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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So why did you allow named characters in the first place?

Because the community as a whole strongly dislikes removing legal entries from army lists. They feel it is arbitrary and a slippery slope. For the firestorm campaign this fall I may indeed say no named characters, but it would only be because of Kroak, which kind of sucks. But again - is what it is. Even with sudden death victory conditions, his ability to regularly erase armies in one or two turns would make even sudden death conditions rather pointless.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Why would he get sportsmanship scores docked for a list if it was perfectly viable?

Because sportsmanship scores aren't "is your list viable or not"...? A lot of people use them as a way to offset someone being a tool with their list/playstyle despite them having a well painted army etc.

Why would the armies paint job matter? Thats a thing for the painting score. Sportsmanship is for how the player behaves, not the list he plays or how painted it is

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Why would he get sportsmanship scores docked for a list if it was perfectly viable?

Because sportsmanship scores aren't "is your list viable or not"...? A lot of people use them as a way to offset someone being a tool with their list/playstyle despite them having a well painted army etc.

Why would the armies paint job matter? Thats a thing for the painting score. Sportsmanship is for how the player behaves, not the list he plays or how painted it is

I'm saying that since tournaments tend to have multiple things that are scored on, some people use Sportsmanship as a way to dock people overall points when they know the person did a really douchey list or did things like drag out their turns, etc.


But then again you probably already knew this and are just trying to start an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So why did you allow named characters in the first place?

Because the community as a whole strongly dislikes removing legal entries from army lists. They feel it is arbitrary and a slippery slope. For the firestorm campaign this fall I may indeed say no named characters, but it would only be because of Kroak, which kind of sucks. But again - is what it is. Even with sudden death victory conditions, his ability to regularly erase armies in one or two turns would make even sudden death conditions rather pointless.

There's nothing really "arbitrary" about saying "No named characters". It means any named characters are out.

There's no slippery slope, there's nothing beyond "No named characters".

Is it just me or are Liberators vastly inferior to Sequitors? Sequitors get 2(!) more great weapons (total of 5 in a unit of 10, compared to the 2 a unit of 10 liberators can take), better to hit/wound and can re-roll saves or hits. For 20 extra points. I don't want to be the dude who whinges, so is there a reason to take Liberators over Sequitors? Yes they get +1 to hit vs things with 5+ wounds, but Sequitors pretty much just have that against everything comparatively.

It is arbitrary to a lot of people because its a guy (me) saying no named characters because their named character happens to be powerful and I don't like it.

Whether it is or is not arbitrary will depend on the point of view and opinion of each individual. The named character ban topic has been off and on for twenty-plus years and always involved people getting steamed and saying its arbitrary because someone doesn't like how powerful their characters are.

The follow-up debate points are "but shooting can be powerful, are we going to ban shooting? Magic is really powerful should we ban magic?" Thats the slippery slope part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Is it just me or are Liberators vastly inferior to Sequitors? Sequitors get 2(!) more great weapons (total of 5 in a unit of 10, compared to the 2 a unit of 10 liberators can take), better to hit/wound and can re-roll saves or hits. For 20 extra points. I don't want to be the dude who whinges, so is there a reason to take Liberators over Sequitors? Yes they get +1 to hit vs things with 5+ wounds, but Sequitors pretty much just have that against everything comparatively.

From a power gaming perspective, no I would never take liberators when there are very obviously much better choices to fill battleline.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Is it just me or are Liberators vastly inferior to Sequitors? Sequitors get 2(!) more great weapons (total of 5 in a unit of 10, compared to the 2 a unit of 10 liberators can take), better to hit/wound and can re-roll saves or hits. For 20 extra points. I don't want to be the dude who whinges, so is there a reason to take Liberators over Sequitors? Yes they get +1 to hit vs things with 5+ wounds, but Sequitors pretty much just have that against everything comparatively.

As said, think Libs are just bad now.

I guess if you did Hammers of Sigmar you can get the unit back on a 5+ but that's spending a command point and only happens 1/3rd of the time.

Better troop choices now. the 20 extra points is well worth what Sequitors bring

Aren't Libs going up to 3 attaks? Or is that still not enough to redeem them? As Seqs do have a lot going for them, don't they.

