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.

Just played a game last weekend with Sydney Camp with a TK player.

He set up a Necrosphinx charging right towards me in the first round. Move 12’ run 4’ and then claimed charge since it's a special rule. He rolled three dices and picked 2 higher ones as another special rule. SO he moved 24’ into my Dreadlord on Black Dragon.

I thought he was crazy because my DL was with all the 75W DE troops and the phinx was alone. Also my dragon is pretty tough 14W 4+ with reroll failed save.

But what happened next really surprised me… Necrophinx hit me so hard with one of his 4/3/2/-3/3 weapon. My dragon was naked in front of him and after he attacked with this and that I lost 10W with rerolls.

Next turn I piled everything around him and my Executioners raised 21 blows. Then he told me another special rule that Necrophinx can halve all the wounds and MW it takes. I only hit him for 4 wounds and in his battle round he killed my Dread Lord on Dragon immediately and still had some spare power to kill 4 executioners!

I looked carefully that he really didn’t foul the rule at all… Everything is written there. Actually there is another Special Rule that with two wound dices of 6, Necrophinxe can do additional 10 MW to one target…WTF.

We played without my General for a while and he only used his Necrophinx. The monster managed to kill/ battle shock 40+W army of me before he died…

And we tried in following games with that. It is pretty sure no other monsters can compete with this. Or I would rather say if some monsters can win a 2v1 games with Necrophinx they have done a very good job. (DE manticore cannot win even 3v1 game against that)

How could GW introduce a thing with all the special rules like ‘ average 24 inch charge in one turn’, ’average 10 damage against 4+ target’, ‘halve all the wounds you take’, ‘2% to instant kill’?

Do you ever fight with Necrophinx? How did you manage to stop it?

I've used it twice. I actually forgot the halving wounds special rule in one of them, and it still didn't die. But my luck, it rarely hits with it's attacks.

But no, it is pretty good.

Remember that the Necrosphinx halves any wounds or mortal wounds as they're dealt. This really only helps with attacks that cause multiple wounds or damage.

If I hit him with the spell that causes d3 mortal wounds, I roll d3 and divide by two.

If I attack him with 20 guys who each get 1 attack and 10 cause wounds... he takes 10 wounds. You'd be halving 1 ten times and rounding up to 1 each time. You wouldn't be halving the overall 10 down to 5.

Necrosphinxes aren't that hard to kill. You just don't get as much mileage out of multiple wound/damage attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Per the rules, attacks can be made one at a time.

I.e., if I have 10 Bloodreavers (with one of their leader guys) in base to base contact and they're standing within 12" of the Bloodsecrator, they'll get a sum total of 31 attacks.

I'd work it out like this...

Roll to hit, to wound, armor save and inflict damage with the first.
Roll to hit, to wound, armor save and inflict damage with the second.
...
Roll to hit, to wound, armor save and inflict damage with the thirty first.

Statistically, the Necrosphinx will take 4 wounds. That's a third of his overall life from just 10 basic Khorne cultist dudes. He's not that hard to kill.

 Kriswall wrote:
Remember that the Necrosphinx halves any wounds or mortal wounds as they're dealt. This really only helps with attacks that cause multiple wounds or damage.

If I hit him with the spell that causes d3 mortal wounds, I roll d3 and divide by two.

If I attack him with 20 guys who each get 1 attack and 10 cause wounds... he takes 10 wounds. You'd be halving 1 ten times and rounding up to 1 each time. You wouldn't be halving the overall 10 down to 5.

Necrosphinxes aren't that hard to kill. You just don't get as much mileage out of multiple wound/damage attacks.

Eh, considering how nice and "clear" the rules are, I'm not entirely sure which way is correct. The way it sounds is after all of the attacks are rolled together, and afterwards deals a "pool" of wounds.

So, you roll 2 attacks with d3 damage and get say, 4 wounds with rend -1.

Then you get 20 attacks that cause 10 wounds with no Rend (rolled separately because different stats). So that's 10 wounds.

