|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 15, 2022 19:55:36 GMT
Not at all with the argumentative, same with me as I'm just jotting thoughts down so not really wording/formatting well. With anything I say please bear in mind I'm not taking a shot at you at all and very appreciative of the work you have put in, just sharing ideas.
This post will be someore justifications for some of my points/the way I see GW rationale .
Scythes, OnG vs Beastmen. Orcs primary in flat badlands, Scythes will stay on for the most part and chariots flex along. Beastmen primary in forests, scythes will bang on trees/stuff and get knocked off for the most part as they flex along.
Magic allowance. I vaguely recall (Jervis/Jeremy? talking a bit about this. 100 points vs 150 points. Vampires, Chaos Lords and Dwarf Lords are all long lived races who value to acquisition and hording of powerful artifacts more than short lived race such as Beastmen to a degree. For what it's worth I think Tomb Kings should have 125 points magic allowance as well. With VC and Chaos Lords it's not so much the magic items as them accumulating power (Vampiric or Chaos) over years.
Beastlord arguably I'm ok with having 150 as they are 'smarter' and potentially more foresight (see Khazrak and Gorthor) than a Doombull. Also gamewise they are far less game breaking as no accumulating attacks. Gamewise a Doombull with 150 points total is arguably worse than a WOC Daemon Prince and we all know how 'hated' those are. Lorewise it makes sense for a Beastlord to have larger overall allowance than a Doombull.
Leadership 8 for a Doombull is better as unlike a Beastlord or an Ogre Tyrant they are not born 'leaders' at all and just whirlpools of destruction that are so devastating that others are inspired to follow them. Years ago (maybe a White Dwarf? ) there was some article on this. They aren't capable of the planning of a Beastlord and unlike an Orc Warboss or Ogre Tyrant don't have the same desire to enforce their position as 'boss'. Tyrants are supposed to be pretty dumb, but still smarter than a Doombull. Also in game/lorewise it means a Great Shaman can lead a Beastmen army (including a Doombulll which I've read in novels.
I see where you are coming from a bit more with the magic lores now. Maybe Tzeentch as magic god could still have access to Beasts lore?
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 15, 2022 20:13:33 GMT
Braystaff, I mean it's not clear in the Thaumaturge entry that it's referring to the Shaman Braystaff entry and army list entry implies that it's a Great Weapon and nothing else. I have no issues with the rules themselves ,although I like halberd option, same as shaman. D3+1 impact hits for a Doombull alone isn't really a big deal and I'm fine with it, it was more in conjunction with everything else it just seemed too much of a buff. Doombull entry in standard GW book at 235 is already a very strong option (I've heard people say OP) so with the leadership and all the other buffs it's imo too much and people would complain. Hell I've had people complaining anyway with the standard GW version once it got up to like 8 attacks. I knew what you meant with Raider/raiders but a rules lawyer like Fvon of this forum would take issue and argue that it doesn't apply as the terms don't match. GW doesn't use plurals etc with their rules. More to come as I read more.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 15, 2022 20:16:51 GMT
Ambushers, are you using the Warhammer main rulebook version (ie, turn 2 onwards roll, Beastmen GW book made a turn 1 exclusion with their tableside roll off) or the Glottkin version with turn 1 roll?
Currently RAW it would mean you roll from Turn 2 I think in your book the way it's worded.
RAW per main rulebook Ambushers enter after charges have already been declared in turn sequence.
With your version characters can ambush and Bestigor are Leadership 8 and can ambush so the chance of failure is actually quite low.
I prefer bonus movement to an ambush charge as no other army can do that.
My questions above affect it a bit as I'm not sure from which turn they can ambush as well per your book currently? Also if you only intend them to be able to magic charge due to the turn sequence issue. Ie, enter turn 2, cannot charge till turn 3 RAW? Without a spell.
I could well be missing something though.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 15, 2022 20:30:23 GMT
Tldr version of Doombull leadership vs Orc Warboss and Ogre Tyrant leadership.
