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.

 Elmir wrote:
You keep saying "bad balance" and then referring to "if a casual gamer fights a hardcore list, it's poorly balanced" to give your arguments any credence.


Maybe... Just maybe... Have you considered your line of thought here is a bit wonky and the community as a whole has figured out that there are three modes of play?

And when some d*ckheads use one mode of play (matched play style lists) to "compete" in another mode of play (open or narrative lists) it all goes tits up? The game is actually not doing that poorly around where I live either.... But we do have the self-policing I've already mentioned once or twice, to stop n*bheads from trying to feel like their e-peen grew bigger if they curbstomp through a narrative campaign with matched play lists.

I mean for God's sake... Even the main rulebook tells people this game has three different "tiers" of gameplay by now.

*edit* This was mostly a reply to Auticus

You realize right that if developers would do their job properly there wouldn't be so big gap between armies? Excuses like "different playing ways" are just that. EXCUSES. Dev's are either too lazy, too incompetent or are aiming for deliberately to create imbalance for sale reason. But matched play does not excuse poor balance. You can have good balance AND 3 ways to play funny that.

But it should also not be any of these X factions better not bother showing up. Don't bother selling those models if thats going to be the case. *EVERY* faction should be viable. If I like bloodbound mortals, I should have a chance to play a good game against any other faction using them. If I like sky dwarves, then I should have a chance to play a good game against any other faction using them. If I play Flesh Eater Courts, I shouldn't be able to be running on easy mode against most other factions by virtue of me playing that faction.

That's proper balance. At the faction level.

I agree that faction level balance should exist and barring a few outliers I do experience a somewhat balanced games.

Regarding balance in other games - which tends to be a popular argument - the balance in those games is very clearly modulated by very often barring any and all synergy between units. That which people often like about Warhammer is also its greatest Achilles Heel. Warhammer tends to like its heroes and elites that force multiply other aspects of the army, but at the same time it means the army must be balanced with those force multipliers in mind which means that very often these force multipliers become something you need to take to really get your army's worth. I mean, how are vanilla Space Marines supposed to be balanced when a faction in the codex boosts Ultramarines considerably like Roboute? Same issue goes for Blades of Khorne and their Bloodsecrator. It is troublesome to point balance a synergy unit because you are trying to predict every combination and edge case and exponential cases.

For all other tabletop games I just don't see this level of synergy and force multiplying and that in turn makes it much easier to balance those games. It also makes it much easier to balance units 1-to-1 as you don't have to worry about a force multiplier dropping a bomb into the entire equation.

Now, there are potential fixes. You could make it so a Hero unit must join a squad(a la 7th and before) and that hero can only buff that unit. You can also make it so that a hero can only actively buff a single targeted unit in the beginning of a round. These are things that would limit potential exponential force multipliers and in turn allow for better balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For reavers I would bake the +1 attack for being in totem range into their profile by default as I feel that little change would make them worthwhile. For blood warriors just give them rend -1 (and make the gorefists deal a mw back on unmodified saves of 6 to make them consistent with modern rule design).

I would like Bloodreavers to get their attack plus from being near a hero instead of a totem so a Bloodsecrator doesn't always have to be taken to get the maximum value out of Reavers.

Agree that Blood Warriors should get a -1 to rend. They really need that extra punch to give them a bit of an elite status. Goreglaive could be -2 to make it different.

For all other tabletop games I just don't see this level of synergy and force multiplying and that in turn makes it much easier to balance those games. It also makes it much easier to balance units 1-to-1 as you don't have to worry about a force multiplier dropping a bomb into the entire equation.

While true, I'll once again poiint to the fan poiint systems before GHB that were individually and collectively objectively more balanced than the official version of points, and the game was just as synergy driven before GHB existed.

They were not perfect balance but they were almost all acceptably balanced to where all factions were viable and also had tournament data to back them up.

GW also discovered synergistic rules only a few years ago, probably in a bad attempt to copy Warmachine, so that argument is hilariously bad.

Going over my khorne list, another great issue that they have is lack of meaningful rend (coupled with no real way to deal mortal wounds). The damage output of the mortal units (and therefore the mortal faction) is god awful poor.