Then "AŽfter all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are in‘flicted..."


Then again, I could be interpreting this wrong, but there's very little to go off. It's doesn't specify that multiple Damage wounds count as one wound if wounds are equal to damage, so that a D3 damage is D3 wounds that you save against.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Remember that the Necrosphinx halves any wounds or mortal wounds as they're dealt. This really only helps with attacks that cause multiple wounds or damage.

If I hit him with the spell that causes d3 mortal wounds, I roll d3 and divide by two.

If I attack him with 20 guys who each get 1 attack and 10 cause wounds... he takes 10 wounds. You'd be halving 1 ten times and rounding up to 1 each time. You wouldn't be halving the overall 10 down to 5.

Necrosphinxes aren't that hard to kill. You just don't get as much mileage out of multiple wound/damage attacks.

Eh, considering how nice and "clear" the rules are, I'm not entirely sure which way is correct. The way it sounds is after all of the attacks are rolled together, and afterwards deals a "pool" of wounds.

So, you roll 2 attacks with d3 damage and get say, 4 wounds with rend -1.

Then you get 20 attacks that cause 10 wounds with no Rend (rolled separately because different stats). So that's 10 wounds.

Then "AŽfter all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are in‘flicted..."


Then again, I could be interpreting this wrong, but there's very little to go off. It's doesn't specify that multiple Damage wounds count as one wound if wounds are equal to damage, so that a D3 damage is D3 wounds that you save against.

The rules clearly allow you to make attack rolls one at a time...

"Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in
some cases, you can roll the dice for attacks
together.  e following attack sequence is
used to make attacks one at a time:"

You assign wounds after all the attacks have been rolled and the inflicted wounds have been pooled together. Once you have assigned them, the rule halves the total. It always works.
Yes, it makes them quite durable. Just bring more stuff to balance it out.

Vetril wrote:
You assign wounds after all the attacks have been rolled and the inflicted wounds have been pooled together. Once you have assigned them, the rule halves the total. It always works.
Yes, it makes them quite durable. Just bring more stuff to balance it out.

Ah... yes. I missed the part that says 'after all attacks have been carried out...'.

My point stands though. They're relatively easy to kill with massed attacks. The rule effectively makes it a monster with 24 wounds. If you're house ruling in a wounds limit or points balancing system (neither of which I think is necessary), just double his points or call him 24 wounds.

I'm not so sure about this. Let's analyze:

1. Attacks can be made one at a time, or many at the same time.

2. Once all attacks made by a unit have been carried out, EACH successful attack INFLICTS A NUMBER of wounds equal to the Damage of the weapon.

3. If many attacks have been rolled at the same time, ADD UP THE TOTAL number of wounds caused.

We know the above to be true, and we know that the Sphinx (among others) have a rule that "Halve any wounds inflicted (rounding fractions up)".


We can easily tell that you don't halve anything after 1. above, as that only states how you may roll your attack dice.

But it CAN be inserted after 2. above. Which means you look at EACH successful attack, and have that attack inflict damage, which is then halved. That would mean a DMG 1 weapon would make 0.5=1 dmg on the sphinx.

Number 3. above can be interpreted as adding all wounds to a pool, which is then halved...but can just as easily be interpreted as adding the number of wounds up AFTER the halving has been made, as that would in fact be the actual "total number of wounds caused" by the attacks.

I've never thought about it before, and just assumed it works that you halve dmg after the total dmg has been calculated, but now that I check it closer, I'm not so sure at all anymore.

For the PPC, I will definately go with halving damage before adding up, as that will make the Sphinx be less indestructible and therefor cost less points and actually be usable in more games.

Interesting stuff, nontheless!

 Kriswall wrote:

Vetril wrote:
You assign wounds after all the attacks have been rolled and the inflicted wounds have been pooled together. Once you have assigned them, the rule halves the total. It always works.
Yes, it makes them quite durable. Just bring more stuff to balance it out.