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Aren't Libs going up to 3 attaks? Or is that still not enough to redeem them? As Seqs do have a lot going for them, don't they.

- Salvage

Nah still only 2 attacks unfortunately. At least the duel weapons have seen a slight buff, getting extra hits on 6's to hit. I'm surprised Sequitors get so many grand weapons, it's insane

auticus wrote:Now for my own group locally we have two seraphon players. One, the more casual of the two, has shelved his seraphon because he says they are too easy and he feels bad playing people with them.

This doesn't really make sense if you think about it. You don't just accidentally get the combo you are having issues with. Why wouldn't they just not play this one amazing combo and take the opportunity to try out the different datasheets that make up this army? THe player here is trying to match the list power level of the rest of the group, so why doesn't he just do that instead of dropping the whole army?

I think because the seraphon now have the stain of being a power gamer army he doesn't want people to say he is only winning because he's playing a broken army.

I think to get around the Kroak issue without hammering the rest of the game the easiest event modification would simply be "Kroak follows the rules of one for his abilities like everyone else".

You should tell him that tournament level lists are finely tuned machines and that he shouldn't give up playing an entire range of models he likes just because a tiny portion of it can be combined in a broken fashion.

He really should just say "Seraphon, but I'm not doing the Kroak combo."

Tell him there's more casual player street cred it choosing an army that can do powerful things and then choosing not to than their is in not playing the army at all.

auticus wrote:
I think because the seraphon now have the stain of being a power gamer army he doesn't want people to say he is only winning because he's playing a broken army.

I think to get around the Kroak issue without hammering the rest of the game the easiest event modification would simply be "Kroak follows the rules of one for his abilities like everyone else".

Honestly, even without being able to drop the nuke 3 times in one go, Kroak would still be obscene. The amount of raw damage just one cast can do is already ridiculous.

And "casual player street cred" is just another word for "sandbagging." It's patronizing.

 Fafnir wrote:

And "casual player street cred" is just another word for "sandbagging." It's patronizing.

That's too bad that you feel that way. Might I suggest you read it as tongue in cheek instead?

My point was that the idea of shelving an entire army because one small part of it combined in a particular way gave it a bad reputation is an awful idea.

Why let the army choices of people other players of your faction cause you to not play what you might otherwise want to? Competitive play already reduces what's "viable" in a given battletome down and down the more powerful the armies get, so why in the world would you want to let that same sort of reduction of available options restrict your casual play? To the point of dropping an entire army! Ridiculous.

There was a time when Tzeentch was the top dog by a wide margin. People not playing the entire faction just because a small portion of the players overloaded on a particular selection of warscrolls would be dumb. Especially when you could have just said, "I'm playing Tzeentch, but I'm not running Skyfires" (or whatever the killer unit was when they were top dog at the tournaments again and again.

People actually like variety so when an army has a single obvious combo and you don't run it every time, people enjoy the games more. If local players who do not want to run the combo stop playing the faction entirely then the only thing people will ever experience of that army is the combo.
`

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Is it just me or are Liberators vastly inferior to Sequitors? Sequitors get 2(!) more great weapons (total of 5 in a unit of 10, compared to the 2 a unit of 10 liberators can take), better to hit/wound and can re-roll saves or hits. For 20 extra points. I don't want to be the dude who whinges, so is there a reason to take Liberators over Sequitors? Yes they get +1 to hit vs things with 5+ wounds, but Sequitors pretty much just have that against everything comparatively.

I was previously thinking that they were relatively on-par but after reading points made by others (namely the special weapon allotment) I am leaning towards Sequitors being the better option. However I wouldn't say they are vastly inferior; liberators' +1 to hit against wounds 5+ is a significant bonus potentially made more so by the change to dual wield granting extra attacks on 6s (it depends on "6+" or "unmodified 6"). Also liberators are generic battleline while sequitors are only such with a Lord Arcanum general, which may not be a big deal for many army builds but is certainly a not-insignificant factor.