Look at things like a chaos lord of khorne. Supposed to be the most baddest wrecker of worlds in human form. 3 attacks. -1 rend. D3 damage. lol. No one is afraid of that. Thats the statline of Teenage Champion of Khorne, not a chaos lord. "But the lord on foot has that axe that auto slays things he wounds on a 5+". Yeah. I think I've managed to have that go off all of twice in four or so years. The problem is with 3 attacks, you're going to typically at best wound twice with a pitiful rend. The things that you want to auto slay usually also have good saves to go along with that. Then if you *happen* to knock a wound into your target you do have the 1:3 chance of killing it. So the off-chance is there, and then when that 1:3 doesn't happen, your target demolishes the lord of khorne and you managed to put a couple wounds on your target with what is supposed to be the most baddest wrecker of worlds in human form.

They should be rocking a 3+ armor save (they are just as armored as stormcast) and I'd expect a chaos lord of khorne to have 5-6 attacks with some mortal wound pop on 6 to hit or damage 3 on 6 to hit or something.

Blood Warriors - also lol. They should be rocking a 3+ armor save and -1 rend with some type of mortal wound or more damage mechanic on a 6 OR they should have a lot more attacks. Doing that makes them almost worth the points you pay for them. They are bezerkers. You should be afraid of them, not chuckling to yourself because your opponent was stupid and brought them.

Those were the things that stuck out the worst and most obvious to me.

I'd like to see reavers parallel with plague monks. Horde of them with a ton of attacks but virtually no save and die and run away easily.

They need a significant boost in damage output to make them viable even in a semi-competitive situation. Or they need their points dropped fairly significantly to match their pathetic damage output potential so you can at least run them in a horde.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

GW also discovered synergistic rules only a few years ago, probably in a bad attempt to copy Warmachine, so that argument is hilariously bad.

Of this there is no doubt. The designers of AOS were very obviously giant fan boys of Warmachine and how it played. Down to almost copying the Daily mechanic.

"Daily" mechanic? Whatchu talking 'bout, auticus? I guess you mean Feats but nothing in AOS compares to those although I suppose summoning MIGHT but nowhere near the same as how polarizing the Feat is to Warmahordes I do think they intended to go for that wombo-combo style of play, but whether it was due to Warmahordes or Magic who can say.

The issue is that they're bad at it (IMHO) and as you've frequently lamented want to push list building to the extreme of all else and push that as the pinnacle of skill such that you are a good player if you can build a list that takes 2000 points and makes it play like 3000 points, rather than take a 2000 point list and play it against an equally pointed list (what you saw with your feedback that Azyr Comp was "too balanced" which I find hilarious as a drawback from any serious gamer).

At some point in time, the attitude of what made a good player degenerated from playing two balanced armies and being the superior general to gaming the army building part of the game to try and build a list that was X points on paper but functioned as X+Y points in the game. I have no idea what pushed wargaming to that sort of primitive and IMHO toxic style of play but it happened and it seems like we will never go back to the days when 2000 points was 2000 points and you had to be the better player to win, rather than trying to win before the game even begins.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW also discovered synergistic rules only a few years ago, probably in a bad attempt to copy Warmachine, so that argument is hilariously bad.

I actually think AOS has more simularities to Heroscape with the use of hero buffs, warscrolls, keywords etc

Daily" mechanic? Whatchu talking 'bout, auticus?

The initial implementation of Command abilities. It wasn't daily in that you could only use it once, but only the general could use it. It was to me inspired by the daily ability of warmachine generals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At some point in time, the attitude of what made a good player degenerated from playing two balanced armies and being the superior general to gaming the army building part of the game to try and build a list that was X points on paper but functioned as X+Y points in the game. I have no idea what pushed wargaming to that sort of primitive and IMHO toxic style of play

Magic: The Gathering was responsible for that shift. Magic: The Gathering brought about deckbuildiing games, and deckbuilding games are about building the stronger deck where that is touted as one of its primary skills.

That bled over into wargaming where listbuilding became the primary skill. That shift happened in warhammer in 5th edition (mid to late 90s) and fully blossomed at the end of 6th edition, when Warmachine had first started to kick off. One of warmachine's main sales lines was that listbuilding was indeed king, but that they cared about balance unlike GW whose games even then were poorly balanced (it didn't take long for the ravening hordes balance to disappear when GW resumed their staggered army book releases).

