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.

Zoner wrote:
How about Lord Skreech Verminking?

Dreaded 13th...kill at least 1 model = 1 additional Verminking

Those ones then cast Dreaded 13th... and the cycle continues forever!!

(Not realistic...yet allowed)

Verminking and no other Verminlord has the Verminus keyword.

Salvage, I don't understand that logic. If you don't want a spell to go off, bring something to counter it. Dealing with magic is no different than anything else

Except it isn't that easy when dealing with some casters. Nagash is a beast unless you have awesome casters. That +3 to cast is just incredible.

Your odds of beating 2d6+3 with just 2d6 aren't the greatest.

I just don't buy the argument that "summoning is broken" because nagash is really strong. I wish people would look more at things as a challenge to overcome.
Instead of complaining about nagash we could figure out counters and how to kill him quick

Mind, I'm actually of the opinion that Nagash can be defeated- albeit it is very difficult.

The unbeatable summoning force is the Lord of Change host- where each Lord of Change adds +1 to all of your casting, which is already "roll two dice, and just double the higher result). Then each new one you summon gets to cast two spells of his own.

The Nagash list has one large target on the battlefield, and a bunch of things that people want to ignore. The Lords of Change are like a self replicating deadly virus that your immune system can't keep up with.

As far as counters for these beastly lists go, I'm all ears.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Mind, I'm actually of the opinion that Nagash can be defeated- albeit it is very difficult.

The unbeatable summoning force is the Lord of Change host- where each Lord of Change adds +1 to all of your casting, which is already "roll two dice, and just double the higher result). Then each new one you summon gets to cast two spells of his own.

The Nagash list has one large target on the battlefield, and a bunch of things that people want to ignore. The Lords of Change are like a self replicating deadly virus that your immune system can't keep up with.

As far as counters for these beastly lists go, I'm all ears.

Multiple Dwarf Flame Cannons with an Engineer within 1".

D6+ 50% chance of an extra D6 mortal wounds that automatically hit means an average of 5.25 mortal wounds you can't do anything about per Flame Cannon per turn.

I'll give some props to Thanquol here. Get within 8" of him and he will delete almost anything in the game without care.

2D6 mortal wounds from his warpfire projectors without needing to roll for hit or wound and he's able to cast two D3 mortal wound spells.

Statistically he'll strip 10 wounds from a model, and Boneripper is no joke in CC with 6 attacks (before wound) at damage 2.

Finally his command ability is ridiculous giving anything with the "skaven" keyword the ability to ignore wounds on a 6+ and 5+ if the unit has 13+ models.

He's the perfect mix of utility buffing, devastating in combat and a heck of a caster.

 XT-1984 wrote:

Zoner wrote:
How about Lord Skreech Verminking?

Dreaded 13th...kill at least 1 model = 1 additional Verminking

Those ones then cast Dreaded 13th... and the cycle continues forever!!

(Not realistic...yet allowed)

Verminking and no other Verminlord has the Verminus keyword.

Oops my mistake...but Verminlord Warbringer does have the Verminus keyword. So you could get him by casting dreaded 13th.

My vote also goes to Nagash. He just has too muck stuff going for him. Hard to kill, fights like a pro and cast spells wherever he wants to.

As for the strongest Model Nagash is there but Kairo is also there. His ability to roll to dice and double the Highest when casting and a chance to add 2 as wel to that (in a childish way but hey its in there) means he is pooping out bloodthirsters. Then you add some of the senery that allow him to go +1 to castin and he is deadly. While he cannot cast as many as Nagash or as hard to kill he still has his benifits.

As for summoning, which I do a lot playing Daemons, it does have its down fall. Once tournements start and there are time limits to rounds you are really hurting yourself if you summon. Summoning counts as models killed but it is still scored of off you starting model count. So if you summon 40 models and start with 50, your enemy then kills 63 they killed over 100% of your army. At least that is how I am reading it.

As for best non-summoner out there The Glotkin is nasty as well. He has 18 wounds heals D6, has a missile attack that does 2D6 Mortal wounds.

