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.

Speaking as not at all a tournament player, I haven't found large units of skeletons to be overpowering at all. However, it already is the case that they are really only effective at all when taking a big unit. I don't mind much as I like the idea of an unending horde of skeletons. But it does mean that you're never going to take a unit of 10 or even 20 of them. They rules they gave skeleton's means, in a practical sense, fewer options. If you want to play a small game and take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're going to lose because they'll be useless.

Giving a point discount for hordes just makes this more obvious. That's kind of the issue. I'd like the option of taking a small unit of skeletons in a small game, and not paying way more points for them than they are worth.

On the other hand, I can kind of see the point discount for hordes making sense because much of the unit won't be able to attack. So really the point reduction is probably not as bad as the giving each model extra attacks for the big unit.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.

The bonus is calculated in the battleshock phase, so if a unit of 30 skellies lost 10 models, they'd only get -2 to battleshock, so 1-4. Sorry if that seems pedantic, but a lot of players I've faced seem to think you calculate the battleshock bonus based on the starting unit size.

 Bottle wrote:
Do you have the same bone to pick with models that replenish units then, Auticus?

As someone who has a Necron player in the group, I have a bone to pick with that. I absolutely would want to charge more for WBB.

Just sayin'

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.

The bonus is calculated in the battleshock phase, so if a unit of 30 skellies lost 10 models, they'd only get -2 to battleshock, so 1-4. Sorry if that seems pedantic, but a lot of players I've faced seem to think you calculate the battleshock bonus based on the starting unit size.

AFAIK skeletons max at a unit size of 40, so 40-10=30 remaining. Though I could be mistaken.

You understand the concept though right Ninth? It was a general example of one of the reasons large units don't get the same value per model that smaller units do. But you pay the same cost and possibly for a portion of that time they have a small bonus. I think that actually makes discounting larger units worth it.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You understand the concept though right Ninth? It was a general example of one of the reasons large units don't get the same value per model that smaller units do. But you pay the same cost and possibly for a portion of that time they have a small bonus. I think that actually makes discounting larger units worth it.

Honestly if they hadn't called out skeletons and zombies we wouldn't be having this discussion. In regards to units that do not have scaling size bonuses a discount on maxing them would be appropriate. Look units like tree-revenants that are never taken beyond minimum size. If the bonus was small, too, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Bonesplittaz with sword n board or chaos marauders are good examples of size-scaling bonuses that simply offset the disadvantage of larger size. But then there are units like skeletons, where deploying them 10 wide and 4 deep means getting 90 attacks (from the front 3 ranks). Sure 10 skeletons arent attacking, but your enemy has to put 11 wounds on the unit before their offense reduces at all. At 30 skeletons the first wound reduces offense considerably; 90 attacks down to 58! Deploying with 20 skeletons will let you run the unit 7 wide but only gives you 40 attacks, at least until you take a single wound and it drops to 19.

To illustrate in a more practical manner, do it on the table. Pit 40 skeletons against two units of 20, then pit 40 against 4 units of 10. You'll find that the 40 man has a consistent advantage, and that 4x10 actually performs better than 2x20 because of four banners instead of two. The reality is that there are four effective costs in play; skeletons 1-19 are worth X each, skeletons 20-29 that are worth Y each, skeletons 30-40 that are worth Z each, where X<Y><Z, and finally the presence or absence of a command group worth W. It all adds up to 10 or 40 being the best options, so really its 20 and 30 that need a discount, not 40.>

Not to be rude but who in gods name is attacking 40 skeletons 10x4 across their front? And if I hit that 40 man unit with 2x20 or 2x10 on the flank with the 4 models it's ugly as hell. I can maximize my damage output and seriously hamper yours. Yes, if people drive right into you then large units get crazy good bonuses. Reality though has shown something different.