Doombull wants to kill and eat stuff and is amazing at it so other creaturs and beasts follow. Warbosses and Tyrants have an inherent desire and need to lead (aka boss around) stuff which a Doombull does not have which makes them much more natural leaders.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Aug 16, 2022 10:13:58 GMT
Not at all with the argumentative, same with me as I'm just jotting thoughts down so not really wording/formatting well. With anything I say please bear in mind I'm not taking a shot at you at all and very appreciative of the work you have put in, just sharing ideas. This post will be someore justifications for some of my points/the way I see GW rationale . Scythes, OnG vs Beastmen. Orcs primary in flat badlands, Scythes will stay on for the most part and chariots flex along. Beastmen primary in forests, scythes will bang on trees/stuff and get knocked off for the most part as they flex along. Your logic does make sense, though I would still like to make it an upgrade so that if a Beastman player wants to build a chariot model with scythes, he can. Magic allowance. I vaguely recall (Jervis/Jeremy? talking a bit about this. 100 points vs 150 points. Vampires, Chaos Lords and Dwarf Lords are all long lived races who value to acquisition and hording of powerful artefacts more than short lived race such as Beastmen to a degree. For what it's worth I think Tomb Kings should have 125 points magic allowance as well. With VC and Chaos Lords it's not so much the magic items as them accumulating power (Vampiric or Chaos) over years. I definitely agree about Tomb Kings - having existed for far longer than Vampires or any of the human civilisations they should have access to a greater Magic Item points allowance alongside Dwarfs. I personally also intend for Bretonnian characters to be able to choose their Virtue independently of their Magic Item allowance in my upcoming Bretonnian book, because Bretonnians take more pride in individual combat prowess and relics used by knights of old than the Empire, for example, which, much like the Imperial Guard of 40K, prefers to steamroll the enemy with hordes of sword-fodder State Troops, artillery barrages and Steam Tanks. I admit it does make sense regarding Vampires and Chaos Lords in regards to accumulating power, like the Sith Lords of Star Wars, though I can easily imagine a cunning and god-touched Beastlord also having this attitude, though in their case simply to become as threatening and dominant over other Beastmen and the lesser races as possible. Beastlord arguably I'm ok with having 150 as they are 'smarter' and potentially more foresight (see Khazrak and Gorthor) than a Doombull. Also gamewise they are far less game breaking as no accumulating attacks. Gamewise a Doombull with 150 points total is arguably worse than a WOC Daemon Prince and we all know how 'hated' those are. Lorewise it makes sense for a Beastlord to have larger overall allowance than a Doombull. I'm happy with this compromise, I don't want to make the Doombull as OP as a Daemon Prince! 100 points for Doombulls and 150 points for Beastlords (and 50 for Gorebulls and 75 for Wargors) it is. Leadership 8 for a Doombull is better as unlike a Beastlord or an Ogre Tyrant they are not born 'leaders' at all and just whirlpools of destruction that are so devastating that others are inspired to follow them. Years ago (maybe a White Dwarf? ) there was some article on this. They aren't capable of the planning of a Beastlord and unlike an Orc Warboss or Ogre Tyrant don't have the same desire to enforce their position as 'boss'. Tyrants are supposed to be pretty dumb, but still smarter than a Doombull. Also in game/lorewise it means a Great Shaman can lead a Beastmen army (including a Doombull) which I've read in novels. Tldr version of Doombull leadership vs Orc Warboss and Ogre Tyrant leadership. Doombull wants to kill and eat stuff and is amazing at it so other creatures and beasts follow. Warbosses and Tyrants have an inherent desire and need to lead (aka boss around) stuff which a Doombull does not have which makes them much more natural leaders. Your points are valid, I'll return the Doombull's Leadership to 8 (and the Gorebull's to 7). I see where you are coming from a bit more with the magic lores now. Maybe Tzeentch as magic god could still have access to Beasts lore? My reasoning for choosing Wild as the second 'Tzeentch' lore is because it's more insidious, with mental manipulation and infusing allies with Chaos energy to mutate or drive them onward, which I felt was more Tzeentch's thing than Beasts which is all about brawn and dealing damage. Braystaff, I mean it's not clear in the Thaumaturge entry that it's referring to the Shaman Braystaff entry and army list entry implies that it's a Great Weapon and nothing else. I have no issues with the rules themselves ,although I like halberd option, same as shaman. That's fair, I'll