I also dont play anything else so havnt looked at the other scrolls very much.

If anybody reads the rules differantly for winning if you cant complete please let me know as thats how we are looking at it but would love somebody elses opinion.

There are two readings for the summoning rules- either they count as casualties if they're killed, or they count as casualties when they are placed upon the table (so if you have Nagash all by himself, and he summons 40 zombies, you just took 4000% casualties).

The trouble with the rules is that it isn't clear when the game should stop to award minor victories. With a tournament timer, I can see how that could change the meta significantly (the Lord of Change host is definitely going for a big win quickly).

Rihgu wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Mind, I'm actually of the opinion that Nagash can be defeated- albeit it is very difficult.

The unbeatable summoning force is the Lord of Change host- where each Lord of Change adds +1 to all of your casting, which is already "roll two dice, and just double the higher result). Then each new one you summon gets to cast two spells of his own.

The Nagash list has one large target on the battlefield, and a bunch of things that people want to ignore. The Lords of Change are like a self replicating deadly virus that your immune system can't keep up with.

As far as counters for these beastly lists go, I'm all ears.

Multiple Dwarf Flame Cannons with an Engineer within 1".

D6+ 50% chance of an extra D6 mortal wounds that automatically hit means an average of 5.25 mortal wounds you can't do anything about per Flame Cannon per turn.

Thanks.

I haven't looked at the range on those, but I figure they can probably hit a greater daemon from anywhere on the field.

The trouble with the Lord of Change host is that every model in the force is able to bring the whole thing back in one turn- so you had better bring enough cannons to kill them all off quickly, or you're in for trouble.

I see that game having a very tense start- either the Lords will get obliterated in the first or second turn, or the flame cannons will start taking casualties and end up having too little firepower to take on the host. Might be a fun game.

(As I understand it, Nagash is immune to mortal wounds, so those flame cannons will do little against his force, but that's not what you were trying to counter)

Nagash is not immune but has 4+ against mortals.

Tried a few games against Nagash and Lord Kroak (With my Stormiest Eternals).

Kroak is defiantly much worse. Unless you use extreme focus fire (if your opponent allows you to) he is unkillable. Nagash can be taken down in 3 turns with a reasonable amount of attention.

I didn't find summoning (from either of them) too much of a problem. Remember, they need to deploy any units they wish to summon. Its not free for all summoning like many think.

I like the sound of the Glottkin, the amount of wounds and attaxks they can put out, and the fact that they're a wizard is pretty nice imo.

TRIGSTEN wrote:
Tried a few games against Nagash and Lord Kroak (With my Stormiest Eternals).

Kroak is defiantly much worse. Unless you use extreme focus fire (if your opponent allows you to) he is unkillable. Nagash can be taken down in 3 turns with a reasonable amount of attention.

I didn't find summoning (from either of them) too much of a problem. Remember, they need to deploy any units they wish to summon. Its not free for all summoning like many think.

Isn't it just limited by the number of minis in your collection, and the number of spells they get per turn?

Now, I honestly don't know how your opponent can prevent you from focusing your fire, since all you need is line of sight, and minis pretty much don't block that at all (since the bases don't matter, if you can see the mini behind through the legs or between the minis in the front, you can shoot the guys in the back).

How about a mediocre Chaos Lord with his command ability of eternal legion which allows him to set up a unit on one board size with depth 5".
This is how many Chaos Choosen?

raoiley wrote:
Salvage, I don't understand that logic. If you don't want a spell to go off, bring something to counter it. Dealing with magic is no different than anything else

As noted, Nagash isn't the problem, it's the summoning mechanic. At some point one of you should explain to me why summoning is good for the game, because I don't feel it. It seems pretty weird in 40k (where there are warp charges and all those extra limiting factors), but flat out unneeded in fantasy. I mean, it's 'cool' like a nifty mechanic that juices up the mayhem ... but I feel like unless both sides are in on the summoning game, it shouldn't really be used. My two cents naturally, I just feel the game is better off without it, with the balance issues it already has.

