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.

Played some more games. Things are going round nicely. All games are close. I am going to look futher into Stormvermin that deal a ton of damage and are still somewhat cheap. Will look futher into it. They still die easily.

Played two games against Daemons. Went 1-1. Shooting seems a bit over costed, but need more games to get a better opinion.


Let’s talk BSB balance:

External Balance: Glade Captain BSB (WE) vs Master BSB (DE)

Profiles differences: Weapons are the same.

Glade Captain: 5+, Bravery = 7
Master: 4+, Bravery = 8

Abilities: Both abilities are very unique, but shouldn’t make any noticeable impact on the game. Wash.

BSB effects:

Glade Captain: I am actually disappointed with the effects of this standard. It is unique, but right now practically useless. You gain a 4+ roll against wounds caused by SPELLS. It can be very noticeable against powerful casters (Nagash, Karios, etc). Also it only affects Wanderers, so that limits it even more. There could have been so much more done. Rant done.
Master: Standard is much more useful. Allows for the re-roll to wound rolls of 1 in combat.

Conclusion: Advantage = DE.

Glade Captain: (105 -> 70)
Master: (70 -> 90) Access to a Steed makes this guy even more useful. Make the Steed cost 20.
 

Played first game tonight ! I'll run through some quick thoughts sequentially for clarity.
1: in this game you throw a LOT of dice.
2: we played DOW deployment with 5 obj. , center worth 4 rest worth 2 , this made a big difference in strategy and deployment. Even Death Stars only claim 1 obj.
3: terrain heavy board and the minus 2" for area terrain definitely slowed some units down.
4: I played the stormcast Eternals and high elves from last 2 starter sets. I felt all the units I used were pointed properly and did not see anything over costed or OP in any way.
5: my buddy brought a goblin horde ,here's where we found some problems. He felt goblin artillery was over costed for,what it can do. He also ran a bunch of goblin cavalry which I felt worked properly.
6: the goblin horde..... Anything over 30 models makes the stacking bonuses from extra models too much . Also the Nets .... For an extra 3 pts. In a melle centric game you can cause everything a mimus 1 to hit in melee? He had 1 unit of maybe 40 goblins that were immune to battleshock (used generals ability) that held up Altharion on his Griffon and 5 reader cavalry. Killing both for the loss of maybe 20 Goblins....
7: wizards weren't overpowered and the magic flame seemed to offer some flavor but not dominate the game.

Overall it was a lot of fun but took a long time. The goblins would probably have gotten my by sheer numbers and the nets in melee. Again I never played a game of fantasy so, still on a biit of a learning curved. It felt like 40K fantasy and that is a GREAT thing.. I had a blast ! We will rematch in 2 weeks. Also multiple units can help to throw your enemy off in deployment. Not,deploying your key units until the last is a lot of,fun.

We played 1600 pts. I could see 2000-2250 being about right. Goblin tar pits were pretty brutal. I'm hooked , my buddy will take a day to review to see if he likes it. He was expecting a new version of fantasy and had to adjust that this is a totally different game. This caused him mixed feelings as he has beautifully painted armies made for a game he enjoyed.

2000 points! I think it's super interesting that in my local club, we are looking at something closer to a 1000 points for regular games. 2000 points seems like a long game, but I'm super intrigued. Anyways - about shooting. I was looking at a few of the not-so-good ranged units, and they seemed really pricey for what they do. A skeleton and a bretonnian longbowman both output 1/6 of a wound, and that is if they have clear LOS to their target. A they go down to 1/12 of a wound if there are intervening models (brets have rerolls that help, but it's still pretty bad. And that's for 10 points both. I'm not quite sure that is worth it yet. This will need to be tested. Orc arrer boys have a similar damage output and cost, and I'm sure there are more units like them. I'll try to get a few games in next week to see if archers stand a chance of being worth their points in a battle.

My buddy thought it was too melee centric. However I think the 5 obj. help with strategy and maneuver.

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
2000 points! I think it's super interesting that in my local club, we are looking at something closer to a 1000 points for regular games. 2000 points seems like a long game, but I'm super intrigued. Anyways - about shooting. I was looking at a few of the not-so-good ranged units, and they seemed really pricey for what they do. A skeleton and a bretonnian longbowman both output 1/6 of a wound, and that is if they have clear LOS to their target. A they go down to 1/12 of a wound if there are intervening models (brets have rerolls that help, but it's still pretty bad. And that's for 10 points both. I'm not quite sure that is worth it yet. This will need to be tested. Orc arrer boys have a similar damage output and cost, and I'm sure there are more units like them. I'll try to get a few games in next week to see if archers stand a chance of being worth their points in a battle.