have a look into clarifying in the entry that it is treated as a Braystaff but with the exception of being a great weapon when used aggressively. D3+1 impact hits for a Doombull alone isn't really a big deal and I'm fine with it, it was more in conjunction with everything else it just seemed too much of a buff. Doombull entry in standard GW book at 235 is already a very strong option (I've heard people say OP) so with the leadership and all the other buffs it's imo too much and people would complain. Hell I've had people complaining anyway with the standard GW version once it got up to like 8 attacks. Well I'm returning the Leadership to 8 and removing the extra Magic Item allowance, so those are no longer a worry. Perhaps I'll increase his cost by just 5 or 10 points to take care of the extra Impact Hit. I knew what you meant with Raider/raiders but a rules lawyer like Fvon of this forum would take issue and argue that it doesn't apply as the terms don't match. GW doesn't use plurals etc with their rules. That's fair too, I'll see about standardising it across the book. Ambushers, are you using the Warhammer main rulebook version (ie, turn 2 onwards roll, Beastmen GW book made a turn 1 exclusion with their tableside roll off) or the Glottkin version with turn 1 roll? Currently RAW it would mean you roll from Turn 2 I think in your book the way it's worded. Yes I'm using the main rulebook version - Ambushing from turn 2 onwards. For all intents and purposes my book is intended to supersede the Legions of Chaos rules for Beastmen in Glottkin. With your version characters can ambush and Bestigor are Leadership 8 and can ambush so the chance of failure is actually quite low. That's a good point, I didn't think of that. My questions above affect it a bit as I'm not sure from which turn they can ambush as well per your book currently? Also if you only intend them to be able to magic charge due to the turn sequence issue. Ie, enter turn 2, cannot charge till turn 3 RAW? Without a spell. I could well be missing something though. I had originally intended for them to be able to ambush charge on the turn they arrive if they pass their Leadership test regardless of the normal order of the Movement Phase, but if you think a bonus movement is more balanced than a free charge then I'm happy to make that change. It can certainly be useful for getting the unit into a good position for a charge in the following turn, or help them reach cover to minimise shooting casualties, and as I'll still be keeping the ability to charge via the signature spell there is still opportunity to reach combat quicker with this book than in previous ones.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Aug 16, 2022 22:40:04 GMT
Nice work. I’ve had a quick skim through and like other just hitting thoughts as they come up.
Why is Mark of Slannesh different to warriors when all the others are the same? It kind of feels like if one is different, should they all vary (nurgle give +1 toughness for instance).
I’m with Grandmaster on having Gor steer chariots. I wouldn’t trust a half horn to do a decent job of looting a corpse! 😉. Though I’m not fussed on scythes.
Is it deliberate that you’ve kept primal fury as working on the chariot mounts? Also you may want to state that marks only apply to the riders and not the chariot mounts (so it’s in line with the WoC errata).
Why are centigor warbeasts and just not Cav? Was that deliberate so they would no longer get a 4+ save and just a 5+ one? Even with the 5pts drop in cost I think I’d rather have them with a 4+ save.
The Minotaur unit drop in cost feels about right 👍
I still think the Ghorgon and cygor should drop in points further (perhaps 225 & 200) or if the Ghorgon stays those points, allow the KB attack to be in addition to its other attacks (though that might just make it filth).
Fully agree with @grandmasterwangs comments on the Doombull, particularly around the leadership. LD 9 is one of the reasons to field the Beastlord over the Doombull.
Sad face that you didn’t include the beast banner.
With regards to the raiders rule is it worth stating that you don’t have to set the unit up in skirmish formation. Having to rank up a massive unit of Gor (etc) every time they make combat would be a pain in the backside. If memory serves, in 6th some units had skirmish rules but you didn’t put them in skirmish formation (unlike in 8th). I’ll admit, without looking it up, my memory is somewhat hazy on this.
I’m not personally a fan of the mixed Gor unit, mainly as I was used to beasts in earlier editions where they also didn’t do this, but I understand the reasons.
I’ve not looked at the new lore, reworded lore of the wild etc. will try and do that but a bit manic at work at present.
Again, solid work.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 17, 2022 1:51:42 GMT
Taurox - Fear and Frenzy not listed in his main entry but appear in his armylist version.
