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.

 auticus wrote:
I have a tool that does all of that, its how I came up with the azyr comp point values

Something for which my group and I are very grateful you did.

 Marmatag wrote:


I was looking at my friend's upcoming list. He's got these guys - I think Retributors - that just by existing can deal 2D3 mortal wounds per turn. In fact I think everything in his list can deal mortal wounds.

Those are any of the Paladins(Retributor, Protector, Decimator) given a thing called a "Starsoul Mace". It has a 1" range and they cannot make any other attacks. They target an enemy unit within 1" and that unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds.
2 in every 5 models in a Paladin unit can take Starsoul Maces.

Just so you know. Retributors still can deal Mortal Wounds without Starsoul Maces; any hit roll of 6 or more causes 2 Mortal Wounds(their Lightning Hammers are 2 damage).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


I was looking at my friend's upcoming list. He's got these guys - I think Retributors - that just by existing can deal 2D3 mortal wounds per turn. In fact I think everything in his list can deal mortal wounds.

Those are any of the Paladins(Retributor, Protector, Decimator) given a thing called a "Starsoul Mace". It has a 1" range and they cannot make any other attacks. They target an enemy unit within 1" and that unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds.
2 in every 5 models in a Paladin unit can take Starsoul Maces.

Just so you know. Retributors still can deal Mortal Wounds without Starsoul Maces; any hit roll of 6 or more causes 2 Mortal Wounds(their Lightning Hammers are 2 damage).

Jesus.

So essentially it's 3 attacks for the sergeant, 2 for each of the ones wielding their normal weapons, and then 2D3 mortals.

So 7 attacks should expect a 6, coupled with the 2D3 mortals means these guys pump out 6 mortal wounds if they get in combat... and can spike all the way to 20 mortal wounds (unlikely, but hey, it is an upper bound).

Effectively i'll just have to rely on my chaff to hold this kind of stuff down while i potshot things with my pew pew pew lasers.

Or find a way to give them -1 to hit, so they can't physically roll a 6.

 Marmatag wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I have a tool that does all of that, its how I came up with the azyr comp point values

Neat!

Any limitations you're running into? I wouldn't mind collaborating on a project to scale things. Can make it as a web page, to help determine if two casual lists are in the same ball park in terms of overall effectiveness. I'll do all of the programming, and I can host it, too.

I was looking at my friend's upcoming list. He's got these guys - I think Retributors - that just by existing can deal 2D3 mortal wounds per turn. In fact I think everything in his list can deal mortal wounds.

Good thing i've got all these skeletons...

Also, any suggestions for a campaign with 2-4 people? There are a few of us... thinking of making a small story. There wouldn't be any focus on competitive, but would be focused more on thematic battles.

Azyr Comp and Project Point Costs were the big fan-made point systems before the GHB other than the... can't remember the name system that GW actually used to create the GHB1 point costs. Both Azyr and PPC were more balanced than Matched Play is now.

 Marmatag wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I have a tool that does all of that, its how I came up with the azyr comp point values

Neat!

Any limitations you're running into? I wouldn't mind collaborating on a project to scale things. Can make it as a web page, to help determine if two casual lists are in the same ball park in terms of overall effectiveness. I'll do all of the programming, and I can host it, too.

I was looking at my friend's upcoming list. He's got these guys - I think Retributors - that just by existing can deal 2D3 mortal wounds per turn. In fact I think everything in his list can deal mortal wounds.

Good thing i've got all these skeletons...

Also, any suggestions for a campaign with 2-4 people? There are a few of us... thinking of making a small story. There wouldn't be any focus on competitive, but would be focused more on thematic battles.

Its funny you mention that as well lol. I'm about 75% done with my app that does just this. You plug in two armies and it will show you their actual value compared to themselves. It also will let you isolate units and show target priorities for them. I do this for campaign purposes and it gives me a score and I tell people to build under that score. The competitive guys gnash their teeth at this and usually quit because they feel handicapping yourself is not competitive (no kidding, this is for a casual campaign not a tournament or practicing for adepticon) but the results I have gotten with it and the old azyr comp have been great and provided mostly close tgames.

