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.

Was just pointing out thats its a carry over from Blightkings.

Not poking fun.

It is a good ability, and it gets better when you have a bunch of units with it positioned very close to one another.

The "Hug of Nurgle."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, looking at the book, Harbringer went up a bit, but he already did a lot, the units he helped most went down while getting a buff in durability equivalent to what he already gave on his own, and he gets the benefit of access to every relic available in the book. So that's a pretty fair trade in my book.

Spume also got a similar point increase. With it, he lost his command ability (not that you'd ever use it), and his tentacle porn weapon grabbing ability got nerfed a bit (4+ instead of rolling equal or higher than your opponent). He also became a bit more ambitious thanks to a new targetting restriction. In exchange, he gained a deepstrike ability reminiscent of Wulfrick of old. He'll still be solid for what you pay for, and a damn good bodyguard, but the new cost does make him a touch more prohibitive. I still like what he brings to the table, however.

Blightlords feel like a complete piss-take compared to the Lord of Affliction. For 30 points more per model, you gain +1 wound, a bell, regeneration on every turn, and the ability to inflict mortal wounds every turn. You also get an okay command ability (although you'll still likely get more from the Harbringer). I see no reason not to take multiple Lords of Affliction over Blightlords outside of their specific formation.

Head-tosser looks mediocre, nothing to get too bothered about. For what you pay, he's not really much of a star. The -1/-2 to be hit command ability is nice at first glance, but then you realize that your opponent can just target another unit instead. It might be pretty useful in a pinch, but I tend to like more generalized utility from my command abilities. I'd pass on him.

Lord of Plagues got some significant reworking. Overall, not bad, although there are probably better uses for your points.

The Maggoth Lords didn't really change at all, which isn't very good for them. Bloab is still the best of the three, although his relevance is tested with all the other toys made available.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG-Pusgoyle-blightlords.pdf

"A unit of Pusgoyle Blightlords has any number
of models."
So they can be taken in any number of models? Units of 1? Thats good, it solves the problem with using the box to make one hero.

Bought in 2s in matched play.

Ouch

 Fafnir wrote:
Blightlords feel like a complete piss-take compared to the Lord of Affliction. For 30 points more per model, you gain +1 wound, a bell, regeneration on every turn, and the ability to inflict mortal wounds every turn. You also get an okay command ability (although you'll still likely get more from the Harbringer). I see no reason not to take multiple Lords of Affliction over Blightlords outside of their specific formation.

I cannot make sense of this sentence...?
The Pusgoyle Blightlords are 220 for 2, the Lord of Affliction is 220 for 1. What is this 30 points more per model, you mention?

Honestly the Lord of Affliction isn't to specifically run with Pusgoyles, he's a front-line support character for Blightkings. Unlike the Lord of Plagues he isn't going to die from a few arcane bolts or round of shooting and he bubbles out re-roll 1s to hit. The thing to run with Pusgoyles is a GUO or Glottkin for the bonus attacks. You are looking at +3/+4 attacks per model, and they aren't crummy attacks either.

Spiky Norman wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Blightlords feel like a complete piss-take compared to the Lord of Affliction. For 30 points more per model, you gain +1 wound, a bell, regeneration on every turn, and the ability to inflict mortal wounds every turn. You also get an okay command ability (although you'll still likely get more from the Harbringer). I see no reason not to take multiple Lords of Affliction over Blightlords outside of their specific formation.

I cannot make sense of this sentence...?
The Pusgoyle Blightlords are 220 for 2, the Lord of Affliction is 220 for 1. What is this 30 points more per model, you mention?

Oh, nevermind, I was looking at a different point value. Blame it on GW's really stupid naming conventions that make everything sound the same.

EDIT: Well, crap, there goes my competitive list. Looks like a Plaguetouched Warband is not in my future. Not that the new Maggotkin really need it to be effective. Although the Plaguetouched will probably see a point adjustment in GHB2018 anyway, so it's not something worth getting hung up over.

They don't, but it is the best battalion available to them simply because it's dramatically undercosted at 100 points and can be filled with Blightkings that are themselves dramatically undercosted.

Yup.

I'll also still maintain that the Lord of Affliction is probably better than the Blightlords themselves, even if you're running two of them at their cost. The Hug of Nurgle is bound to get pretty tight (especially since I intend on having a GUO in the middle of it), and being able to ensure everyone gets rerolling 1s to hit in addition to all the other buffs should get a lot easier with access to it from multiple angles in the hug. Moreover, the Lord offers a lot of great abilities on his own that help to justify that extra cost.

If you are running a GUO general a unit of 4+ Blightlords can be devastating because giving them +1 attack to each of their 3/4 weapon profiles is a massive buff. Couple with a Lord of Affliction to re-roll 1s, and a buff spell or two...

So, bought the book but made an agreement not to open it until my wife’s Sylvaneth book comes in. Can someone tell me points for blightkings and Gutrot Spume?

Comparison costs to Wrathmongers/Skaar from Blades of Khorne is fine, I can flip that open to do the values. I’m kinda wondering about putting a unit of Nurgle Pirates into my BoK list.

160 and 140. Blightkings got an extra wound, Spume got some significant changes to his abilities.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If you are running a GUO general a unit of 4+ Blightlords can be devastating because giving them +1 attack to each of their 3/4 weapon profiles is a massive buff. Couple with a Lord of Affliction to re-roll 1s, and a buff spell or two...

...Yeah, I'm not going to spend that kind of money.

