levels of filth.
If you care more about having fun and just playing the theme/models you like, DoC are utter trash because the power scale is so horribly borked... A player who loves Nurgle or Slaanesh can very easily end up ruining the game for opponents by complete accident because so many of those units/abilities are simply too good. On the other hand, Khorne & Tzeentch fans get the shaft, with many of their most iconic units being very lackluster. (ie: Bloodletters, Bloodcrushers, non-min/maxed Horrors & Flamers)

This is why so many Daemon players hate our book. It's far too many extremes and there's no real middle ground! (on top of the pants on head stupid bits such as the LoC being the outright worst wizard, yet best potential 'fighty' Greater Daemon. )

2. Reign of Comedy is worse because the bad rolls are not balanced in any way by the good rolls, on top of the rather head-scratching lack of Instrument re-rolls that seemingly got lost along the way.
Daemon players have 3 absolutely horrible results, that are then further compounded by effectively losing your magic phase due to lack of power dice It's a double negative that didn't need to happen. (and as a Tzeentch player, that's typically about half of my army's entire damage potential out the window, meaning I can suffer more damage than my opponent on my own freaking turn!) Losing half your save or being forced to take army-wide DI tests with no bonuses for the General's IP rule to boot, is crippling.
Opponents only have 2 results they're really worried about on the other hand, as the 'God storm' results overall tend to do very little, unless you're a Skaven player . (unlike in 40k where the Instrument re-rolls help to make the storm results more threatening, and also far less likely to zap the Daemon player!)


I'd have loved to see the Legions re-write, but unfortunately, the local store I called up and put a 'hold payment' on their 1 copy with, turned around and sold my book to someone else before I could make it down.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So basically you are expecting what will most likely be 6's to hit and 6's to wound (BS3, long range shooting, cover, 7+ if in hard cover) to ping it? Have you actually ever seen this happen before out of curiosity? If so, props to whoever done it.

I'm expecting a 5+ to hit at long range, and then a 4+ at close range and for a Stand and Shoot reaction, and then a 5-6+ to Wound.
Hard cover's a possibility and all, but that monster's got to come out sooner or later.
You don't need to kill it in one round. You just need to peg him once or twice, and then mince him up in combat.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:


- People saying Demons are no good.

They have a single bad matchup. RoC is NOT worse for them than the enemy, because they can mitigate results. Further, with Legions of Chaos, they get the top two of four dice and have had their chart reworded heavily in their favor.

Demons have won 4 of 8 tournaments this year that I've attended, including 100+ people cons like Rockwars and Slobberknocker, both of which were Grand Tournaments.

1. If you only care about curbstomping opponents, then yes, DoC are very good because their 2-3 filthy lists are 'uber levels of filth.
If you care more about having fun and just playing the theme/models you like, DoC are utter trash because the power scale is so horribly borked... A player who loves Nurgle or Slaanesh can very easily end up ruining the game for opponents by complete accident because so many of those units/abilities are simply too good. On the other hand, Khorne & Tzeentch fans get the shaft, with many of their most iconic units being very lackluster. (ie: Bloodletters, Bloodcrushers, non-min/maxed Horrors & Flamers)

This is why so many Daemon players hate our book. It's far too many extremes and there's no real middle ground! (on top of the pants on head stupid bits such as the LoC being the outright worst wizard, yet best potential 'fighty' Greater Daemon. )

2. Reign of Comedy is worse because the bad rolls are not balanced in any way by the good rolls, on top of the rather head-scratching lack of Instrument re-rolls that seemingly got lost along the way.
Daemon players have 3 absolutely horrible results, that are then further compounded by effectively losing your magic phase due to lack of power dice It's a double negative that didn't need to happen. (and as a Tzeentch player, that's typically about half of my army's entire damage potential out the window, meaning I can suffer more damage than my opponent on my own freaking turn!) Losing half your save or being forced to take army-wide DI tests with no bonuses for the General's IP rule to boot, is crippling.
Opponents only have 2 results they're really worried about on the other hand, as the 'God storm' results overall tend to do very little, unless you're a Skaven player . (unlike in 40k where the Instrument re-rolls help to make the storm results more threatening, and also far less likely to zap the Daemon player!)


I'd have loved to see the Legions re-write, but unfortunately, the local store I called up and put a 'hold payment' on their 1 copy with, turned around and sold my book to someone else before I could make it down.