Also, I was referring to people's gripes about required 'scroll caddies' (low level wizard with two dispel scrolls, items that automatically stopped a spell) in 7E and required 'level 4's' (high level wizard better at stopping magic than low level ones) in 8E. Seems to me that AOS continues the requirement that we bring anti-magic, particularly with the threat of free donkey-caves being summoned.

Also I hate that Chaos Lord power. What the actual feth.

But this is pretty OT. Back to talking about beatsticks!

- Salvage

I dunno, I don't like rolling with Nagash he's a big central target. That is super brutal.

I like Mannfred or Nefratata and we have the "don't be a dick" rule for summoning. I only summon zombros and skelly archers and my opponent doesn't try to drop a thirster on my face.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

TRIGSTEN wrote:
Tried a few games against Nagash and Lord Kroak (With my Stormiest Eternals).

Kroak is defiantly much worse. Unless you use extreme focus fire (if your opponent allows you to) he is unkillable. Nagash can be taken down in 3 turns with a reasonable amount of attention.

I didn't find summoning (from either of them) too much of a problem. Remember, they need to deploy any units they wish to summon. Its not free for all summoning like many think.

Isn't it just limited by the number of minis in your collection, and the number of spells they get per turn?

Now, I honestly don't know how your opponent can prevent you from focusing your fire, since all you need is line of sight, and minis pretty much don't block that at all (since the bases don't matter, if you can see the mini behind through the legs or between the minis in the front, you can shoot the guys in the back).

A common misconception atm. You need to include a unit on the table at the start of the game. The summoning spell is actually attached to the warscroll you want to summon not the wizard. Thereofore, if you don't bring a unit of zombies, you can't summon a unit of zombies (unless specifically said on the wizards warscroll). Also, you can only cast a specific spell once per hero phase (in the core rules) unless your wizards war scroll says otherwise (e.g.. Lord Koraks nuke spell).

I was playing Stormcast Eternals. I did not have a lot of ranged attacks. What I meant about focused fire was attacking him with all my troops etc, and there are plenty of ways to stop that in AoS if you want to (e.g engaging units who are look like they will be attempting to engage your hero, and hiding behind skirmish screens etc).

Movement, especially taking advantage of the 3" rules, has added soon much more depth to AoS than I initially expected.

TRIGSTEN wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

TRIGSTEN wrote:
Tried a few games against Nagash and Lord Kroak (With my Stormiest Eternals).

Kroak is defiantly much worse. Unless you use extreme focus fire (if your opponent allows you to) he is unkillable. Nagash can be taken down in 3 turns with a reasonable amount of attention.

I didn't find summoning (from either of them) too much of a problem. Remember, they need to deploy any units they wish to summon. Its not free for all summoning like many think.

Isn't it just limited by the number of minis in your collection, and the number of spells they get per turn?

Now, I honestly don't know how your opponent can prevent you from focusing your fire, since all you need is line of sight, and minis pretty much don't block that at all (since the bases don't matter, if you can see the mini behind through the legs or between the minis in the front, you can shoot the guys in the back).

A common misconception atm. You need to include a unit on the table at the start of the game. The summoning spell is actually attached to the warscroll you want to summon not the wizard. Thereofore, if you don't bring a unit of zombies, you can't summon a unit of zombies (unless specifically said on the wizards warscroll). Also, you can only cast a specific spell once per hero phase (in the core rules) unless your wizards war scroll says otherwise (e.g.. Lord Koraks nuke spell).

I was playing Stormcast Eternals. I did not have a lot of ranged attacks. What I meant about focused fire was attacking him with all my troops etc, and there are plenty of ways to stop that in AoS if you want to (e.g engaging units who are look like they will be attempting to engage your hero, and hiding behind skirmish screens etc).

Movement, especially taking advantage of the 3" rules, has added soon much more depth to AoS than I initially expected.

There is very little compelling rules evidence that you need to have a "seed" unit on the table to unlock the ability to summon said unit.

In reality, it seems most people agree with this scenario...