Ah... yes. I missed the part that says 'after all attacks have been carried out...'.

My point stands though. They're relatively easy to kill with massed attacks. The rule effectively makes it a monster with 24 wounds. If you're house ruling in a wounds limit or points balancing system (neither of which I think is necessary), just double his points or call him 24 wounds.

I think you just dont realize the point....

First of all, it has the rediculously high average damage output among monsters. No matter the target is 4+/5+/6+ or -, it is simply the highest. If the target is 4+ (which is common among elite troops), Necrophinx can be 66%% more effective compare with a Dreadlord on dragon or Chaoslord on Manticore, and 100% more effecitive compare with other weaker monsters.

Second, it has insane mobility. It can charge average 25 inches in one turn, which means if he wants to attack with the first round advantage, few can stop him.

Last comes the halve wound gak, actually it's still OP even if it annot half danmage of 1. If it could, well....

You can just make some simulation, using your best troops counts 50W and fight in front of this 12W monster, see how much the monster can kill before you perish him. Then you will find the problem is more than something called durable...

It's simply broken, especially consider it's not the only 'good' unit in TK army.

Aeonotakist wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Vetril wrote:
You assign wounds after all the attacks have been rolled and the inflicted wounds have been pooled together. Once you have assigned them, the rule halves the total. It always works.
Yes, it makes them quite durable. Just bring more stuff to balance it out.

Ah... yes. I missed the part that says 'after all attacks have been carried out...'.

My point stands though. They're relatively easy to kill with massed attacks. The rule effectively makes it a monster with 24 wounds. If you're house ruling in a wounds limit or points balancing system (neither of which I think is necessary), just double his points or call him 24 wounds.

I think you just dont realize the point....

First of all, it has the rediculously high average damage output among monsters. No matter the target is 4+/5+/6+ or -, it is simply the highest. If the target is 4+ (which is common among elite troops), Necrophinx can be 66%% more effective compare with a Dreadlord on dragon or Chaoslord on Manticore, and 100% more effecitive compare with other weaker monsters.

Second, it has insane mobility. It can charge average 25 inches in one turn, which means if he wants to attack with the first round advantage, few can stop him.

Last comes the halve wound gak, actually it's still OP even if it annot half danmage of 1. If it could, well....

You can just make some simulation, using your best troops counts 50W and fight in front of this 12W monster, see how much the monster can kill before you perish him. Then you will find the problem is more than something called durable...

It's simply broken, especially consider it's not the only 'good' unit in TK army.

Yes.

And the Warp Lightning Cannon, I've come to realize, is also slowed.

There's a lot of dumb, OP stuff in this game now. That's just.....Age of Sigmar.

Necrosphinx is, and always has been, a monster killer. It is a monster that is meant to fight and beat other monsters in combat.

Of course it is going to beat the majority of monsters!

Did the math for 50 Slayers (32 in attack range assuming a perfect surround)

It charges and therefore gets the first attacks, and is equipped with the Bladed Tail which causes .99 wounds on average as opposed to the venom-spike tail (.87 average wounds). It does a total of 8.91 damage which kills 9 Slayers.
In return, their deathblow ability triggers, causing 4.5 mortal wounds to the Necrosphinx.

Now the Slayers attack 65 times, hitting on 3+ and wounding on 3+. This causes ~28 wounds, which are halved by the Sacred War Statue rule. Now it takes the 4+ armor save and saves 7 of the 14 wounds...

In one round of combat (where IT started the fight), I have removed 11 of 12 wounds. Next turn I get to strike first and almost guarantee a kill.

I think it would be fun to just run Night Goblin Fanatics.

They come in unit sizes of 1+. Just run a bunch of them individually. With d6 attacks, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and -2 rending, they will average 1 damage done per model. If you run the individually, you negate the Necrosphinx's ability to half wounds taken. Through careful positioning, you also limit the Necrosphinx's ability to kill your dudes. Deploy them just over 3" apart in a grid and move them forward, maintaining a 3" spread. At best, he'll be able to kill 2 before the rest charge in the following turn and roflstomp him.