Hrm. The new book makes Reign really powerful. Since your demons are "Unbreakable, Unstable", but do NOT have Demonic Instability, the Snake Eyes result doesnt hurt you at all, because only models with DI take the leadership tests.

Further, 7 is no longer eye closed, but an attack based on the god of your general that only affects enemy units. Thats a big one for Slaanesh, as his is really powerful.

There's a few other changes in there too.

In the old reign though, I don't feel like its any worse for the demon than the other guy. Reign is a quirk to your magic phase, but not an asset your power is based on. I think the odds of losing my wizard in small games with no BSB or a seperated secondary caster is peanuts to you having a 6+ ward for a turn, or losing some of your guys in blocks. But you and I have gone round and round on this one in the past.

 Thunderfrog wrote:


Hrm. The new book makes Reign really powerful. Since your demons are "Unbreakable, Unstable", but do NOT have Demonic Instability, the Snake Eyes result doesnt hurt you at all, because only models with DI take the leadership tests.

Further, 7 is no longer eye closed, but an attack based on the god of your general that only affects enemy units. Thats a big one for Slaanesh, as his is really powerful.

There's a few other changes in there too.

In the old reign though, I don't feel like its any worse for the demon than the other guy. Reign is a quirk to your magic phase, but not an asset your power is based on. I think the odds of losing my wizard in small games with no BSB or a seperated secondary caster is peanuts to you having a 6+ ward for a turn, or losing some of your guys in blocks. But you and I have gone round and round on this one in the past.

Honestyly I'd rather have daemonic instability than unstable. Unstable says I lose by 5 I lose 5 wounds. DI says I lose by 5 but steadfast, IP & BSB says I'm rerolling my Ld test on a 9 or 10, more often than not I'll pass & take 0.

 Thunderfrog wrote:


Hrm. The new book makes Reign really powerful. Since your demons are "Unbreakable, Unstable", but do NOT have Demonic Instability, the Snake Eyes result doesnt hurt you at all, because only models with DI take the leadership tests.

Further, 7 is no longer eye closed, but an attack based on the god of your general that only affects enemy units. Thats a big one for Slaanesh, as his is really powerful.

There's a few other changes in there too.

Trading DI for Unstable is both a positive and a negative at the same time...

If you lose a combat by only a point or two, Unstable is generally leagues better than DI as there's 0 risk of the entire unit going pop. Solo Beasts may not like it, but that unit in general is pants on head stupid-good anyways so some nerfing there is a good thing!

If you lose combat however by larger margin, Unstable is horrible for Daemons since we're not priced nice and cheap like Undead are. Generally you don't fret much if that Skellie or Zombie unit suffers 12-15+ casualties, because you still likely have a handful left and the ability to mass raise a bunch back.
Losing 12-15 Daemons on the other hand is almost certainly watching what was left of your unit simply vanish - something that doesn't happen nearly as easily under DI.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
In the old reign though, I don't feel like its any worse for the demon than the other guy. Reign is a quirk to your magic phase, but not an asset your power is based on. I think the odds of losing my wizard in small games with no BSB or a seperated secondary caster is peanuts to you having a 6+ ward for a turn, or losing some of your guys in blocks. But you and I have gone round and round on this one in the past.

For a Tzeentch army, Reign of Comedy is game-killing...

In general, those low rolls can win the opponent the game if they're clever. With the proliferation of Elves, alongside Empire & Dwarfs tending naturally towards lots of shooting, getting hit with -1 save for a turn can easily mean your chaff is toast and thus give board control to your opponent. (especially against any kind of typical elf army!)
Or else it can (and does) swing a crucial combat entirely to your opponent's favour as their damage output will now essentially double. What *should* have been a solid victory can now likely turn into a stalemate, or even a loss.

The army-wide DI tests early game are effectively handing your opponent an easy win as long as they're competent, since it typically destroys most of your valuable chaff units. (Furies, the mainstay chaff unit pretty much auto-explode due to Ld2 for example, while Seekers, Screamers and solo Beasts can suffer those 1-3 critical wounds that leave them open to a finishing volley of arrows/MM.)
Or else, imagine for a moment watching as your 500+ point Greater Daemon suddenly pops for no reason at all... most often though, the double 1's result can strip a wound or two from him, leaving him extremely vulnerable to being focus-fired by an opponent.