I remember Attilla and I discussed recosting shooting units. Probably dropping them significantly.

As for points, I think 2000 will be a good 1.5-2.5 hr game. If we cost most monsters at around 300. That allows for about 1-2 monsters per faction.

I honestly think the system scales very well. I can imagine playing anything from 750 to 3000. And that is a good feeling. The good thing about playing around 1000 points is that you really have to pick and choose. Can't just bring some of everything.

I agree I think the game scales well to different points values. Our club always plays terrain heavy and I think this works well for the game with the plus 1 to cover for some units. Can't wait to get in another game!

Argh, spent some time replying to each of the above - went to do some shopping (the boring kind heh) and when I came back my computer had updated and reset...so, I'll keep it short this time...

@HalfBlood After your critical eyes have scoured the WE army list, I believe we can use it to get other armies in balance.
I have gone through most elite units now in other lists and adjusted points, in the context that rangers cost 12p. Next up would be the common infantry. I have noted your opinions on the bsb & wiz as well, but will have to save that for a later version, so I can work through the balance of bsb/wizards/monsters/cavalry in each army list at the same time.

@Allot Nice to hear you've played some more! I think that we get closer to some really nice balance each version. I've been taking a closer look at the Stormvermin, but I think they are quite properly costed...maybe up the first 10 to 105 or 110 pts. How does the Hell Pit Abom feel now, still undercosted?

@Haldir Nice to hear you did get your game in and that you enjoyed it! Your mate might be correct about the warmachines - those have a "supposed" cost applied to them that need to be tried and tested more. What warmachines did he use, and why didn't they perform?
The Goblin horde is one of the reasons I'm going to go through each infantry entry and make the whole unit more expensive if they get good bonuses from their numbers alone. So a small unit of Gobbos will still be dirt cheap, but a horde will cost more / model (same for Zombies and similar units). That should solve that problem. And nets must obviously be raised even more, since you can pick them to die last they will effectively give the whole unit a massive buff.

@Andreas 2.0 We've been playing 500-1500p games so far, and they've all felt good. Once the lists become alittle more balanced, we will head up to 2000p as well. We've also felt that many ranged units really aren't that good, and should drop their cost. Some more playtesting will be needed before we are entirely sure however. And remember, even if a lowly bretonnian bowmen can hardly kill anything, 20 of them can pretty much game kill a monster once / game if they are near a Paladin...pretty scary

I started taking apart the elf books because they are similar. I believe it will be pretty easy to balance.

From there I have my eyes set on the Daemon and Lizardman books. Both of these armies are in the meta that I play in (I play Daemons my buddy players LZ). Just by glancing at the Daemon book I found a few price imbalances that I will address later (Flesh Hounds seem extremely underpriced) Blood letters seem underpriced aswell same with their icons.

Once we finish up the elf books I will move to those books.

Like I said earlier, this comp is pretty accurate. Obviously there will be some things stronger than others especially since the rule book hasn't even been out for more than a month yet. In time we can fine tune costs.

It was the Goblin Rock Launcher and Doom Catapult. Each only has 1 attack , we might consider lowering the points or adding an attack. He felt that heavy artillery should play out like fantasy where it can knock out a blob of infantry.

Half blood what is your opinion of wound allocation? Different schools of thought here .

Haldir wrote:
It was the Goblin Rock Launcher and Doom Catapult. Each only has 1 attack , we might consider lowering the points or adding an attack. He felt that heavy artillery should play out like fantasy where it can knock out a blob of infantry.

Half blood what is your opinion of wound allocation? Different schools of thought here .

Do you mean the current system compared to the old way? Or ideas to make the new way better?

People are interpreting wound allocation different ways.

I.E. -- 3 attacks -- 3 to hit -- 3 to wound -- 2 damage per wound
I hit with 3 and wound with 2 , so 4 wounds worth
I`m attacking a unit of 1 wound models who fail both saves
They are all 1 wound models
Does the player lose 2 models for 2 wounds or 4 models because each wound was worth 2 damage

I actually posted a thread the other day, confused by this very thing.

So far every battle report I have seen and it seems like the general consensus online is that you would lose 4 models in this case.

Logically, it just doesn't make sense. So If I hit with an Ogre attack, then successfully wound with it. If a single model fails the save, I end up killing him + his buddies?

Unfortunately, this is how the rule works, and it is what makes monsters pretty powerful.