I like what you have done with his big drawback now being d6 wounds rather than instagib.
At first I thought you had buffed him with the Mark of Khorne and his Frenzy (with your Mark of Khorne rule now helping minotaurs which I like btw) but removed 1 of his attacks (6 to 5) so thought the attacks were the same (booo!)..on second look ...then I saw that you had included the paired weapons part in the Rune-Tortured axes so on 3rd look it appears as though he has actually been buffed (yay!). Given that stock Doombulls stole/borrowed his +1 impact hit in your version he deserves a little something something as is never seen.
So correct me if I'm wrong with this..
5 attacks +1 paired weapons +1 frenzy +1 Mark of Khorne
So starts with 8 attacks as you have written it (vs 7 in GW version)
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 17, 2022 2:07:13 GMT
Khazrak - One of my very favourite characters and you have hugely buffed him in a way that doesn't seem completely unreasonable.
Magic resistance 1 for the unit with Dark Mail seems fair.
Leadership 8 mentioned before/being changed.
Initiative 6 now... I dig it.
That scourge buff wow.. not sure if it's OP (he has no ward save though..) but I'm kinda tempted to try it haha.
Against a horde he will have 14 attacks (previously 10) and vs a standard 5 wide unit 9 vs 5 previously which is a mega buff.
Given many things will still pulp him in a challenge could well be fair
I'm not sure if you meant to buff Scourge that much but damn hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 17, 2022 2:30:49 GMT
Chaos Warhounds.
I don't like them having the Beastmen ambush rule. They aren't Beastmen and they aren't imo smart enough to ambush/coordinate (lore). Also I'm thinking of the gameplay (see bottom of my post)
7 points rather than 6 ....so they are more expensive?
6 points for a no armor save hound was plenty unless I'm missing something?
Poison for 1 point is imo too cheap (ie, why not take it always). 3 points in GW version.
Stock hounds more expensive (7 vs 6) but poison hounds (8 vs 9) cheaper seems odd when looking at your version vs gw version.
2 points for poison upgrade seems fair as 3 was too much but 1 seems too little.
I like that they are actual core now.
Maybe something could be included about them not causing panic in the rest of the Beastmen? As a way of buffing them, especially if you are increasing their points cost. If you decide to keep their ambush option then this wouldn't work obviously.
Currently in GW book ungor raiders at 6 ponts are the better choice vs 6 point hounds.
At 7 points unless ambush shenanigans I don't see anyone taking your version without upgrades.
Not sure how I feel about Khazrak special rule and the hounds using his leadership outside inspiring presence. Especially with Ambush rules and the leadership roll as you currently have it.
I could make a rude/annoying af list currently with the rules as you have them with the same 5+ minimum size.
At 2000 points you could have all core hounds with half ambushing so 7 units (from 14) of ambush hounds.
With potentially poison attacks and magic charges/movement boosts you could completely jank up an opponent battle line/plans too reliably imo. Imagine the rage lol.