The challenge are the utility points. Those being models that do a bunch of abstract things that you can't hammer down with math. My tool lets you plug in turn by turn what actually happened so in the end game you can see what those models were really worth in the game. Ex: if a model has weak attacks they will score low but if they have a spell that does D6 mortal wounds cast on a 6 and on top of that an ability that gives all models within 6" of them an extra attack, those are utility functions that are unreliable. You can't hardcode numbers for those, since you never know what they will affect... but if you log them during the game you can easily see just how powerful they are from game to game.

Retributors with 2 soul maces can do 2d3. A squad of 10 retributors can take 4 of those ... just sayin (though 4 is not as optimal as just taking 3, because rets do so much damage normally as well that taking the 4th mace actually lowers your damage curve)

And yes Retributors are disgusting. If you only see 10 of them in a 2000 pt game, call that lucky lol. 10 of them can wreck half your army if you don't know what to do... and if they are doing the alpha strike turn 1 charge garbage, I've seen 10 wreck 1500 points worth of enemy army because they hit insanely hard with other forms of mortal wounds as well and are hard to drop. Basically they are a high priority target to drop. In the early days of AOS the ret wrecking ball squad was one of the power builds. Its still pretty potent today but the stormcast have even more powergamey builds at their disposal that make the Ret Wrecking Ball build look like casual friday.

There are numerous options for campaign. Firestorm box is a great way to start just remove the condition where if you own the special territories you win (otherwise just remove all of the other 15 territories ssince no one will fight on those). I have Azyr Empires, though that iss very complicated and I need to finish my slimming of it down (you can get that on narrativewargaming.com). Then there's simply writing your own narrative and using existing scenarios to tell your stories.

Right now we're getting ready to launch our 2018 Malign Portents Narrative in June (one day 1000pt battle) and then push into the fall six week campaign with it. We carry over abilities from our path to glory to chain the story from year to year as well (though people start new forces and thats fine as well)

Speaking of - path to glory is mostly very good minus the legions of nagash book breaking it apart (leash that in and overall its fine)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azyr Comp and Project Point Costs were the big fan-made point systems before the GHB other than the... can't remember the name system that GW actually used to create the GHB1 point costs. Both Azyr and PPC were more balanced than Matched Play is now.

SCGT comp was the one that won. Largely because they are in the UK, and buddies with the developers (there are many pictures of them all drinking at the pub together and playing together on twitter and the instagramz.) The moment GW endorsed their tournaments and point structure was the actual day all of the other fan comps died, even before GHB 2016 dropped with "official points" because that became the tournament standard that the global community latched on to.

And yeah I miss the days of the fan comps because, not even counting the azyr one which of course I was most familiar with, the PPC and the others were also very good and the games were a lot more closer. SCGT comp was, much like current points, very loose with balance and I wasn't a giant fan of that. (I can deal with it, and have dealt with it... we even have the "Azyr Army Builder" now lolol my main isssues are with some of the core rules which I have already ranted about in other places)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I have a tool that does all of that, its how I came up with the azyr comp point values

Something for which my group and I are very grateful you did.

Thank you sir. Those of us who spent those many months in that project appreciate it.

Need to get me that app. Though I'm experienced enough to generally pick things out like that myself I'm still keen on anything that can help me improve that. It could also be really helpful to show new players.

Ditto on Path to Glory being good minus the legions of nagash charts that are wierdly put of line (I made a new set of charts for death to use for our leagues, can post that if you're interested). That said summoning will probably need to be reigned in as well to prevent super cheese (we do it as you get one summoning spell attempt a turn, and can only add one new unit to your army in a given game).

When I get the time to wrap it up I'll provide it as a community resource. I want to use it for analyzing battle reports to show actual power level for the points to highlight busted configurations vs casual and actually objectively put solid numbers on it.