Going into 7th edition whfb, list buiilding was king and has been king to this very day.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW also discovered synergistic rules only a few years ago, probably in a bad attempt to copy Warmachine, so that argument is hilariously bad.

I actually think AOS has more simularities to Heroscape with the use of hero buffs, warscrolls, keywords etc

Hero Scape, what a great game. It wasn't perfect, far from it, but it was tons of fun.


About Khorne, I have found that the best use for a Khorne army is having bloodstokers lashing your Minotaurs in a Khorne-Minotaur army. Put a couple of Blood Reavers to cap objetives and you are set.

auticus wrote:

Magic: The Gathering was responsible for that shift. Magic: The Gathering brought about deckbuildiing games, and deckbuilding games are about building the stronger deck where that is touted as one of its primary skills.

That bled over into wargaming where listbuilding became the primary skill. That shift happened in warhammer in 5th edition (mid to late 90s) and fully blossomed at the end of 6th edition, when Warmachine had first started to kick off. One of warmachine's main sales lines was that listbuilding was indeed king, but that they cared about balance unlike GW whose games even then were poorly balanced (it didn't take long for the ravening hordes balance to disappear when GW resumed their staggered army book releases).

Going into 7th edition whfb, list buiilding was king and has been king to this very day.

The real focus of Warmachine (and Magic) is the complexity of interactions. GW never got that. A "strong" WHFB list is just one stuffed with units that are too cheap for what they do that any child can spot instantly upon opening an army book. A "strong" Warmachine list (or Magic deck) is one containing complimentary tools that allow a highly skilled player to pull off clever combos to reach their goal from an unexpected angle. AoS and 40k 8th might have force multipliers, but that rarely goes beyond straightforward power buffs like RR1s and extra attacks. It takes no list building skill to make a good AoS list and barely any gaming skill to drive one to victory, whereas you need both in spades to win at a real "list building" game.

I don't know anymore where I was going with this except that, if list building was a goal for GW, they are failing miserably even at that.

I agree, and thats one of the central pillars of my entire problem with the game. They put sole focus on list building as their primary skill, but made it so easy to puzzle out that its like solving one of those blocky puzzles made for little children. It takes very little skill to figure out the elementary math and determine what you should take.

Yes there is still some tuning involved but the takes vs the never takes are pretty much advertised and figurable within five minutes of cracking the book open.

Now as to failing at list building, I suppose that depends on your perspective. To a lot of people, this is exactly what they want because list building is central, plus easy for them to figure out.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

auticus wrote:

Magic: The Gathering was responsible for that shift. Magic: The Gathering brought about deckbuildiing games, and deckbuilding games are about building the stronger deck where that is touted as one of its primary skills.

That bled over into wargaming where listbuilding became the primary skill. That shift happened in warhammer in 5th edition (mid to late 90s) and fully blossomed at the end of 6th edition, when Warmachine had first started to kick off. One of warmachine's main sales lines was that listbuilding was indeed king, but that they cared about balance unlike GW whose games even then were poorly balanced (it didn't take long for the ravening hordes balance to disappear when GW resumed their staggered army book releases).

Going into 7th edition whfb, list buiilding was king and has been king to this very day.

The real focus of Warmachine (and Magic) is the complexity of interactions. GW never got that. A "strong" WHFB list is just one stuffed with units that are too cheap for what they do that any child can spot instantly upon opening an army book. A "strong" Warmachine list (or Magic deck) is one containing complimentary tools that allow a highly skilled player to pull off clever combos to reach their goal from an unexpected angle. AoS and 40k 8th might have force multipliers, but that rarely goes beyond straightforward power buffs like RR1s and extra attacks. It takes no list building skill to make a good AoS list and barely any gaming skill to drive one to victory, whereas you need both in spades to win at a real "list building" game.

I don't know anymore where I was going with this except that, if list building was a goal for GW, they are failing miserably even at that.

They are. Just thats what people seem to think of when they think of listbuilding: Make a 2000 point list act like a 3000 point list, when listbuilding is really about HOW you use things, not WHAT. Like in Warmahordes, while you did see a lot of skew lists (there was a saying you either asked a question or brought an answer to one to be good) you also saw a lot of dark horse or "Janky" lists that on paper didn't look great but if you did the right things in the right way, the sum of the parts was better than the individual parts.