Both have a special ability against some opponents, Liberators against Wound 5+, Sequitors againbst Nighthound & Damons
Sequitors can have more heavy Weapons, Liberators can have Dual Weapons
Liberators with double Swords gain an extra attack in a 6, Sequitors with swords have the extra attack build in.
The Mace hits better than the Hammer

Sequitors can buff themselves and don't need a babysitter

+1 to hit for maces or +1 attack for swords for 20 points would be ok
the self buff is worth another 20 points and having 2 more heavy weapons would be another 20 points

And while the Lord Arcanum may be considered a tax, he would be there in most lists anyway

Something just feel wrong here
There is no cheap VS good Battleline

Liberators should at least get a new weapon profile or also the possibility to buff themselves (make it re-roll to wound and re-roll saves to be different) but they are missing something because even with a point increase for Sequitors there would be no reason not to take them

“I’d love a points decrease on Liberators!” says the guy building a Guardians of Alarielle list that requires two units of Liberators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a related note, what do people feel about Judicators in light of all the new stuff for Stormcast?

 AduroT wrote:
On a related note, what do people feel about Judicators in light of all the new stuff for Stormcast?

I'm no expert but they seem head and shoulders above Castigators in a vacuum. Sacrosanct-only buffs may change that, I dunno.

Castigators seem decent for putting a dent on a unit with a good armour save. A minimum sized unit might be decent for last turn objective grab. Although you might get some synergy with lord arcanum I'm rather sceptical, if the the investment is worth it. I'm going to use them, reason mostly related to my budget.

Judicators have a lot of good things going for them. With army wide special rule, even the crossbows might get to see more play. Maybe. They're also battle line in SCE army, I could also skip on the lord Arcanum altogether with them covering that criteria.

 kodos wrote:
Both have a special ability against some opponents, Liberators against Wound 5+, Sequitors againbst Nighthound & Damons
Sequitors can have more heavy Weapons, Liberators can have Dual Weapons
Liberators with double Swords gain an extra attack in a 6, Sequitors with swords have the extra attack build in.
The Mace hits better than the Hammer

Sequitors can buff themselves and don't need a babysitter

+1 to hit for maces or +1 attack for swords for 20 points would be ok
the self buff is worth another 20 points and having 2 more heavy weapons would be another 20 points

And while the Lord Arcanum may be considered a tax, he would be there in most lists anyway

Something just feel wrong here
There is no cheap VS good Battleline

Liberators should at least get a new weapon profile or also the possibility to buff themselves (make it re-roll to wound and re-roll saves to be different) but they are missing something because even with a point increase for Sequitors there would be no reason not to take them

Doing some number crunching:

5-Man Sequitor unit with 3 greatmaces & 2 blades (special vs nighthaunt/daemons)
5-Man Liberator unit with 1 grandweapon & 4 double-hammers (special vs wounds 5+)

Against normal stuff (we'll assume a 5+ save since that's the most common) there's 6.5 wounds from the Sequitors, 3.7 from the Liberators
Against special stuff 7.7 from Sequitors, 5 from Liberators

If we assume the channeling off Squitors is worth 20 pts (I agree) that normalizes these results and they should be similar. Instead we see Sequitors out-performing Liberators by a fair margin. It's a bigger difference than I thought. However, what I am seeing here is not that Liberators are bad but that Sequitors are just too good on their weapon profiles. Their mace is better than the liberators' basic weapon (and the glaive is better than that--already in internal balance issue within the warscroll) and their special weapon is better too, for no apparent reason. The special feature of the unit is supposed to be anti-daemonhaunt and the channeling, but instead those become icing on the cake to a way better set of equipment. Not only is there a raw balance issue but a thematic one as well. Further there is yet another issue in that Sequitor units can't be balanced with a fixed point cost because unit sizes larger than 5 have diminishing returns since their special weapon is 3/5 on the initial unit but only 2/5 on expanding it.

So after looking at it I have to say the Sequitor warscroll has all sorts of problems and it's worse than I previously thought. I feel it isn't very well designed; too much stuff was crammed into it when less would have been more. At any rate I think your assessment of 150-160 for them is probably sound.

Sidenote: Liberators are a bit sub-par but that's a separate issue from the Sequitors which are the lion's share of imbalance here. Personally I think Liberators would be better at 90 (16/model, +10 for champion with special weapon).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knight wrote:
With army wide special rule, even the crossbows might get to see more play. Maybe.

Not unless they changed the weapon profiles.

That Kroak example is blatently staged I mean it could be done I guess but chance would be so small as to be unreal.