1. Bring the War Scrolls and related models you think might be useful. This is your potential army. You now have access to all the rules on these War Scrolls. 99.9% of the abilities aren't useful unless the unit is on the table.
2. Deploy as per the rules.
3. Anything not deployed is in reserves and can be summoned by an appropriate Wizard.

There is NO RULE telling you a model has to be on the table for you to have access to its rules. The rules instead strongly imply that simply bringing the War Scrolls gives you potential access to them.

 Kriswall wrote:

There is NO RULE telling you a model has to be on the table for you to have access to its rules. The rules instead strongly imply that simply bringing the War Scrolls gives you potential access to them.

I could see that one ruled either way. I expect that the intention is that the summoned units don't need to start out on the table, but ruling the opposite seems a lot more likely to balance out the game.

Of course, that completely changes my reading of the "summoned units must be counted among casualties" rule.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

There is NO RULE telling you a model has to be on the table for you to have access to its rules. The rules instead strongly imply that simply bringing the War Scrolls gives you potential access to them.

I could see that one ruled either way. I expect that the intention is that the summoned units don't need to start out on the table, but ruling the opposite seems a lot more likely to balance out the game.

Of course, that completely changes my reading of the "summoned units must be counted among casualties" rule.

Ruling that you need a "seed" unit on the table just seems super weird. Most of the named Lizardmen Heroes have a summon spell associated with them. Ruling that Kroq-gar needs to be on the table to be able to summon Kroq-gar would mean that GW not only allows duplicates of named characters, but actively encourages it. It makes far more sense to allow summons to work if you simply have the unit (and corresponding War Scroll) in reserve.

Again, in the absence of a rule telling me to ignore the War Scrolls for units in reserve, I'm going to assume I can use them. Obviously, 99% of the special rules and abilities are useless if the unit isn't on the table. Units in reserves can't attack, move, run, retreat, shoot, provide benefits requiring they be within X" of something, etc, etc. They CAN still grant abilities to other units that DON'T require they be within X". I haven't memorized every War Scroll, so I might be wrong, but I can't remember a single ability other than the summon spells that doesn't require the unit be within X" of another unit.

Skarr bloodwrath is brilliant against big numbers, especially if you 'accidently' glued his chains on the wrong way around so they stick straight out, one hit on every model with a 3" range that hits on 2's and wounds on 3's is an army breaker.

 Kriswall wrote:

I haven't memorized every War Scroll, so I might be wrong, but I can't remember a single ability other than the summon spells that doesn't require the unit be within X" of another unit.

I think there was one or two that applied to your army if the model is on the table. This supports your position.

Not needing a seed is pretty bad ass. Means summoning can really get nuts especially the factions where you can summon wizards. Chaos summoning LoC and KoS to just do it all over again means you potentially have unlimited wizards on the first turn. Or a huge number of demons running around wrecking face. Another thing is that if your opponent isn't keeping up with the wizard arms race he can't block me all. Fairly easy to deploy your wizards all the way back turn one so as to be out of range of your opponents wizards and start cranking things out.

roddo wrote:
Not needing a seed is pretty bad ass. Means summoning can really get nuts especially the factions where you can summon wizards. Chaos summoning LoC and KoS to just do it all over again means you potentially have unlimited wizards on the first turn. Or a huge number of demons running around wrecking face. Another thing is that if your opponent isn't keeping up with the wizard arms race he can't block me all. Fairly easy to deploy your wizards all the way back turn one so as to be out of range of your opponents wizards and start cranking things out.

Yes. I honestly think that the Lord of Change horde is the most powerful build you can have in this game, without getting to the point where you aren't actually playing (ie, they'd lose to Tomb Scorpion that hides under the dirt 'til turn 6 or the Screaming Bell/Fateweaver cheat).

 odinsgrandson wrote:

roddo wrote:
Not needing a seed is pretty bad ass. Means summoning can really get nuts especially the factions where you can summon wizards. Chaos summoning LoC and KoS to just do it all over again means you potentially have unlimited wizards on the first turn. Or a huge number of demons running around wrecking face. Another thing is that if your opponent isn't keeping up with the wizard arms race he can't block me all. Fairly easy to deploy your wizards all the way back turn one so as to be out of range of your opponents wizards and start cranking things out.