That's IMHO real listbuilding. Warhammer's listbuilding is basically just abusing bad points costs, with the occasional stacking buffs.

auticus wrote:
I agree, and thats one of the central pillars of my entire problem with the game. They put sole focus on list building as their primary skill, but made it so easy to puzzle out that its like solving one of those blocky puzzles made for little children. It takes very little skill to figure out the elementary math and determine what you should take.

Yes there is still some tuning involved but the takes vs the never takes are pretty much advertised and figurable within five minutes of cracking the book open.

Now as to failing at list building, I suppose that depends on your perspective. To a lot of people, this is exactly what they want because list building is central, plus easy for them to figure out.

This I agree with.
Within an hour of a new book landing you can essentially pick through it and spot instant combos that will be top tier.
You can also sift through the units and right away realise which are junk and which will be insanely useful.

I also agree with the comment above yours in that any form of synergy is very straight forward and simplistic, it's basically buff a unit and beat another unit to death with it.
Other games implement systems and rules that allow a much more complex way of playing which in turn, allows for alot more strategy.


I think one major part that lets GW down in rules is the way they make fluffy armies possible.
I love a fluffy army, but the way it's done sometimes is severely lacklustre.
Like trolls? Run an entire troll army.
Like squigs? Run a pure squig army.

While gloomspite isn't the best choice for this point (it's one of the best recent books in terms of internal balance IMO) its an issue at times.
Want to run a minataur only list? Sure, but it's wonky.
All mounted elves? Sure, that's wonky too.

They try to keep these builds fun and fluffy but I feel that's where they majorly screw up in terms of rules.

They used to address this in White Dwarf. They had an article back in the late 90s that basically said their army lists are flexible to give you the flexibility to build armies, but people "abuse" that flexibility to min/max.

auticus wrote:
"But the lord on foot has that axe that auto slays things he wounds on a 5+". Yeah. I think I've managed to have that go off all of twice in four or so years.

Really? The Reality-Splitting Axe has always been one of my most reliable character killers. Maybe I'm just insanely lucky with it. I definitely agree with buffing the save on the Lord and Blood Warriors. There's no reason their save should be lower than that of a Stormcast. In regards to Ninth's suggestion of making Bloodreavers less dependent on supporting heroes, I'm going to have to disagree. I just feel like the need for hero support is a big part of the unit's identity. The lore describes Bloodreavers as being almost animalistic in their savagery to the point that some Lords of Khorne won't even use them in their armies. That sounds like the kind of unit that needs some serious oversight from heroes to me.

So games like LOTR or Warlords have mechanics similar. For example, in Warlords you are typically limited to a single unit of trolls or minotaurs or whatever. Cavalry is not limited, but cavalry also is not like in old versions of whfb (an auto win) and cavalry that over extends in warlords can and will get destroyed so its not necessary to cap.

Rick Priestely in Warlords does let you remove those caps, or add dragons etc. He makes it player permission though. So by giving permission to allow those things you are agreeing to an imbalanced game that you may find fun.

But if you are playing say competitively, you won't see those iimbalanced things exist.

If anything thats the route I'd love to see. You want to run those game busting lists? Cool, thats a narrative game. Player permission, have at it. THe matched play balanced variant would cap that though.

I know this won't happen though because that would limit sales. if I want to sell troll models, I'm not going to tell you that you can only have a unit of six of them in your army unless player permission lets you run the all troll version, because GW marketing and sales knows fully well most people only play matched play.

However there are a good half dozen things that can be implemented right now today


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maybe I'm just insanely lucky with it.

I'd say yes you are very lucky with it. With only three attacks, he's typically only doing 1.5 wounds (so 1-2 wounds) that with the meh rend of -1 means most characters you are going after that have 3+ or so saves are not sweating it, then only on a 5+ are they insta dead.

But my opponents are always smart enough to never even let him get into contact with anything that matters. He's on foot. He's slow. He only has 6 wounds and a lol 4+ save. He's pretty much a dead man walking that will get to kill chaffe.

So as thats the case, to me boost hiis attacks up. If he's on foot and can only get fed chaffe make him damn good at killiing that stuff.