You're also going to be peppering him with War Machines, attacking with ranged combat, running other units towards him, etc, etc. You'd never allow something this nasty to go up against one unit at a time. Realistically, with even minor support, 20 or so fanatics would easily kill this thing.

Rihgu wrote:
Necrosphinx is, and always has been, a monster killer. It is a monster that is meant to fight and beat other monsters in combat.

Of course it is going to beat the majority of monsters!

Did the math for 50 Slayers (32 in attack range assuming a perfect surround)

It charges and therefore gets the first attacks, and is equipped with the Bladed Tail which causes .99 wounds on average as opposed to the venom-spike tail (.87 average wounds). It does a total of 8.91 damage which kills 9 Slayers.
In return, their deathblow ability triggers, causing 4.5 mortal wounds to the Necrosphinx.

Now the Slayers attack 65 times, hitting on 3+ and wounding on 3+. This causes ~28 wounds, which are halved by the Sacred War Statue rule. Now it takes the 4+ armor save and saves 7 of the 14 wounds...

In one round of combat (where IT started the fight), I have removed 11 of 12 wounds. Next turn I get to strike first and almost guarantee a kill.

Slayers are also monster killers so they can do this good job. They dont battle shock and get low wounds & deathblow.

But if you consider a normal 50W v 50W game, will you go with 50 slayers? What will happen if you have 3~5 different types of units here and there, suddenly Necrophinx strike from 25' away into your weak side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I think it would be fun to just run Night Goblin Fanatics.

They come in unit sizes of 1+. Just run a bunch of them individually. With d6 attacks, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and -2 rending, they will average 1 damage done per model. If you run the individually, you negate the Necrosphinx's ability to half wounds taken. Through careful positioning, you also limit the Necrosphinx's ability to kill your dudes. Deploy them just over 3" apart in a grid and move them forward, maintaining a 3" spread. At best, he'll be able to kill 2 before the rest charge in the following turn and roflstomp him.

You're also going to be peppering him with War Machines, attacking with ranged combat, running other units towards him, etc, etc. You'd never allow something this nasty to go up against one unit at a time. Realistically, with even minor support, 20 or so fanatics would easily kill this thing.

But you have to admit all the monsters have the problem with the strategy you mentioned like ranged combat, war machines, etc.

When we say some unit is broken we dont say it's invunerable, we just compare ith with similar stuff in other race and say whether it's comparable.

Necrophinx is better in monster vs monster: Definitely.
Necrophinx is better in fighting ranged enemy than other monsters: Definitely with its 25' charge.
Necrophinx is better in fighting formations than other monsters: Definitely. It has highest damage even against no armor units and almost highest toughness, though no reroll but a halve damage.
Necrophinx is better in holding place than other monsters: More or less not. But still alomost 24 wounds.

It fits in a Sydney Camp 50W game perfectly. But a lot of solution for that either doesn't fit or just blow up against other normal army list.

I followed the rules of your simulation, why do I have to run another one? Sounds like goalposts are being moved...

Necrosphinx is really good at doing something. A lot of units are really good at doing things. I would much rather fight a Necrosphinx than 20-30 Phoenix Guard, White Lions, or Sword Masters.

My brother runs 3-5 sphinxes of varying types (and has since 8th edition, we both think sphinxes are really cool and love seeing them on the table). It is not an OP unit (both when going against 50 Slayers and when facing a dwarf artillery line). Age of Sigmar is the first time I have been able to reliably take them down...


Edit- I see that you’re talking about a comp system. Perhaps under your comp it is broken, but for the base game it isn’t.

It looks powerful, haven't played it, but all monsters are vulnerable in this game, especially to shooting. Any of your ranged combat will be able to see the sphinx in their shooting phase, as opposed to standard-sized units who would be hiding behind your own guys.