Yes. I honestly think that the Lord of Change horde is the most powerful build you can have in this game, without getting to the point where you aren't actually playing (ie, they'd lose to Tomb Scorpion that hides under the dirt 'til turn 6 or the Screaming Bell/Fateweaver cheat).

You cant lose to tomb scorpion because models out of play dont count and you achieve a major victory if there is no model left on the table. You could always set scorpion up with 1 other model but that model will die and you immediately lost 50% of your army. So the tactic does exist but its not an auto-win as you make it sound.
Screaming bell/kairos "cheat" does nt work either because you can only choose the result of 1 dice roll and the bell requires you to roll 2 dices.

As for the LoC tactic, all it takes is +/- 2 grudge throwers (cant hide from a thrower) with an engineer and you get sniped off the table in 1 turn. Chances are very high and they have no problem dealing with a second one if you manage to roll a 4 with your magic and thats presuming you got first turn because if you dont its game over before you even get to try.

Edit: Explanation through mathhammer : 3+ re-roll to hit = 90% ,3+ re-roll to wound = 90% of 90% which goes to something like 81% chance to cause 3 wounds. -2 rend vs LoC 4+ saves = 6+ save or 83% chance of 81% for 3 wounds = 67.5% chance for 3 wounds but with an engineer the grudge thrower shoots 2 times and the new way to set up grudge throwers in AoS is to have an engineer in the middle of 4. Ex: thrower 1" to the front left, 1" to the front right, 1" to the back left and 1" to the back right. So thats 8 shots with a +/- 2/3 chance of inflicting 3 wounds each. Odds are pretty grim for your poor Lord of change IMO

For the Fateweaver/Bell combo you only need to change one dice roll (even if you accept their use of the singular "dice"). You just alter one of the dice that you rolled- ie, the bell rolls a 3 and 5 for movement, and you change the 3 to a 10 and 'cheat for the win.' I don't think people will do this much, but it goes to show that you shouldn't write jokes in your rules section unless they are also meant to be rules.

It sounds like you're right on the tomb scorpions. I don't think that 'deployed under the table' should count as being on the table.

 cyberjonesy wrote:

Edit: Explanation through mathhammer : 3+ re-roll to hit = 90% ,3+ re-roll to wound = 90% of 90% which goes to something like 81% chance to cause 3 wounds. -2 rend vs LoC 4+ saves = 6+ save or 83% chance of 81% for 3 wounds = 67.5% chance for 3 wounds but with an engineer the grudge thrower shoots 2 times and the new way to set up grudge throwers in AoS is to have an engineer in the middle of 4. Ex: thrower 1" to the front left, 1" to the front right, 1" to the back left and 1" to the back right. So thats 8 shots with a +/- 2/3 chance of inflicting 3 wounds each. Odds are pretty grim for your poor Lord of change IMO

Sure, I'll theory-hammer this one with you:

If I finish deploying first, I place one lord of Change on the table, maybe Kairos Fateweaver as well. So two deployments and I declare I'm finished and I get the first turn.

My opponent will either stop deploying at two grudge throwers and declare he's finished first- in which case I should make sure to deploy enough that I won't die on turn 1 and make sure that I don't outnumber him by too much.

If my opponent finishes deploying second, then he gets to deploy as much artillery as he likes- easily enough to kill off a lord of change on his first turn. However, I would get that first turn, and I'd be able to summon as many Lords of Change as I like. I'd stop when I'm feeling secure enough that they cannot possibly kill them all in one turn.

I don't see a counter to this, because the force can react when it matters. Basically, I don't see a situation that can't be helped by having any number Lords of Change brought in every turn.

Each individual Lord is completely expendable because if there is only one left on the field when it comes to my turn, I get to summon the whole army back into play.

Nagash

Back on topic now.

My vote is for Blood warriors. They may not be the strongest, but hands down probably the fluffiest unit in the game. How can Khorne not be pleased with a unit that can do damage during three different instances?