Math doesn't always account for actual value. I realize that you feel skeletons and zombies are outliers for hordes and they are. But it's still something I think is needed and death as an overall needs the bump. I'll be stoked if I can get my ghouls cheaper. Because unlike skeletons I'm paying points for my d6 to come back.

If it is indeed a matter of tabletop performance over math then get a buddy and test it out! I've certainly learned a lot from doing so in the past. Though for skeletons you may want to assume a death character nearby otherwise it could take a while...

Edit: Actually I think I'll try it out myself, I haven't actually tested skeletons myself so I should put my money where my mouth is

If you have a counter argument that can describe point costing a model without taking math into consideration, please do so and change my mind. I'd love to live in a world where this change won't bother me.

I'll be stoked if I can get my ghouls cheaper

Everyone is stoked when their units come cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I played a game this evening with the current using my tomb kings.

I had three units of 40 skeletons. My opponents and I have discussed this proposed change, and while all of us are in total agreement that it will be making them stupid cheap and thus a must take if you play death, they were instructed to do their best to make sure that I couldn't get the majority of my models into contact.

THat was their entire mission. The scenario if you will.

They failed hard.

One of my skeleton units was tied up pretty good but the other two came in and hit 30/40 and 32/40 and then through attrition managed to stay nearly entirely engaged in the first game and in the second game I was only at about 25 - 28 in contact because I was fighting ogres and low model count army.

So against a medium to higher count army I was easily getting the majority of my unit engaged. Against a small model count army it was a bit of a struggle.

Both games ended with me destroying both my opponents by turn 3 because they couldn't keep up with the skeleton blocks and they conceded. One game could have kept going on but his general died and it wasn't looking good for him though I think he could have made that game a bit clsoer.

Both of those opponents play tournaments regular and place fairly high so it wasn't a matter of incompetence. Its that the skeletons are already underpriced and I waltzed all over their face with a min/max list.

This is why when people say "but you won't get them all in contact so their extra attacks are wasted and they should BE FREE" I vehemently strongly disagree. Because I know *I* can get the majority of my attacks in, and when they get EVEN CHEAPER you've just handed me something close to my 7th ed whfb demon army.

If plaguebearers get that benefit I'll probably run 3x30 as my battleline because they. would. never. move!

I was also able to get in some skeleton testing, though this was several games of 40 vs 2x20, assuming a Death character in range. Hulk was right in that when it came to putting them on the field I didn't go with 4 ranks of 10 and instead went more for and ovalish grouping about 5 ranks deep. Like Auticus they really didn't have much trouble getting nearly everyone into melee range though, pile-ins went a long way. The results were heavily in the 40-man unit's favor. Only if the two units got off successful charges on opposite flanks did they have a chance, but the edge was still to the 40. A big factor I didn't think of was alternating picks for combat; even on the 2x20's turn one of them had to swing after the big unit, while on the big unit's turn it got to swing everyone first.

Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.

Blehhhhhhhhh.

Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.

Blehhhhhhhhh.

Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.

I won't lie...I can field a horde of Eternal Guard and Glade Guard and I really like this change.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.

Blehhhhhhhhh.

Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.

Yeah if the discount is just 10% it shouldn't be too bad, it will just save a few points off units people were going to max out anyway.

Edit: Warhammer TV video is telling us the bloodletters (and therefore other daemon troops) are getting a max discount, horde meta here we come! I'm hoping for a plagueclaw discount now because then I could totally take my Epi-Foulrain list to tournaments.

Second day of breaking the game testing. I ran the same army today. Played two games again. This time against a kunnin rukk army and the second against a low model count demon army.

Kunnin rukk tabled me in three turns. No surprise there. I just couldn't do anything to the orc archers and the leader was hidden the entire time out of LOS. I managed to drop most of the archers but most of my army was destroyed by the end of turn 3. My characters were taken out by turn 2.

Against the demon army I could get about half my skeletons into combat. I ended up winning by tabling him turn 5.