I will say the mental visual of Sun Tzu Khazrak and his team of super elite commando Navy Seal hounds outplanning and enveloping an enemy force is quite amusing. 😃
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Aug 17, 2022 10:00:40 GMT
Nice work. I’ve had a quick skim through and like other just hitting thoughts as they come up. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'm grateful for all your feedback! Why is Mark of Slannesh different to warriors when all the others are the same? It kind of feels like if one is different, should they all vary (nurgle give +1 toughness for instance). Well, between the Daemons book and the Warriors book, the Mark of Nurgle has the same effect (-1 to Hit rolls) and the Mark of Tzeentch has one common effect (re-roll channelling results of 1), so I didn't feel under huge pressure to change what seemed to work well for existing Khornate, Nurgle and Tzeentchian Beastman units. +1 Toughness I like the idea of though as an alternative to the -1 to Hit penalty, to add another difference between the Beastmen and the other Chaos factions. I’m with Grandmaster on having Gor steer chariots. I wouldn’t trust a half horn to do a decent job of looting a corpse! 😉. As there are multiple calls for this from seasoned Beastman players, I shall be happy to oblige in this case Is it deliberate that you’ve kept primal fury as working on the chariot mounts? Yes, I felt that it would be quite thematic if, in the case of the Chariot mounts, the feral spirit of hatred toward the civilised races present in the crew spreads to the mounts as they beat and whip them onward, to turn the chariot into a speeding ball of rage and fury. Also you may want to state that marks only apply to the riders and not the chariot mounts (so it’s in line with the WoC errata). Good call on the Marks, I'll see what I can do to amend that. Why are centigor warbeasts and not Cav? Was that deliberate so they would no longer get a 4+ save and just a 5+ one? Even with the 5pts drop in cost I think I’d rather have them with a 4+ save. Centigors are one being, rather than a steed and a mount, so it makes more sense for them to be War Beasts than Cavalry. It is true that their armour save would be reduced as a result, but on the other hand it means they don't need to take Dangerous Terrain tests when charging or fleeing through woods, as a Cavalry unit would, because not only is there no chance of them being 'unhorsed', but also they are woodland creatures and know when to duck beneath tree branches. The Minotaur unit drop in cost feels about right 👍 I'm glad to hear that, I have been hosting a 'Best Monstrous Infantry' tournament on Lustria Online of late, using MathsHammer to work out how different Monstrous Infantry units, of equal points, fare against each other. Minotaurs are toward the lower-middle tier of the rankings, not because of their profile or special rules (which can give them a good win when they fight against the right foes), but because they are bringing 5 models to fights where most Monstrous Infantry can bring six or seven, which puts them on the back foot straightaway. Thus I felt they needed enough of a points drop to put them on par with other Monstrous Infantry units in that regard, though if Marks and/or weapons upgrades are taken then it will still take them up in price accordingly. I still think the Ghorgon and cygor should drop in points further (perhaps 225 & 200) or if the Ghorgon stays those points, allow the KB attack to be in addition to its other attacks (though that might just make it filth). I would have thought the Cygor's points value in my book is fine given that it is a Stone Thrower with a far superior combat profile to War Machines, but I like the idea of including the Ghorgon's Killing Blow attack being made alongside its other attacks (and keeping it at its current points value), like the Necrosphinx's Decapitating Strike attack. It's only one attack that has to still hit and wound, so I don't see how it could be considered filth, especially as that attack's special effects only work on infantry. Sad face that you didn’t include the beast banner. Well given how most of the other Magic Items I included are particularly good (I'd like to think), and every official book has a mixture of good and duff Magic Items, I thought another auto-take item would contribute to my book being too strong again. However, given I'm tweaking the Beastman Ambush rule, I may have to remove Preyseeker from the list if I can't think of decent revised rules for it, in which case I will consider the possibility of including the Beast Banner. I would have to change the name though ('Beast Banner' is probably the least original name I've seen in a Magic Item yet) and would have to reduce the points value (probably to 50, 75 points for a single extra point of Strength is too expensive). With regards to the raiders rule is it worth stating that you don’t have to set the unit up in skirmish formation. Having to rank up a massive unit of Gor (etc) every time they make combat would be a pain in the backside. If memory serves, in 6th some units had skirmish rules but you didn’t put them in skirmish formation (unlike in 8th). I’ll admit, without looking it up, my memory is somewhat hazy on this. In the 6th Edition book the rule simply states that the unit is treated as having the Skirmishers special rule (except for the listed exceptions), so I assume one has to include them in Skirmisher formation. Personally I'm not fond of the 'open-order' skirmish formation in 8th, would it make it easier just to ignore that and follow the 6th and 7th Skirmish formation (or lack of ) with bigger Beast Herds? Also, might I suggest the MSU approach if you're really averse to the idea of having a massive horde of Skirmishers? Especially as the Raiders rule gives them a bit more resilience? I’ve not looked at the new lore, reworded lore of the wild etc. will try and do that but a bit manic at work at present. Again, solid work. Thanks, I look forward to hearing what you've got to say about those!