I checked the bat reps at mini wargaming. They play it as you would lose 4 models.

I guess in some ways monsters , heavy weapons and hero`s should be able to dish out more damage. As long as it is reflected in the points costs for those units I don`t see a real problem with it.

Haldir wrote:
I checked the bat reps at mini wargaming. They play it as you would lose 4 models.

I guess in some ways monsters , heavy weapons and hero`s should be able to dish out more damage. As long as it is reflected in the points costs for those units I don`t see a real problem with it.

Agreed, however what I find is GW limits the amount of attacks to balance this out.

If you look at Durthum he only gets 3 attacks even though his weapon does 6 damage (becomes D6 once he takes 3 wounds). Because you limit the amount of attacks, in theory every combat he will do 1 wound (No counting saves.) If save is made he does nothing, if save is failed he does 6 or D6 wounds. The monsters that have high Damage and high number attacks are what worry me. Frostheart phoenix has 8 attacks at 2 damage per? Or Flamespyre Phoenix has 6 attacks 2 damage per and causes D6 mortal wounds a turn.

It should be interesting how we cost the ogre book, since most units cause 2-3 wounds per attack.

I imagine we might have to up the points. They can dish out a boat load of damage. I`ve seen a lot of people discussing them on the forums.

Haldir wrote:
I imagine we might have to up the points. They can dish out a boat load of damage. I`ve seen a lot of people discussing them on the forums.

Unfortunately, I don't play against any ogre players so the only thing I could do is "theory hammer" the comparisons.

What worries me more is units with high defense capabilities. What is more devastating, a monster with a 2+ re-rollable, or a unit of ogres that puts out 15 attacks that hit on a 4+, wound 3+, rend -1 cause 3 Damage per. I would say the 2+ rerollable, and it's not hard to get (phoenixes).

What about the Sphinx that halves wounds dealt, and can be healed each turn lol?

Once Attilla updates the books again, I will take a better look at monster comparisons. Some monsters seem very powerful, while others are lackluster.

Those are good points , I suppose best idea would be to review the points. As well as take in feedback.

Couple of other thoughts from our game. The minus 2" for area terrain definitely impacted the game , a charge going from a 3" to 5" in terrain cause some deliberation. It also made the use of terrain even more important. The no stacking of spells/special abilities worked well. I really like this rule I`ve seen how stacking physic powers can ruin a game of 40K. The +1 to armor save for being 50% obscured by a friendly unit also worked well. We didn't roll for terrain as I feel that might slow the game down even more. It`s fine for weekly gaming but for a tournament there is only so much time. We didn`t roll for initiative either , the tried and true IGYG worked fine.

As a wood elf player, charging debuffs through terrain pleases me haha, however more play testing should be done.

As for the no stacking spells / abilities. For spells I can see a reason to deny this, to prevent units from getting unnecessarily high saving throws. The other idea could be to limit spellcasters, and reduce their points. Or we could do both.

Unfortunately, I like the fact that abilities stack because it is factored into the cost. Like I think phoenixes should cost around 300 points or more because of their abilities. I also think that tournaments will let abilities stack because most of them are written to do so. I think they will comp spells to not affecting the same unit twice, if the spell is a buff spell.

Here is a question for you, and it is a bit confusing.

Can to hit, to wound, or to save rolls go above 6? So lets say I get +1 to hit and roll a 6. Does that 6 count as a 7 and 5's count as a 6?

The reason I ask this, is several abilities in this game give abilities if you roll "a 6 or more". Example would be Waywatchers and their ability to gain another dice if a 6 or more is rolled. If this unit gets +1 to hit, would their ability be on the roll of a 5, or a 6?

Their are many units in the game that have things like this.

I`ve been seeing that a lot in the rules with the Stormcast Eternals. I`m assuming it counts as combining the rolls. This is again another ambiguous rule that leaves much to interpretation. Another example of how we are better off making the game we want to play. Forge your own narrative has never been more true! One rule I do like is the hero phase starting off the turn. For our game it helped balance magic/command abilities.

Hopefully they can come up with an FAQ and address these questions.

Also for the 40K events I TO one of the rules I list beforehand. Any game mechanism that causes a 2 up reroll will instead be a 2 up -- 4 up . There should never be a 2 up reroll.

I've updated the PPC with Dark Elves v0.5 now. Let me know what you think
Next up is Skaven, as I've noticed a few odd things in there that needs to be fixed a.s.a.p.