What I'm seeing right now is that against low model count armies, the horde has a hard time getting all its models into combat.

Against armies running actual units, getting most of my skeletons is very easy to do.

Ending weekend prognosis... the remains of my AOS group lost a few more members to the new GHB's proposed changes and a larger kings of war group is forming now. There is a tournament coming up in sept for KOW that has 32 registered players. Our AOS group is now down to 6 with three of those six considering dropping entirely and waiting to see what GHB 2018 does.

The reasons cited were primarily that players are opposed to feeling the need to collect hordes again like they did in 8th edition, and no one wants to have to buff up units by buying more and painting more.

The secondary reason cited mirrored mine. That the point system here is not indicative of balance and is being used to emphasize certain play styles as opposed to being created to allow as many models feasibility as possible and that list building has gone off the rails and is getting even more stupid.

I don't know how kunnin rukk fares. Even with a discount in skeletons I still cannot figure out how to crack 240 shots a turn and a 480 shot double-turn from one unit alone not to mention the other elements in the army.

TLDR: what's left of my AOS community is about to evaporate because of these changes and I may be left with virtual tabletops to play any games of it or only get to play it by driving to the big tournaments and playing tournament style games as campaign games will be non existent. Or also go full in to kings of war.

I suspect they will nerf kunnin' rukk in some manner, ideally by just removing the shoot option, or by increasing its point cost. GW seems pretty allergic to battalions costing above 150 though.

Hope so. Regardless, hordes are definitely going to be broken powerful. To be more specific - hordes that gain abilities based on their size that already don't pay for those abilities, like skeletons.

Tons of free points / abilities. Its basically back to the days of free summoning only using points to make people feel better about it.

For my money, I'm glad I still have so many skeleton models from my tomb kings and vampire counts days. Because I'm about to suddenly be a really skilled and tactical opponent.

Still wondering about that Table of Contents listing for "Warscroll Changes" or whatever it was. I'm hoping they'll use that to hand out a few nerfs (like removing Arrer Boyz from Kunnin' Rukk).

Article has updates:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/31/balanced-diverse-fun-matched-play-in-the-generals-handbook-2017-july31gw-homepage-post-3/

40 points cheaper for clanrats taken at Max size. 6s always hit. Can't modify the priority roll. Can't take more than 1 of the same artifact.

 Bottle wrote:

I think GW are trying to balance the game at an alliance level first and then at faction level rather than a unit vs unit level.

Yes, this - this is the way GW have always done things (well, since 'proper' army books came out). To get a grip on 'balance' in GW games (with the understanding that balance is not the bullseye, but rather the whole target) you cannot look at straight unit v. unit comparisons. If you check out the 40k pages, you will see people trying to do this and coming up short every time - this morning, I was reading someone complaining that Ork Trukks were below par compared to Razorbacks. Leaving side any possibility for that actually being the case (always possible, but remember the whole target not the bullseye is the goal), there was no attention given to the context of the vehicles and that the armies function completely differently, thus altering the 'worth' of units.

GW works on balancing armies, not individual units or models...

Bye bye The Last Word spam. It was fun while it lasted.

GW works on balancing armies, not individual units or models...

That would be great. If they actually balanced their armies instead of what they normally do, and what was done to AOS GHB year one, which is to let two or three armies run amuk all over everything else.

All I'm hearing today is death players wringing their hands with glee and cackling because they all feel easy-mode has been handed to them for a while until GHB 2018 moves the goal posts.

I'd also argue that GHB version 1.0 was done at the unit / model level based on developer blogs and discussions taking place before GHB when the fan comps were all being updated ... as GHB is based on the SCGT fan comp and to my knowledge all of the fan comps that were high visibility were all working at the unit level.