Now if he flew or something, thats a different game altogether at that poiint since he could more reliably contact what he needs to hit. But I'd still give him more than 3(lol) attacks.

Just so I can understand this better, because this is something I’m very interested in, AoS is considered bad in list building because it usually envolves nothing but simple, straight attack buffs stacked on top of one another, whilst a good list building system would be one that’s far more subtle than this yes? Can anyone give me an example or two?

Thats a subjective statement.

A lot of people say AOS is the perfect awesome list-buildiing system because list building is so prominent, because you have to show up with the right list to do well. That its easy to figure out is not a consideration to a lot of people.

I can go post on twitter right now that AOS is a bad list building game because its straight forward easy stuff, and get a dozen down votes and terse replies telling me to feth off and go play 9th age because simple systems are superior to complex ones. If I posted that on TGA forums, I'd get a moderator warning and locked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me also add with the prominence of the internet that something like subtle list building is much more difficult to pull off because netlisting has been a thing for a couple decades now. once someone creates a good list that does well in the public arena, it is copied ad naseum.

So it can be argued that even in the most subtle of systems that complex list building is useless because once one person figures out a good list, the netlisters will just copy it.

I know this won't happen though because that would limit sales. if I want to sell troll models, I'm not going to tell you that you can only have a unit of six of them in your army unless player permission lets you run the all troll version, because GW marketing and sales knows fully well most people only play matched play.

To be fair GW did put the Limit of 3 in 40k so they are not entire beyond applying limits.

GW used to have "with permission" rules. In 3rd edition 40k (and maybe 5th edition WHFB I don't remember exactly) you could only field special characters with your opponent's permission (and tournaments usually forbade them but let you use the model as a generic version e.g. you could use the Marneus Calgar model as a Chapter Master, even though he wouldn't have his special wargear).

They got rid of that because I guess people don't like having to ask to use things in the rules, they want to just have it be the default.

Anyways, a good listbuilding system has enough balance to where there is a choice and what you pick determines some synergies you pick. Warhammer has that on the surface but it's really just taking advantage of things that are undercosted, rather than looking at options and seeing that this unit works well in tandem with this unit and this buffing character for that unit, but if you took this other unit instead then these other options suddenly become better.

That's what Warhammer lacks for listbuilding IMHO. It lacks the variety of options that generally get "unlocked", indeed as was previously stated often anyone with even a modicum of sense can look at a new book and within an hour figure out what is the really good and likely "meta" options.

Ironically a fairly good example of this in Warhammer IMHO, albeit it's made too extreme, is FEC simply because there are builds for virtually every style of play you want: Ghoul heavy (Morgaunt), Horror heavy (Hollowmourne), Flayer heavy (Blisterskin) and Monster heavy (Gristlegore). That in and of itself is a good list building design, it's just ruined by GW's usual over/under powering of things. But in concept that's what you should have: A variety of ways to build your army that can function well, rather than a go-to build that works and most everything else is trash.

I think some things - like special characters - became a moot point in most clubs or divided people. Ergo most clubs would be auto yes or no to allowing special characters so the "with permission" rule wasn't really used it was just defaulted on and that was it. Meanwhile some places that allowed them would only allow certain ones based on how "powerful" they were which could lead to all kinds of debate - esp if one player is allowed to bring theirs but another isnt.

From GW's perspective it also meant slower sales of special character models, not a good thing if they are shifting them from metal to plastic and thus need high sales on them. So it makes sense that it was a rule that steadily went away.

That loops back to why I think GW will never limit things. It hurts their sales.

But the no limit on things also means more things to be busted.

I think its ok to have a very powerful model that can shape the meta. I don't think its ok that you can basically take as many of that model as you want, because that is where even points start to not work fully in establishing a fun experience for the other person across the table.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I know this won't happen though because that would limit sales. if I want to sell troll models, I'm not going to tell you that you can only have a unit of six of them in your army unless player permission lets you run the all troll version, because GW marketing and sales knows fully well most people only play matched play.

To be fair GW did put the Limit of 3 in 40k so they are not entire beyond applying limits.

You mean the suggestion for organized events (i.e. tournaments)?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

I know this won't happen though because that would limit sales. if I want to sell troll models, I'm not going to tell you that you can only have a unit of six of them in your army unless player permission lets you run the all troll version, because GW marketing and sales knows fully well most people only play matched play.