Honestly restarting Azyr using GHB point scale as a 'this is what they SHOULD cost' is a decent idea IMO. It wouldn't really see use but it would be nice for the community to have. But still a lot of work for something that wouldn't get a lot of appreciation.

At any rate if you ever need help with battalion costs let me know. I know perfect balance would involve a multiplier on the units contained but let's be honest no one wants to do that when looking at a list. I could give different values for different size games though.

It's still worthwhile to confirm with your opponent whether you're going to be measuring from bases or models. If only because the conversation becomes much more awkward if it comes up mid-game when you realize you've each been doing it a different way!

My biggest issue with measuring from the base is you end up having people argue a model on a 4" high platform can't be hit by a 6" tall treelord ancient on the ground floor, even if the models themselves are physically touching.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly restarting Azyr using GHB point scale as a 'this is what they SHOULD cost' is a decent idea IMO. It wouldn't really see use but it would be nice for the community to have. But still a lot of work for something that wouldn't get a lot of appreciation.

At any rate if you ever need help with battalion costs let me know. I know perfect balance would involve a multiplier on the units contained but let's be honest no one wants to do that when looking at a list. I could give different values for different size games though.

I went down that road a little bit in 2016 for a campaign. I got shouted down at my local store by the competitive guys that didn't like their power builds shut down because they knew their stuff was undercost, but to them thats the point of playing and gittin gud at GW games, playing with the undercost stuff. Additionally... no one wants a secondary point system around because there is a strong adherence to "official".

It is as you said and as you well know a ton of work and really no fruit to bear so thats why I'm probably not revisiting my azyr stuff anymore. However the game analysis piece I think could be very useful because it will show you actual objective values if you keep track of all the variables during the game and show you exaclty what the actual costs were compared to the gw costs, and over time you could build a database for that collecting bigger data to compare against.

Isn't the base a part of the model? They're glued together

My biggest issue with measuring from the base is you end up having people argue a model on a 4" high platform can't be hit by a 6" tall treelord ancient on the ground floor, even if the models themselves are physically touching.

That would be the definition of "TFG" lol.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
It's still worthwhile to confirm with your opponent whether you're going to be measuring from bases or models. If only because the conversation becomes much more awkward if it comes up mid-game when you realize you've each been doing it a different way!

My biggest issue with measuring from the base is you end up having people argue a model on a 4" high platform can't be hit by a 6" tall treelord ancient on the ground floor, even if the models themselves are physically touching.

Terrain rules are pretty non existent and extraordinarily abstract to start with; the rules allow for chariots holding hyper positions mid castle wall. You can literally just say "my model is there in base to base" if your charge and pile in would put it in base to base.

Also it's important to note that the reverse scenario of having your mawcrusha unable to attack if you put it in the middle of its base is far more aggravating, as the rules punish you for placing the model in a way that looks aesthetically pleasing. Sadly things like achaeon get even more shafted since the bulk of the model is supported by a very narrow piece that needs to be put in the middle of the base. Guess he wont be attacking unless some dolts stand on ruins. Or you know, even getting locked in combat...

 Captain Joystick wrote:
It's still worthwhile to confirm with your opponent whether you're going to be measuring from bases or models. If only because the conversation becomes much more awkward if it comes up mid-game when you realize you've each been doing it a different way!

My biggest issue with measuring from the base is you end up having people argue a model on a 4" high platform can't be hit by a 6" tall treelord ancient on the ground floor, even if the models themselves are physically touching.

People like that will just cheat without blinking so who cares?

Again though, this is also why AOS really isn't a competitive system. If you want to play RAW and break it completely, that's that, easy peasy.

Build an entire shooty army with base designs that elevate them 4" off of the ground. Suddenly they're immune to melee altogether. Assuming you don't believe the base is a part of the model, which I think is fair to argue that it is.