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Aug 17, 2022 11:01:06 GMT
Taurox - Fear and Frenzy not listed in his main entry but appear in his armylist version. I like what you have done with his big drawback now being d6 wounds rather than instagib. At first I thought you had buffed him with the Mark of Khorne and his Frenzy (with your Mark of Khorne rule now helping minotaurs which I like btw) but removed 1 of his attacks (6 to 5) so thought the attacks were the same (booo!)..on second look ...then I saw that you had included the paired weapons part in the Rune-Tortured axes so on 3rd look it appears as though he has actually been buffed (yay!). Given that stock Doombulls stole/borrowed his +1 impact hit in your version he deserves a little something something as is never seen. So correct me if I'm wrong with this.. 5 attacks +1 paired weapons +1 frenzy +1 Mark of Khorne So starts with 8 attacks as you have written it (vs 7 in GW version) I haven't explicitly stated Taurox starts with Frenzy in my version, so he currently has 7 attacks as per the GW version, but as his Impact Hits (D3 + 1) has been borrowed by other Doombulls as well, I might consider giving him the Frenzy rule from the start, so that he has 8 attacks as you've already stated. Yes I felt that his 'Instant Death' from suffering a 6 to hit and to wound and failing his save was too much of a drawback, as players could instead just go for a custom-build killy Doombull that has no risk of dying instantly. Multiple Wounds (D6) makes it a bit more fun and unpredictable - on one hand your enemy could roll a 6 and still kill him instantly, but on the other hand they could roll a 1 and not do anything more to him than any other successful wound. Khazrak - One of my very favourite characters and you have hugely buffed him in a way that doesn't seem completely unreasonable. That scourge buff wow.. not sure if it's OP (he has no ward save though..) but I'm kinda tempted to try it haha. Against a horde he will have 14 attacks (previously 10) and vs a standard 5 wide unit 9 vs 5 previously which is a mega buff. Given many things will still pulp him in a challenge could well be fair I'm not sure if you meant to buff Scourge that much but damn hahaha. I had originally intended to give Khazrak that big Scourge buff, but later I felt it was too much and changed it to him getting bonus attacks based upon the Rank bonus of the enemy unit (Skaven beware ). I must have lost control of the book's versions for a moment (as I was saving it dually on my laptop and a USB drive), but that can easily be amended. He does deserve to potentially get a lot of attacks, as his attacks are only Strength 5 and he doesn't have much in the way of defensive equipment, but 14 attacks for one model against a horde is definitely too much Chaos Warhounds. I don't like them having the Beastmen ambush rule. They aren't Beastmen and they aren't imo smart enough to ambush/coordinate (lore). Also I'm thinking of the gameplay (see bottom of my post) My thinking here was that rather than having the Hounds be intelligent enough to coordinate, it's the Beastmen that have trained them to prowl round to ambush the enemy from an unexpected angle. 7 points rather than 6 ....so they are more expensive? 6 points for a no armor save hound was plenty unless I'm missing something? Because of me giving them the Ambush rule. I like that they are actual core now. This was the case in the Warriors of Chaos book, so it makes sense for the Beastmen to follow suit. Poison for 1 point is imo too cheap (ie, why not take it always). 3 points in GW version. Stock hounds more expensive (7 vs 6) but poison hounds (8 vs 9) cheaper seems odd when looking at your version vs gw version. 2 points for poison upgrade seems fair as 3 was too much but 1 seems too little. Maybe something could be included about them not causing panic in the rest of the Beastmen? As a way of buffing them, especially if you are increasing their points cost. If you decide to keep their ambush option then this wouldn't work obviously. Currently in GW book ungor raiders at 6 ponts are the better choice vs 6 point hounds. At 7 points unless ambush shenanigans I don't see anyone taking your version without upgrades. Not sure how I feel about Khazrak special rule and the hounds using his leadership outside inspiring presence. Especially with Ambush rules and the leadership roll as you currently have it. I could make a rude/annoying af list currently with the rules as you have them with the same 5+ minimum size. At 2000 points you could have all core hounds with half ambushing so 7 units (from 14) of ambush hounds. With potentially poison attacks and magic charges/movement boosts you could completely jank up an opponent battle line/plans too reliably imo. Imagine the rage lol. Poison costs 3 points in the old Beastman book, yes, but it has since been reduced to 1 point in the Warriors of Chaos 8th book and Storm of Magic, which I think makes sense given that Warhounds only have 1 attack each, meaning the number of attacks that roll a 6 and auto-wound is going to be pretty low usually. To be fair though, given GW allowed Hounds in the Warriors book to take Vanguard at +2 points, and Ambush is of course miles better, perhaps Beastman hounds should go up to 8 or 9 points per model? That would then make poison hounds all the more expensive and stops them from being cheaper than the original version, and also reduces the number of units that can be spammed in your rude list . The thing with Chaos Warhounds is, though, that they have limited effectiveness in combat, even with poison, and are on cavalry bases so you can't get that many attacks out of them, meaning infantry units can all too often overwhelm them easily. More to the point they don't have the Raiders rule, so can easily be shot or blown up with magic. Besides I am altering my Ambush rule, meaning the effectiveness of Warhound spam may change with that. I will say the mental visual of Sun Tzu Khazrak and his team of super elite commando Navy Seal hounds outplanning and enveloping an enemy force is quite amusing. 😃 Just As Planned, Beastman style
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Aug 17, 2022 13:29:32 GMT
Questions regarding your ambush, is it by unit? Or in total for the 'up to half' bit?