To be fair GW did put the Limit of 3 in 40k so they are not entire beyond applying limits.

You mean the suggestion for organized events (i.e. tournaments)?

Do you mean the "suggestion" that is taken as gospel and a change to Matched Play as a whole despite that?

Ever since that rule was introduced I've never seen anyone NOT use it from tournament games to tournament prep to casual game night at the local store. It's for all intents and purposes a Matched Play change, which for all intents and purposes makes it a default rule of the game.

Thats not surprising if your meta is tournament players, since their pickup games and other games outside of tournaments will also be tournament tune-up games.

Also, to be absolutely fair to Dakkadakka history, a lot of people here claim to know the absolutely broken build at release, but when things start churning in the real world things look a lot different.

Of course, the difficult thing about all of this is that we can either look at tournament results where things tend to be relatively even except for a few outliers, or we can try to look at more casual games and then things just become a lot more difficult to evaluate as things vary a bit more. Even the more casual tournaments locally for me tend to be relatively even all things considered.

Now, there is one problem that I would like to point out which is a problem in Warhammer of all kinds is that it feels like GW wants to balance certain point levels, ie. many factions are played at just one point value like 2000 points or something similar. I see this especially in an escalation league I am helping with now and some armies will cruelly dominate at 1000 and below while evening out with the rest as we go higher in points. It's very interesting to watch and does point out that the game - in regards to Matched play - is intended for a certain point level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
Thats not surprising if your meta is tournament players, since their pickup games and other games outside of tournaments will also be tournament tune-up games.

Completely unrelated to whether your FLGS is tournament meta or not. When GW comes with a beta rule/suggestion it is generally accepted that it is fixing an apparent issue in the game. You could even say that it is a balancing act and some people - tournament or not - like when the game is balanced.

I agree and have mentioned many times in the past it is easy to always assume all discussions are from the perspective of tournament play.

When I say "this is busted" I will often get derided since it turns out not to be as big a deal.... in tournament play.

But when I say "this is busted" I am talking about campaign play more often than not. And everything I have said in the history of my posting on Dakka here as far as AOS is concerned has indeed been busted in campaign play and has caused me grief as an event organizer.

you could even say that it is a balancing act and some people - tournament or not - like when the game is balanced.

That is the puzzle! It would seem logical anyway that people would like that. Or perhaps it is I confusing "like" with "accepting". Probably the latter.

auticus wrote:
Thats not surprising if your meta is tournament players, since their pickup games and other games outside of tournaments will also be tournament tune-up games.

Even in non-tournament metas. Beta rules and fixes like that are seen as actual balance errata, not "only for tournaments" so are treated as the gospel and a fundamental change to the game.

That's another thing entirely but there is no real "for organized play". Those are for all intents and purposes matched play changes that are to be applied whether you play in tournaments or casual games with matched play in your garage.

Wayniac wrote:
Do you mean the "suggestion" that is taken as gospel and a change to Matched Play as a whole despite that?.

That's on the players limiting the number of units, not Games Workshop.

auticus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maybe I'm just insanely lucky with it.

I'd say yes you are very lucky with it. With only three attacks, he's typically only doing 1.5 wounds (so 1-2 wounds) that with the meh rend of -1 means most characters you are going after that have 3+ or so saves are not sweating it, then only on a 5+ are they insta dead.

But my opponents are always smart enough to never even let him get into contact with anything that matters. He's on foot. He's slow. He only has 6 wounds and a lol 4+ save. He's pretty much a dead man walking that will get to kill chaffe.

So as thats the case, to me boost hiis attacks up. If he's on foot and can only get fed chaffe make him damn good at killiing that stuff.

Now if he flew or something, thats a different game altogether at that poiint since he could more reliably contact what he needs to hit. But I'd still give him more than 3(lol) attacks.

I find he's plenty fast. Have him whipped by a Blood Stoker for +3 to advance and charge, couple that with his own +3 to charge command ability and you can charge pretty much anything on the board by turn 2 unless you deployed him poorly. As far as the number of attacks? +1 from a Bloodsecrator, +1 from Wrathmongers, and +1 from an Aspiring Deathbringer if you're really feeling salty. Add in a Khorne-marked Warshrine to reroll hits.