Are those Blightlord dudes good to have several units of? I sort of built their hero on accident a few months back when I built my SC Daemons of Nurgle. For some reason a Nurgle Knight on a fly/pegasus hybrid with two unridden flies as "hunting dogs" seemed to be a good idea

Now if I were to buy a box of the Blightlords and Blight Wars and a few Maggoth Lord bits I'd have the converted hero, two converted flies without riders I could put dudes on, two original Blightlords and three more flies to convert into two more and another hero/three more. The first trio would be painted differently and lack scythes, so a blob unit would look off, hence my question.

My list has six pusgoyles with the character. To fill in the miissing model (since if I buy 3 boxes I'm getting six total and one is the character) I'm goiing to use one of my plague bearer drones.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
160 and 140. Blightkings got an extra wound, Spume got some significant changes to his abilities.

If the warscroll is accurate on the app, he lets me drop a unit of blight-kings within 6" of him, and 9" from enemies at the first movement phase, from any board edge. That's exactly what I'm aiming for. If his rules changed FROM that, and the scroll is inaccurate, then that kind of sucks.

Those are the up to date rules, which is good because he has a defined role in the army now.

He is good. A lot of things are good, this army is going to be one where you have to specialize in a particular thing and build around it, because there is not enough points to take everything good.

Well there's a lot of stuff that is reasonably costed for it's performance. I'm actually pleasantly surprised about that. There are a couple things that are way out of line though, and building around those easily hits tourney-cheese level. If anything I find it confusing because if GW was trying to point things to sell models the points would look different than they do, whereas if GW had no idea how to cost things there wouldn't be so much of it on-point. It makes me wonder if different people determined the points for different groups if units.

If that's his role, then that's EXACTLY what I want him for! Score! Thanks guys; I'm gonna be hated at my local "friendly" tables!

For players interested in running a friendly Nurgle list I'd say don't run more than one GUO and don't run more than 5 Blightkings and things should work out.

Who could afford more than one GUO?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For players interested in running a friendly Nurgle list I'd say don't run more than one GUO and don't run more than 5 Blightkings and things should work out.

Oh, my "friendly" Blades of Khorne list at 2500 has Gutrot and 10 blightkings coming in from a table-edge right in my opponent's lap. Am I being an ass?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well there's a lot of stuff that is reasonably costed for it's performance. I'm actually pleasantly surprised about that. There are a couple things that are way out of line though, and building around those easily hits tourney-cheese level. If anything I find it confusing because if GW was trying to point things to sell models the points would look different than they do, whereas if GW had no idea how to cost things there wouldn't be so much of it on-point. It makes me wonder if different people determined the points for different groups if units.

I strongly feel that they do this on purpose. I've heard Phil Kelly at games days talk about this type of game design. The Blood Bowl guys say the same thing. That some things should be "harder" and some things "easier" to accommodate all players (as those that want a challenge will play the harder and those that want easy mode will gravitate toward that and thats fine). The problem is if thats true, that typically as we know rarely works out very well.

I've got three GUO. My for fun games will only have one. And I usually always take a mix of things from the book instead of min/maxing on a certain aspect unless I'm going to a waac environment like a tournament, in which case the point of playing IS to outcheese my opponent and win before the first die is cast.

 EnTyme wrote:
Who could afford more than one GUO?

People who already had a FW one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well there's a lot of stuff that is reasonably costed for it's performance. I'm actually pleasantly surprised about that. There are a couple things that are way out of line though, and building around those easily hits tourney-cheese level. If anything I find it confusing because if GW was trying to point things to sell models the points would look different than they do, whereas if GW had no idea how to cost things there wouldn't be so much of it on-point. It makes me wonder if different people determined the points for different groups if units.

I strongly feel that they do this on purpose. I've heard Phil Kelly at games days talk about this type of game design. The Blood Bowl guys say the same thing. That some things should be "harder" and some things "easier" to accommodate all players (as those that want a challenge will play the harder and those that want easy mode will gravitate toward that and thats fine). The problem is if thats true, that typically as we know rarely works out very well.

Huh. That seems like some insane logic to me, but if it works for sales it works I guess.

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well there's a lot of stuff that is reasonably costed for it's performance. I'm actually pleasantly surprised about that. There are a couple things that are way out of line though, and building around those easily hits tourney-cheese level. If anything I find it confusing because if GW was trying to point things to sell models the points would look different than they do, whereas if GW had no idea how to cost things there wouldn't be so much of it on-point. It makes me wonder if different people determined the points for different groups if units.

I strongly feel that they do this on purpose. I've heard Phil Kelly at games days talk about this type of game design. The Blood Bowl guys say the same thing. That some things should be "harder" and some things "easier" to accommodate all players (as those that want a challenge will play the harder and those that want easy mode will gravitate toward that and thats fine). The problem is if thats true, that typically as we know rarely works out very well.

I've got three GUO. My for fun games will only have one. And I usually always take a mix of things from the book instead of min/maxing on a certain aspect unless I'm going to a waac environment like a tournament, in which case the point of playing IS to outcheese my opponent and win before the first die is cast.

I have heard that logic from Blood Bowl, but I hope they were not stupid enough to try to apply it to the real game. Blood Bowl they could make get away with Chaos being easier to play than Goblins. But in the real game that logic would fall flat on its head because you'd have most people playing the "easy mode" and pretending they're good at the game.

Well think about it. For a couple decades now there has always been a couple of factions that were easy mode. Just like in blood bowl.

BloodBowl has always been a much more "casual" game than proper warhammer. You have teams like Goblins or Halflings that everyone knows aren't there to be really "competitive" but to be "joke" teams.
But apart from those teams, the rest are, or at least they try, to make them balanced. Yeah you had factions like Humans or Orcs that where much more easy to play, but they weren't really more powerfull than others.

In Warhammer you don't have "joke" factions (Some people arguee that Orks in w40k are a joke faction and thats why they suck... I don't believe thats the reason. I think is because GW can't make them balanced and as random as they want orks to be)