Ie, Beastlord, wargor bsb, 5 units of hounds, 2 units of Gor, 1 unit of Bestigor for example.
Is this 10 units total? For ambush purposes.
Does it matter when Beastlord and bsb deploy? Ie, both deploy in Gor unit, means 8 units total so 4 can ambush?
In the above example, could all 5 hounds ambush? (Half of 10) or would it be 2 ( half of 5)
If all 5 hounds deploy normally and don't ambush, can both Gor units and the Bestigor unit then deploy?
Or would it be 1 unit of Gor (half of 2) and the Bestigor unit couldn't ambush (only 1 unit).
General (Beastlord) cannot ambush per the rules but does he still count for number of units?
Hope that was somewhat understandable....
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Aug 17, 2022 13:40:02 GMT
Questions regarding your ambush, is it by unit? Or in total for the 'up to half' bit? You count up the total of all the units and characters you have with the Ambush special rule, and then divide that number by 2, rounding up in the case of my rules... Ie, Beastlord, wargor bsb, 5 units of hounds, 2 units of Gor, 1 unit of Bestigor for example. Is this 10 units total? For ambush purposes. ... So yes this is 10 units in total, meaning 5 can Ambush in this case. Does it matter when Beastlord and bsb deploy? Ie, both deploy in Gor unit, means 8 units total so 4 can ambush? You could deploy ambushing characters inside ambushing units, but they will still count as separate units in their own right for the purposes of Ambush. In the above example, could all 5 hounds ambush? (Half of 10) or would it be 2 ( half of 5) Yes, you can have all 5 units of Warhounds ambush, but your two characters, two Beast Herds and 1 Bestigor unit would have to deploy normally... If all 5 hounds deploy normally and don't ambush, can both Gor units and the Bestigor unit then deploy? ...whereas in this example, yes, if your 5 hound units don't ambush, your Beast Herd and Bestigor units can Ambush. General (Beastlord) cannot ambush per the rules but does he still count for number of units? Yes he still counts toward the total number of units for the purposes of working out how many can ambush.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Aug 20, 2022 8:45:56 GMT
Hmm, should centaurs count as cavalry, I'll look in older material see if there's anything there, also Thaumtarge I feel should yes have a lower weaponskill but not lose a point of toughness, you want all options to be viable and not be competing too much. It should be from a tactical standpoint that you select options that can fit in with a theme but also work.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Aug 20, 2022 9:09:45 GMT
Hmm, should centaurs count as cavalry, I'll look in older material see if there's anything there, also Thaumtarge I feel should yes have a lower weaponskill but not lose a point of toughness, you want all options to be viable and not be competing too much. It should be from a tactical standpoint that you select options that can fit in with a theme but also work. See my reply to knoffles post about Centigors. Regarding the Thaumaturge, I wanted him to be significantly weaker in close combat to take account of the fact he can use magic in its stead - that's the reason you're taking him after all. He's still not too bad a fighter, in the same way a Butcher or Slaughtermaster is not as capable in melee as an Ogre Tyrant or Butcher, but is still a better fighter than a lot of other races' Wizards, and I'd say on par with a Thaumaturge.
|
|