One of the glories of dropping points/comp is that, among friends at least, nothing is overpowered or underpowered, as you simply tailor your forces as games go on and you find out relative strength of units.

Rihgu wrote:
I followed the rules of your simulation, why do I have to run another one? Sounds like goalposts are being moved...

Necrosphinx is really good at doing something. A lot of units are really good at doing things. I would much rather fight a Necrosphinx than 20-30 Phoenix Guard, White Lions, or Sword Masters.

My brother runs 3-5 sphinxes of varying types (and has since 8th edition, we both think sphinxes are really cool and love seeing them on the table). It is not an OP unit (both when going against 50 Slayers and when facing a dwarf artillery line). Age of Sigmar is the first time I have been able to reliably take them down...


Edit- I see that you’re talking about a comp system. Perhaps under your comp it is broken, but for the base game it isn’t.

Amen, brother. Most of the comments I've read about units being 'OP' go like this... "Unit ABC is OP. You can't take enough other models using the non-official, homebrew army construction guidelines we've come up with."

Maybe your comp system is broken. The way the actual game is intended to be played is:

1. Player 1 puts down a Necrosphinx.
2. Player 2 thinks "oh crap, this thing is strong" and starts dropping enough units so that he feels he'll have a sporting chance.

Done. When you place artificial limits and balancing mechanisms in place, you break that ability to balance on the fly. Sure, the Necrosphinx is powerful. In the Azyr Comp system, the Necrosphinx is 10 points. So are 24 Skeletons. the 24 Skeletons don't stand a remote chance against a Necrosphinx, yet if I use this comp, this assumption is that they are roughly balanced. My natural conclusion is that the Azyr Comp fails in this instance. The core game wouldn't fail as it relies on the players to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of their armies and deploy accordingly. If you're a crap player, this is harder, but the solution is to become a better player and not put a crutch in place.

 Kriswall wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I followed the rules of your simulation, why do I have to run another one? Sounds like goalposts are being moved...

Necrosphinx is really good at doing something. A lot of units are really good at doing things. I would much rather fight a Necrosphinx than 20-30 Phoenix Guard, White Lions, or Sword Masters.

My brother runs 3-5 sphinxes of varying types (and has since 8th edition, we both think sphinxes are really cool and love seeing them on the table). It is not an OP unit (both when going against 50 Slayers and when facing a dwarf artillery line). Age of Sigmar is the first time I have been able to reliably take them down...


Edit- I see that you’re talking about a comp system. Perhaps under your comp it is broken, but for the base game it isn’t.

Amen, brother. Most of the comments I've read about units being 'OP' go like this... "Unit ABC is OP. You can't take enough other models using the non-official, homebrew army construction guidelines we've come up with."

Maybe your comp system is broken. The way the actual game is intended to be played is:

1. Player 1 puts down a Necrosphinx.
2. Player 2 thinks "oh crap, this thing is strong" and starts dropping enough units so that he feels he'll have a sporting chance.

Done. When you place artificial limits and balancing mechanisms in place, you break that ability to balance on the fly. Sure, the Necrosphinx is powerful. In the Azyr Comp system, the Necrosphinx is 10 points. So are 24 Skeletons. the 24 Skeletons don't stand a remote chance against a Necrosphinx, yet if I use this comp, this assumption is that they are roughly balanced. My natural conclusion is that the Azyr Comp fails in this instance. The core game wouldn't fail as it relies on the players to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of their armies and deploy accordingly. If you're a crap player, this is harder, but the solution is to become a better player and not put a crutch in place.

Honestly I appriciate this reply.

I think we were desperately looking for some systematic solution for AoS. Sydney Camp seemed to be all right until suddenly someone introduced Necrophinix that smashed everything.

Definitely I know how I can put the big guy down. With 3 or more DE Bolt throwers I can easily do the task. But it isn't allowed in Sydney Camp we are playing, it is also too boring if my DE army is filled with bolt throwers. It also make any monster pick useless.