Then there's the game where almost half you entire army goes boom turn 2 because of that stupid chart.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Trading DI for Unstable is both a positive and a negative at the same time...

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Honestyly I'd rather have daemonic instability than unstable.

Good thing the point you're both trying to counter is that the Reign of Chaos isn't as bad as it once was, due to a shift in rules, and not a comment on whether or not those rules in them selves are bad.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Or else it can (and does) swing a crucial combat entirely to your opponent's favour as their damage output will now essentially double.

No. It will not essentially double. The number of wounds that go unsaved will increase by 16%. Bad? Yes. Double the damage output? Not even close. 100 attacks means 50 wounds means 33.3 unsaved wounds or--gasp!--41.7 unsaved wounds, with the reduced Ward save.
I'll agree heartily that it's dumb. One of the dumbest things in the game (mostly because it's so complicated and takes forever). But c'mon.

TK being unable to march and being forced to augment it with with magic. The new endtimes undead book basically makes TK a much better army, but before then, it really upset me that VC didn't have to deal with that to an extent while TK did.

Warpsolution wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Trading DI for Unstable is both a positive and a negative at the same time...

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Honestyly I'd rather have daemonic instability than unstable.

Good thing the point you're both trying to counter is that the Reign of Chaos isn't as bad as it once was, due to a shift in rules, and not a comment on whether or not those rules in them selves are bad.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Or else it can (and does) swing a crucial combat entirely to your opponent's favour as their damage output will now essentially double.

No. It will not essentially double. The number of wounds that go unsaved will increase by 16%. Bad? Yes. Double the damage output? Not even close. 100 attacks means 50 wounds means 33.3 unsaved wounds or--gasp!--41.7 unsaved wounds, with the reduced Ward save.
I'll agree heartily that it's dumb. One of the dumbest things in the game (mostly because it's so complicated and takes forever). But c'mon.

You suffer double damage in the sense that you're now only saving half of what you should have saved.

If my unit takes 12 wounds, then I normally should be saving on average 4 wounds. On a turn with the -1 in play though, I'm now only saving on average 2 wounds, thus doubling the damage my saves *should* have prevented.

That +50% damage from failed saves is often enough to completely turn combats against the Daemon player in anything involving more than simple chaff clearing fights.

Its not +50% damage, it's -50% damage reduction. That 33% off-the-top damage reduction your entire army gets for free? That nobody else gets? That you pay for by risking DI and Reign? When you roll that effect, *that* free protection is halved.

So instead of only taking 4/6ths the losses you otherwise would, you instead take 5/6ths.

Instead of only taking 4/6ths damage, you take 5/6ths what anyone else would take.

4/6 -> 5/6 is a 25% increase in damage taken not 50%. And is still miles better than the 6/6ths everyone else gets.

(Not calling demons broken, just ensuring the math is right, and reminding you that you get a weaker bonus when that happens, not a penalty.)

Bharring wrote:
That 33% off-the-top damage reduction your entire army gets for free?

Uhhhh... No. Try "Included in the points cost", remember most daemon stuff is expensive I mean a bloodletter costs as much as a Chaos warrior & we all know which is the better choice. Daemons don't have a single model below 11 pts per and without the 5++ you know their stats don't warrant that cost.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Bharring wrote:
That 33% off-the-top damage reduction your entire army gets for free?

Uhhhh... No. Try "Included in the points cost", remember most daemon stuff is expensive I mean a bloodletter costs as much as a Chaos warrior & we all know which is the better choice. Daemons don't have a single model below 11 pts per and without the 5++ you know their stats don't warrant that cost.

So a WS5 S4 model isn't worth it without a 5++. Well. I guess I'd better burn all my black guard.

@TDA stop being a troll. The comment was about daemons and whether or not the 5++ is taken into account in calculating the point cost of the unit & whether or not they'd be worth their points without it. Remember I said their sats don't warrant that cost but OK you'll nitpick so let's ammend that to their rules don't warrant their cost without having a 5++. Your comment blatantly adds nothing to the discussion & is just looking to stir up gak but I'll humor you this time.

Black guard have:
I6
Ld9
2 Attacks base
ASF
Stubborn
Murderous Prowess
Eternal hatred
Access to a magic banner & magic weapon
and lack frenzy.