I'd acknowledge that this could very well be Games Workshop taking the reigns and inserting their special flavor of balance into the game. And I think it may even be cool for some of those horde units that don't get jack (like marauders or reavers) by themselves, but the issue comes out to me glaringly when applied to those units that get stat buffs for free already simply by min/maxing them. THis is just encouraging powergaming min/max even more because it puts forth the question "why would I never do this"

 auticus wrote:


That would be great. If they actually balanced their armies instead of what they normally do,

I am not saying the system is perfect are even works. Just that this is where they are coming from

 auticus wrote:

All I'm hearing today is death players wringing their hands with glee and cackling because they all feel easy-mode has been handed to them for a while until GHB 2018 moves the goal posts.

I was following your maths project when AoS came out - good work... but I had some issues with it

First off, I believe it left out the Battalions - prime army-level stuff that GW has engaged in, and Battalions can have a powerful effect (see Kunnin' Rukk in your example above). Add in synergies with characters (or other units), and I am thinking the maths starts getting very nasty (you will be the expert there).

Second, something that occurred to me while reading your example of getting big block skellies in. A proportion of the push back you are getting from other players may be because they are not seeing the same thing you are, and that they genuinely don't see big blocks getting the majority of their models fighting. Let us assume, for a moment, that this is because you are a Better Player and they are Worse Players.

Might that not skew your interpretation of data?

I think what you are doing is Most Worthy and has utility, but I also think it cannot provide a comprehensive picture of these games because there is too much going on and, importantly, too much going on that is not being modelled in your system.

Maybe a slightly different approach, a Theory of Every Model?

If balancing the game at the alliance level is what they are trying then they may succeed. Of course its likely to imbalance the game at the tabletop level where we are actually playing. I've simply accepted that we are going from an elite meta to a horde one and am building more movement trays. When GHB1 came out there were a number of people insisting that it had good balance, and I have a guilty pleasure in crushing those people with a hard dose of reality on the tabletop.

Azyr had battalion points. That came out during the third revision.

The big issue is indeed trying to calc points costs into abstract effects. That is where math starts to break down from an absolute standpoint you are correct. How we modeled it was to take the most gregarious example and point it against that, since thats what powergamers were going to powergame with.

As to the pushback from other players, I agree with you just as I agreed with Sam (bottle).

If one's environment is mostly low model count elite armies, as I think the tournament environment is, which becomes many areas' default environments, then indeed paying full cost for a horde of skeletons seems unfair since you can't get all your models in base contact.

Against a medium size or large size unit however you become the lawnmower man. Easily. The math models it, and I've seen it many many times. The counter to the horde if you pay actual points is the elite low model count approach.

Now that begs the question: do you discount the horde then and assume elite low model count approach? I don't think there's a good answer to this here. I can argue either way.

I was very heated against the GHB to begin with for the skeleton reason in the first place because they were giving free points essentially but I got over it and lived with it because it wasn't as bad. Now they took that issue I had and tore it wide open by making skeletons even more low costing.

Now let's assume the better or worse player syndrome. This is entirely fair. This cannot be measured because I find a lot of good players are not that good when given normal armies, so measuring good player vs bad player is a difficult task for me.

I am often accused on other forums of being a very bad player because I complain about balance, and only bad players complain about balance, since a good player will know how to powergame and obviously I don't know how to powergame or else I would and would be winning and not complaining about balance.

That bothers me. That people are ok with balance so long as they are winning and thats a popular counter argument to math.

The second most used fallacy is "if that faction hasn't won a major tournament its not that powerful". Because again that eschews other reasons for a powerful army not winning a tournamnet such as number of players playing the army, the reason why people aren't collecting the army (for death its because no one wants to paint 200 skeletons and no one wants an army without a battletome it seems)

Now back to the skeleton issue, I have tried looking at it from a bunch of angles but it keeps coming back to they are modeled at the price point of 1 attack, but when maxed and have 3 attacks they are grossly overpowered. I've used my skeleton blobs to wipe out wholesale armies because I'm simply doing kunnin rukk only in melee. I'm rolling so many dice that the odds are hugely stacked in my favor.