I think for Azyr, the points of the sphynxes and Stonehorn just got upped assuming that you cut in half the total number of wounds caused, after they were pooled.

But yes, the TK constructs are tough as hell, and can also be healed.

It's AOS. You either pick a homebrew points system you like to balance things, or toss any balance out the window and just argue with your buddy about what goes on the table.

Or you play it as it is intended to be played placing down units appropriate for the scenario and making sure to place units that can do well against the units your buddy places down.

No need to argue about anything.

 mikhaila wrote:
I think for Azyr, the points of the sphynxes and Stonehorn just got upped assuming that you cut in half the total number of wounds caused, after they were pooled.

But yes, the TK constructs are tough as hell, and can also be healed.

It's AOS. You either pick a homebrew points system you like to balance things, or toss any balance out the window and just argue with your buddy about what goes on the table.

Or pick option three. Pick your opponents carefully and realize that the core game has several inbuilt balancing mechanisms. Every game I've played thus far has been against someone I would rate at 8-10 out of 10 for sportsmanship and has come out pretty well balanced. Most of the games have come down to 1 or 2 units duking it out and could have easily gone either way. If you're in a tournament setting, you obviously can't pick your opponent, but you CAN pick your venue. I've played organized events in local stores before where it was obvious the store owner/manager just didn't give a crap about sportsmanship (not your store!). I simply don't play at those locations anymore.

I don't think it's fair to say "homebrew points system... or toss any balance out the window". It's too black and white. General guidelines are nice to have so you know roughly what you're going to play, but saying that the core game has no balance isn't accurate. You may not feel comfortable with them and you may not like the way they work, but the balancing mechanisms are there.

Reading the Necrosphinx war scroll, I think "any", meaning one, indicates that you halve (rounding up) each wound it receives, so single-damage attacks are not changed.

 Kriswall wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say "homebrew points system... or toss any balance out the window". It's too black and white. General guidelines are nice to have so you know roughly what you're going to play, but saying that the core game has no balance isn't accurate. You may not feel comfortable with them and you may not like the way they work, but the balancing mechanisms are there.

The game in itself has no balance - in the core rules, a Bloodthirster is the same than a night goblin. That will be never balanced in itself. Everything is made by the players themselves.

If you have to choose your opponents to play against because they play something according to the rules that doesn't match your playstyle, you can't say the game has nothing to do with it. A good balanced game makes it so that all players can use something according to the rules and don't feel like jerks because they completely overpower the other so that he doesn't have any chance to win.

AoS allows that situation of winning without the other being able to do anything at all. Even in the big book scenarios, that can happen - and I must say it's very easy to exploit.

Stop saying things that aren't true. AoS is not balanced, it was never intended to. It just put the ball in the players' side - so that they can use the game according to both of their tastes. Trying to play AoS like you play another balanced game (and yes, there are balanced games on the market - you just have to look outside of GW) without modifying the core rules so that they fit your gaming group is, IMHO, something that will eventually fail in a way or another.

Also, cutting yourself from other potential players is a wrong move on the long term.


About the Necrosphinx, it is strong - but it can't really be overpowered since there is no way to balance it in the core rules. The players have to agree with each other so that they can play an interesting game - and that means making sure the forces in presence are somewhat balanced or the scenario played give a fair chance to each side.

They can also agree to play something completely unbalanced, for a special scenario or just to see how much time you can stand against an irresistible force. Like the Zulu scenario GW made a few years ago for 40k, where a small garrison of imperial guard had to fight multiple waves of much more numerous orks in a fixed number of turns.

So no, tactics alone will not be enough. You have to make sure the game will be interesting to play at the beginning, and that means making sure both of the armies and the scenario will be suited.

And yes, it can take some time. Sometimes more than the game itself. That's what AoS truly is.

So I suppose the hiccup here is whether a necro sphinx halves wounds or haves the damage of wounds an wether or not it affects an entire pool or each attack individually?

Its halve wounds or mortal wounds suffered.