Haldir wrote:
Does the player lose 2 models for 2 wounds or 4 models because each wound was worth 2 damage

He would lose 4 models if following the RAW - my guess is that they're imagining it like the Sauron attack in the opening scenes of Lotr - he hits once with his mace but does alot of damage. And the rules do state:

GW wrote:
...some [hits] can inflict 2 or more wounds, allowing them to cause grievous injuries to even the mighties of foes, or to cleave through more than one opponent with but a single blow!

So that means large monsters, or war machines, will kill many infantry models as long as they hit with their often precious few attacks.

HalfBlood wrote:
Can to hit, to wound, or to save rolls go above 6? So lets say I get +1 to hit and roll a 6. Does that 6 count as a 7 and 5's count as a 6?

It works the way you write. If you add 1 to hit rolls and roll a 6, it actually counts as a 7. So the Waywatchers would double their chances of an extra attack with a single +1 to hit buff, pretty scary!

Haldir wrote:
Also for the 40K events I TO one of the rules I list beforehand. Any game mechanism that causes a 2 up reroll will instead be a 2 up -- 4 up . There should never be a 2 up reroll.

Yes, this seems to be a standard tournament comp for 40k, and probably one we should use in AoS as well. I would prefer limiting spells and/or buffs to not duplicate first, though.

Attilla wrote:
I've updated the PPC with Dark Elves v0.5 now. Let me know what you think

HalfBlood wrote:
Can to hit, to wound, or to save rolls go above 6? So lets say I get +1 to hit and roll a 6. Does that 6 count as a 7 and 5's count as a 6?

It works the way you write. If you add 1 to hit rolls and roll a 6, it actually counts as a 7. So the Waywatchers would double their chances of an extra attack with a single +1 to hit buff, pretty scary!

.

Unfortunately, Waywatchers don't have access to anything that gives them +1 to hit. But like if you look at Dryads in a unit of 12, gain +1 to their save. Combo that with shield of thorns and you cause mortal wounds on a 5, or 6. Would rend counteract this, since you have to give -1 to enemy saves? Interesting stuff.

As for the book, I glanced a little bit at it, definitely need more books to look through external balance, but it seems pretty good so far. BSB may be off based on BSB costs from other books, but we will have to wait and see.

@HalfBlood
Rend would indeed counteract it, it gives a layer of unexpected tactic to small stuff like this that's easy to miss.

@Haldir
Please tell your mate that his warmachines are going down in points big time. I ran their numbers now and their points have been dropped to 50 pts for Rock Lobbers and Doom Divers. That might cheer him up abit

Thanks I told him! I think that the game is a bit of a shock for former fantasy players. Once they get over the shock that it`s a completely different game I think more will come around.

Also from the play testing my friend got back to me with the following. Now that we lowered the cost for the generic unit on the war scroll could the Rock Lobba be changed to a D6 mortal wounds with the Doom Diver a D3 mortal wounds as a points upgrade? His thought was to have the unit play out as it`s described.

The Skaven army list v0.5 is up at the blog now!

Haldir wrote:

Also from the play testing my friend got back to me with the following. Now that we lowered the cost for the generic unit on the war scroll could the Rock Lobba be changed to a D6 mortal wounds with the Doom Diver a D3 mortal wounds as a points upgrade? His thought was to have the unit play out as it`s described.

While I think it's a cool option, I must say I am somewhat hesitant about changing the actual unit rules, even as optional upgrades. If we start doing that, we might end up changing alot of units in the end. Maybe we will in fact do such things later on to make better balance, but I think it'll have to wait until we have a stable core of the base units. On the bright side, now that the units are cheaper, he can include two of them

Attilla wrote:
The Skaven army list v0.5 is up at the blog now!

While I think it's a cool option, I must say I am somewhat hesitant about changing the actual unit rules, even as optional upgrades. If we start doing that, we might end up changing alot of units in the end. Maybe we will in fact do such things later on to make better balance, but I think it'll have to wait until we have a stable core of the base units. On the bright side, now that the units are cheaper, he can include two of them

I definitely agree with this because we want this comp system to translate over to other comp systems for tournaments. What I mean by this, is I can see several tournaments creating their own comp systems. Costing units differently based on their abilities. I can't see point costs being exact, but I can see point costs being similar. Example: XX Monster costs more than XX Monster.

If we add more abilities / take away more abilities, it really will mess with our costs and evaluation of units if we switch over to another ruleset for tournaments.

As for skaven, I really like how models and units cost differently based on their unit size. It will be interesting to test this.

Those are good points , we might need some time before those kind of tweaks. But yes a more uniformed comp that more TO's are using would be better to encourage more players to participate in an event.