And now I'm going to get even more of a discount and essentially will be getting a free 40 skeleton unit on top of what I bring.

Why would I never do this?

I have about 5000 emails in my box from the azyr days. The #1 complaint was "your system makes listbuilding not count for anything because everything seems to be as powerful as everything else and I don't like that". That colors a lot of my opinion too. I even had a guy on facebook write me and wish cancer on me because his group used azyr at the time and he hated it because his listbuilding was not as potent and he didn't like that.

Now, what are the arguments countering skeletons are too powerful?

1) they really aren't undercosted and are instead overcosted. I've heard this one a lot, but no math to back the assertion up. I cannot see this since I've modeled the entire game and the standard 10 man block of skeletons falls in the middle of the bell cu rve in its efficiency rating (that being how many points you pay for how much damage you put out and can take). A "C" rating is what I want everything to have because then nothing is more or less efficient by grotesque means. By the math of the model that calculates that, skeletons at 10 models are perfect at their cost.

Therefore 20 and 30 skeletons at +1 and 2 attacks respectively are undercost.

2) that you cannot get all of the skeletons into contact with the enemy and therefore its not fair you pay all the points for them.

I find this to be... well very underwhelming. This is situational and also dependent on player skill. As noted above, I don't find it hard to get most of my models in contact, particularly against medium and large size units.

So then we come down to what is balance, what does it mean to be balanced, and what should points really represent?

In Kings of War, and in Saga, and in Lord of the Rings, and in Runewars I don't seem to have this issue as much. Spreadsheeting those games I did find some more effective units and I expected that but the number of viable builds is leaps and bounds more than in Age of Sigmar, and before that Warhammer Fantasy (which also had the same balance issues as has 40k forever)

IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.

As an aside Matt, thank you for the constructive discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.

I don't remember what ghouls get. They seem pretty fecal to me. Skeletons though, I wiped out an ogre army with my skeleton horde. I was throwing over 100 dice each time, and he couldn't keep up.

So this could make crap units like ghouls be "balanced" (good) and then undercost units like skeleton hordes more undercost and rife for powergamers to abuse (very bad).

 auticus wrote:
As an aside Matt, thank you for the constructive discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.

I don't remember what ghouls get. They seem pretty fecal to me. Skeletons though, I wiped out an ogre army with my skeleton horde. I was throwing over 100 dice each time, and he couldn't keep up.

I would have had 3 attacks a piece if I hadn't lost the alpha, but I had like only 10 or so guys in combat range (between two terrain pieces). but ghouls base get 2 attacks, +1 if >= 20, +1 if a king on foot puts his spell on them, +1 if a ghast courtier kills something (very unlikely)

Yeah when i'm using my skeletons that is something that I liked... the skill to set up where I was going to maximize my attacks.

Against ogres I was only getting 15-20 skeletons of my 40 in contact because he had so few models but that was 60 45-60 attacks from one unit.

When I played the elite khorne demon army it was similar. Three blood thirsters and the wrath mongers are hard to maximize a horde against.

Wayniac wrote:
IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.

What kind of ogors? Assuming the cheapest possible ones we are already looking at 360 vs 300 points. If, say, the 3-man unit was maneaters or ironguts then its already 460 vs 300 points. Basic ogor units also get better attacks the turn they charge, making them perform better in that specific instance. Seems like the balance was appropriate here.

Ghouls are also a unit where the size scaling bonus is well balanced; it compansates for the disadvantages of such a large unit without making them actually stronger on a point efficiency basis. Keep in mind that while a 30-man ghoul unit gets 50% more attacks then a 10-man version, a skeleton unit gets 200% more attacks and will be swinging with a 2" melee range. That skeletons pay the same thing as ghouls for that would certainly irritate me were I a FEC player.

The best bit about hordes is that I love the Bloodwrack medusa model and already use them.

Bigger hordes = better Medusa.