All of which makes them worth it. Now if you'd like to discus the issue of daemond being worth their cost without having the 5++ fine, otherwise go back to your bridge.

Claiming that the 5++ is already factored in, but the fact that the 5++ is, on rare occasions, a 6++ for a turn is not, seems quite arbitrary.

Yes, dropping it from a 5++ to a 6++ is bad, but the pricing/balance is based on both. And a 6++ is still quite nice.

Bharring wrote:
Claiming that the 5++ is already factored in, but the fact that the 5++ is, on rare occasions, a 6++ for a turn is not, seems quite arbitrary.

What about the equal chance of that 5++ becomins a 4++. The chance of it changing to a 4++ is equally the same at it being a 6++ which means that on average it's still a 5++ which has been calculated in.

Now a common pitfall is to say that going from a 5++ to a 6++ hurts more than a 5++ to a 4++ benefits and this isn't true. Going up or down either way increases or decreases your odds of surviving a wound by 1/6th. It just seems like it hurts more because people view is as I am 50% more squishy rather than I have decreased my odds of survival by 1/6th. The save modifier needs to be compared to the dice roll not the previous save modifier.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@TDA stop being a troll. The comment was about daemons and whether or not the 5++ is taken into account in calculating the point cost of the unit & whether or not they'd be worth their points without it. Remember I said their sats don't warrant that cost but OK you'll nitpick so let's ammend that to their rules don't warrant their cost without having a 5++. Your comment blatantly adds nothing to the discussion & is just looking to stir up gak but I'll humor you this time.

Black guard have:
I6
Ld9
2 Attacks base
ASF
Stubborn
Murderous Prowess
Eternal hatred
Access to a magic banner & magic weapon
and lack frenzy.

All of which makes them worth it. Now if you'd like to discus the issue of daemond being worth their cost without having the 5++ fine, otherwise go back to your bridge.

Blood letters are only frenzied if you buy the locus. As they are basic, they're black guard minus rerolls.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@TDA stop being a troll. The comment was about daemons and whether or not the 5++ is taken into account in calculating the point cost of the unit & whether or not they'd be worth their points without it. Remember I said their sats don't warrant that cost but OK you'll nitpick so let's ammend that to their rules don't warrant their cost without having a 5++. Your comment blatantly adds nothing to the discussion & is just looking to stir up gak but I'll humor you this time.

Black guard have:
I6
Ld9
2 Attacks base
ASF
Stubborn
Murderous Prowess
Eternal hatred
Access to a magic banner & magic weapon
and lack frenzy.

All of which makes them worth it. Now if you'd like to discus the issue of daemond being worth their cost without having the 5++ fine, otherwise go back to your bridge.

Blood letters are only frenzied if you buy the locus. As they are basic, they're black guard minus rerolls.

No, no they are not.
They're more like WS5/I4 Grave/Tombguard than they are a non re-rolling elf killing machine.

They also need the charge to gain better strength, and especially against elves, they should never realistically be getting a charge off unless the elf player goofed up and/or picked a bad fight and left themselves open to a counter charge.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@TDA stop being a troll. The comment was about daemons and whether or not the 5++ is taken into account in calculating the point cost of the unit & whether or not they'd be worth their points without it. Remember I said their sats don't warrant that cost but OK you'll nitpick so let's ammend that to their rules don't warrant their cost without having a 5++. Your comment blatantly adds nothing to the discussion & is just looking to stir up gak but I'll humor you this time.

Black guard have:
I6
Ld9
2 Attacks base
ASF
Stubborn
Murderous Prowess
Eternal hatred
Access to a magic banner & magic weapon
and lack frenzy.

All of which makes them worth it. Now if you'd like to discus the issue of daemond being worth their cost without having the 5++ fine, otherwise go back to your bridge.

Blood letters are only frenzied if you buy the locus. As they are basic, they're black guard minus rerolls.

No, no they are not.
They're more like WS5/I4 Grave/Tombguard than they are a non re-rolling elf killing machine.

They also need the charge to gain better strength, and especially against elves, they should never realistically be getting a charge off unless the elf player goofed up and/or picked a bad fight and left themselves open to a counter charge.

They're nothing like tomb guard. They aren't the worst unit in the book, for a start.

I can see them kind of being like tombguard. The stats are kind of similar & TG are lower cost but the daemons have the 5++ & MR1.