Demandread wrote:
So I suppose the hiccup here is whether a necro sphinx halves wounds or haves the damage of wounds an wether or not it affects an entire pool or each attack individually?

GW could avoid a lot of problems with a better editing process. But because the description says "any" not "all", I'm going with halving each wound taken.

burningstuff wrote:

Demandread wrote:
So I suppose the hiccup here is whether a necro sphinx halves wounds or haves the damage of wounds an wether or not it affects an entire pool or each attack individually?

GW could avoid a lot of problems with a better editing process. But because the description says "any" not "all", I'm going with halving each wound taken.

The process is as follows, taken straight from the rules.

Making the attack(s):

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Roll saving throw

Determine damage.

Then, after all attacks have been carried out, damage is allocated. That's when models actually suffer wounds. That's key here. They choose what unit to attack, and that unit makes their saving throws, but damage is not allocated until all attacks against that unit have been carried out. For example, 20 attacks cause 10 wounds, then there's 3 more attacks that have Rend -1 and deal D3 damage, dealing, for instance, 5 wounds. After all of those are resolved (saves and all) then the damage is allocated.


So, my interpretation would be a "pool" of wounds is dealt, in which case, the pool is halved against a Sphinx.

 Kriswall wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
I think for Azyr, the points of the sphynxes and Stonehorn just got upped assuming that you cut in half the total number of wounds caused, after they were pooled.

But yes, the TK constructs are tough as hell, and can also be healed.

It's AOS. You either pick a homebrew points system you like to balance things, or toss any balance out the window and just argue with your buddy about what goes on the table.

Or pick option three. Pick your opponents carefully and realize that the core game has several inbuilt balancing mechanisms. Every game I've played thus far has been against someone I would rate at 8-10 out of 10 for sportsmanship and has come out pretty well balanced. Most of the games have come down to 1 or 2 units duking it out and could have easily gone either way. If you're in a tournament setting, you obviously can't pick your opponent, but you CAN pick your venue. I've played organized events in local stores before where it was obvious the store owner/manager just didn't give a crap about sportsmanship (not your store!). I simply don't play at those locations anymore.

I don't think it's fair to say "homebrew points system... or toss any balance out the window". It's too black and white. General guidelines are nice to have so you know roughly what you're going to play, but saying that the core game has no balance isn't accurate. You may not feel comfortable with them and you may not like the way they work, but the balancing mechanisms are there.

I'll just say that you and I have a vastly different viewpoint as to whether or not GW put any "balance" in their version or not. My viewpoint is based on trying to run a league for a couple of dozen people, and providing some structure so players can come to a store and do pick up games. "Just slap all the crap you own on the table" isn't quite enough balance in this situation.

 Kriswall wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
I think for Azyr, the points of the sphynxes and Stonehorn just got upped assuming that you cut in half the total number of wounds caused, after they were pooled.

But yes, the TK constructs are tough as hell, and can also be healed.

It's AOS. You either pick a homebrew points system you like to balance things, or toss any balance out the window and just argue with your buddy about what goes on the table.

Or pick option three. Pick your opponents carefully and realize that the core game has several inbuilt balancing mechanisms. Every game I've played thus far has been against someone I would rate at 8-10 out of 10 for sportsmanship and has come out pretty well balanced. Most of the games have come down to 1 or 2 units duking it out and could have easily gone either way. If you're in a tournament setting, you obviously can't pick your opponent, but you CAN pick your venue. I've played organized events in local stores before where it was obvious the store owner/manager just didn't give a crap about sportsmanship (not your store!). I simply don't play at those locations anymore.

I don't think it's fair to say "homebrew points system... or toss any balance out the window". It's too black and white. General guidelines are nice to have so you know roughly what you're going to play, but saying that the core game has no balance isn't accurate. You may not feel comfortable with them and you may not like the way they work, but the balancing mechanisms are there.

But I will still say it's a pity not to have a careful/ seemly balanced rule.