The 5 spell rolls are individually a 41% chance each with the Buffs Kan mentioned without they drop dramatically. He then seems to have rolled 8x6's for damage based on the picture.

It is certainly powerful no doubt but seems like those examples you get in online games forums NERF x threads because I play y.

It encourages list building down a narrow corridor of viable overall builds, excluding a giant chunk of the game. It needs toned down just a little.

IMO.

I've played against kroak in this edition now and overall I'd say he needs sledgehammered down a notch or two unless you are ok with staying at the top of the power builds. It wrecks casual environments with ease.

SeanDrake wrote:
That Kroak example is blatently staged I mean it could be done I guess but chance would be so small as to be unreal.

The 5 spell rolls are individually a 41% chance each with the Buffs Kan mentioned without they drop dramatically. He then seems to have rolled 8x6's for damage based on the picture.

It is certainly powerful no doubt but seems like those examples you get in online games forums NERF x threads because I play y.

How are they 41% chance each? Once the vortex is down (DC7 spell cast at +1), we're talking about a DC7/8/9 spell cast with +2 and average of two free rerolls a turn.

Chance of success (not factoring in rerolls):
Balewind Vortex: 72.2%
Celestial Deliverance 1: 83.3%
Celestial Deliverance 2: 72.2%
Celestial Deliverance 3: 58.3

Those are pretty good odds considering the ridiculous damage output. Especially since being at +2 to cast means it's going to be a lot harder for them to be dispelled. That's overall a 25% chance of everything going off without a hitch, to massive effect. Even if you don't get every piece of the combo down, you're still going to be extremely effective, and even if you do manage to fail the Balewind Vortex (very unlikely with rerolls, but whatever), you can just bank your remaining casts on summoning points until your next round.

Considering the odds most competitive armies have to rely on, and the fail-safes that Kroak has available, I'd hardly call this unlikely or unreal.

Whats giving Kroak the +2 to spell cast?

+1 from the Astrolith Bearer, and then he gains another +1 once the Balewind Vortex comes down.

It's also worth noting that that +2 to casting also makes it easier for Kroak's casting rolls to get to 10+ (41.7% chance of occuring), increasing the range of Celestial Deliverance by a further 6".

Ultimately, this gives him a potential minimum/average/maximum threat radius of 17"/27"/38". So at this point we're easily capable of threatening the entire table. This means that attempting to deny the spell isn't even all that safe, since Kroak can potentially just outrange them, or force you to put your wizards so far up front that they're easy pickings for the rest of his army anyway.

But the balewind doesn't give +1 to spellcasting, it gives an additional spell to cast.

Arcane Invigoration: The Balewind Vortex empowers as well as elevates the wizard to whom it is bound.

A Wizard on a Balewind Vortex can attempt to cast an additional spell in each of their hero phases (including the turn in which the Summon Balewind Vortex spell was cast), and you can add 6" to the range of any spells that the Wizard casts.

Ah, was looking at the old rules for the Vortex. Either way, the chances are still very much in Kroak's favour.

I definitely think this scenario was cherry-picked to show how powerful Kroak can be (from the comments on that blog post, it looks like this guy has a history of doing this), but the scenario shouldn't be possible in the first place. I'd like to see GW balance powerful spells like this by adding some sort of mitigating rule such as "The range and casting roll of this spell cannot be modified in any way".

 EnTyme wrote:
I definitely think this scenario was cherry-picked to show how powerful Kroak can be (from the comments on that blog post, it looks like this guy has a history of doing this), but the scenario shouldn't be possible in the first place. I'd like to see GW balance powerful spells like this by adding some sort of mitigating rule such as "The range and casting roll of this spell cannot be modified in any way".

Should definitely at least get "visible to the caster" and "cannot be cast through other models" at least.

I am not sure if this is not intended.
Or at least the designer comments has some strange answers that read like they want to kill matched play as soon as possible

(eg the FAQ has clarified that you can move forward and then backward with a flying model to count as having passed over another unit and that pile in counts as moves, this alone allow some stupid stuff that was considerd unsportsmanlike in best case and cheating in the worst case, but now you can say that the designers clearly said that this game need to be played that way)

Well of course they would like to kill matched play. GW abhors matched play. They already killed it 3 years ago. Then they realized that no matched play means no sales.