In any case, I build my skeletons & dire wolves last night. I am glad i substituted fenrisian wolves. These guys are so easy to build and paint, and they stay on their bases fairly well. All I have left to assemble is the hexwraiths from my starter kit, for my first 500 points.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again though, this is also why AOS really isn't a competitive system. If you want to play RAW and break it completely, that's that, easy peasy.

Build an entire shooty army with base designs that elevate them 4" off of the ground. Suddenly they're immune to melee altogether. Assuming you don't believe the base is a part of the model, which I think is fair to argue that it is.

We had people try that. I just stopped gluing my models to their bases and instead made it so that I could remove them and place them on their bases.

In any case, I build my skeletons & dire wolves last night. I am glad i substituted fenrisian wolves. These guys are so easy to build and paint, and they stay on their bases fairly well. All I have left to assemble is the hexwraiths from my starter kit, for my first 500 points.

I really think you're doing the Dire Wolves a disservice. They're nice models and are pretty easy to work with.

Maybe they are, but good luck buying them. Out of stock on the website and no one retails them.

And Fenrisian wolves are 4 pieces. You can build 5 of them in about 10 minutes.

Anyway i'm just saying I like them.

Glad you found some models that work for you.

That's actually a big bummer. I didn't realize they were a problematic unit with regards to stock.

I wonder if we'll see them getting reboxed with the supposed Death release soon?

AoS seems like it's in a weird place where they're reinventing the game to be modern sculpts and armies, and sun setting others.

If indeed there is a new death release, based on what they're doing, my gut tells me it'll be new models altogether. Perhaps something ranged. Skeletal Mages would be neat. Sort of like Grave Guard, but ranged.

Well, we have it heavily implied there's a Black Coach coming. The fact that Dire Wolves have been left 'as is' aside from being pulled back to Direct Only suggests they're being reboxed/rebased for a big Death release.

Fenrisian wolves are indeed great. I used them as substitute hounds for Orion back in those early days before the General's Handbook.

Just picked up another box of them to push my cauldrons of blood (back in stock, finally!) and the odd one out will be carrying a fun slaughter queen conversion.

 Marmatag wrote:
AoS seems like it's in a weird place where they're reinventing the game to be modern sculpts and armies, and sun setting others.

If indeed there is a new death release, based on what they're doing, my gut tells me it'll be new models altogether. Perhaps something ranged. Skeletal Mages would be neat. Sort of like Grave Guard, but ranged.

I'm kind of expecting them to go the ancient dead route. Models from 8th ed whfb like the sphinx were new sculpts that were only in stores for a few years. Those thiings are still kicking around somewhere.

With the rise of Nagash in AoS it seems like something themed to him would make sense, too. Especially if the overall narrative is that he's overthrowing the tomb kings. I haven't read all of the lore but it seems like he went from plot device to monster badass overnight.

He ate a bunch of gods and became the god of death. Then got stuck under rocks until Siggy saved him is the basics of it.

pm713 wrote:
He ate a bunch of gods and became the god of death. Then got stuck under rocks until Siggy saved him is the basics of it.

Ah, i guess god meat is heavy in protein

 Marmatag wrote:
Maybe they are, but good luck buying them. Out of stock on the website and no one retails them.

And Fenrisian wolves are 4 pieces. You can build 5 of them in about 10 minutes.

Anyway i'm just saying I like them.

I picked up 20 Dire Wolves just this week from Gw-Online but I am in the UK so I don't know if that affects stock levels per region.

Fenrisian wolves are ace, but don't totally discount those dires if you get a chance they are a nice model themselves too.

I'm heavily awaiting these potential Night Haunt units, as I currently have a metric tonne of Night Haunt that could just use a little push to be a little better Hoping for a ranged unit....that doesn't go off of leadership.

The new edition makes me excited, sounds like casting in general is getting a massive boost, which would be good for that giant awesome Nagash model that we all have

Cinematic spells sound like a lot of fun.

 Moogypies wrote:
I'm heavily awaiting these potential Night Haunt units

Here I was thinking I'd settled on Deathrattle, and then that trailer comes along. Now I'm back at square one.