First of all, if you have some army rules, you can spend some time studying it and it will give some fun. It's like in other games we discuss and think about which combiniation is the best in Starcraft or how to buy gears for a Dota II champ.
If we are only playing like 'Oh you got a Necrophinx so I should have 20 slayers'. We miss pat of the fun before battle. Actually this is also important in real tactics that generals need to stuy their enemy and decide whether he will bring more horse or archers in this battle... It is another kind of sporting but completely died in AoS.

Second, it's hard to judge what is 'appropriate'. I have some friends that is really nice. But sometimes we can have quite different opinion about same unit and that will lead to some troubling situation. Like in the first few games when I deploy 5 dark rider my friends will always deploy 10 Silver Helm since he believe that is right! Dark Riders are evil! But actually I totally disagree with him. Also when he has some Sword Master I will always use same number of Executioners as counter. But he told me later that he think that is unfair.
Play with friends with sportmanship will only prevent problem like people pile 6 Nagashes on the table to fight your skeleton archers, but will never stop disagreement.

I think this is a core difference between how I view the game and how others view the game.

By way of explanation, let me share my experiences with Magic the Gathering. I used to work at a comic shop when Magic first came out. I was literally immersed in it every minute of every day of work. It was fun. You built a deck and went up against your opponent. If you lost, you tweaked things. Everyone's deck was personal. Tournaments were fun and everyone had a chance. Fast forward to the advent of the Internet proper and the sharing of min/maxed deck lists. All of a sudden, you'd go to a tournament and play against the same few deck lists over and over. Gone was the personality and uniqueness of every deck. That's when I quit.

I feel the same way about my tabletop gaming. Looking at my hobby room, you'd assume that I'm a huge Warhammer 40k guy. In reality, I've lost the stomach for tournaments. I got tired of playing against the same army lists over and over and over. If you watch the meta, you can predict with decent accuracy the types of lists that will be in the top 5 at just about any tournament. People say things like, "Why did you take that unit... this other unit is the correct one for your list." That killed organized play for me. I now play almost exclusively with friends who don't watch the meta and just play with what they want.

Now... what I see when I look at Age of Sigmar. I see a game that actively undermines the ability for a tournament meta to exist. The game is predicated on playing with what you want and having fun with your friends. I'm not expecting to see a meta appear for the core game since there are so few elements to latch onto. There is no model count limit. There is no Hero limit. There are no points. You simply play with your friends using the models you like. If you lose too often, ask your friends to cut back on some of their tougher units or buy something new to be more competitive. Buy literally whatever you like.

I understand that local communities will put structures in place that allow them to build up a local meta over time. I understand that some people like the min/maxing and the carefully researched crafting that goes into the 'perfect list'. I understand that some people can't stand the chaos for numerous valid reasons. I am not one of those people. I celebrate that this game evades control. I embrace the chaos. This is what I cut my teeth on and it's what I look forward to. If I want perfect balance, I'll play chess. If I want carefully researched lists with airtight rules, I'll play Magic. If I want uncontrollable fun, I'll play Age of Sigmar.

 krodarklorr wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

Demandread wrote:
So I suppose the hiccup here is whether a necro sphinx halves wounds or haves the damage of wounds an wether or not it affects an entire pool or each attack individually?

GW could avoid a lot of problems with a better editing process. But because the description says "any" not "all", I'm going with halving each wound taken.

The process is as follows, taken straight from the rules.

Making the attack(s):

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Roll saving throw

Determine damage.

Then, after all attacks have been carried out, damage is allocated. That's when models actually suffer wounds. That's key here. They choose what unit to attack, and that unit makes their saving throws, but damage is not allocated until all attacks against that unit have been carried out. For example, 20 attacks cause 10 wounds, then there's 3 more attacks that have Rend -1 and deal D3 damage, dealing, for instance, 5 wounds. After all of those are resolved (saves and all) then the damage is allocated.


So, my interpretation would be a "pool" of wounds is dealt, in which case, the pool is halved against a Sphinx.

^^This guy gets it.