Romes

Sorry - this goes back in the conversation from models to rules, but I wanted to give my opinion on what you should be aware of going into the army. What's been said is that the army is not supported by GW. What I think is important to add is that the book, written by forgeworld, does not seem to have gone through a ton of play testing before being printed. I play against chaos dwarves fairly often and in my opinion the book does not have good internal balance. It's possible to make a balanced list, but to me you're really just taking some power options and some poor options. Also be aware that there are a couple things to consider regarding your opponents: 1. When people aren't familiar with the book they may react to some of the rules fairly poorly, especially all the artillery re-rolls (which do end up costing a good amount of points to access) 2. There are a few options which set off the "why is this legal?" reaction in a lot of players. In my opinion this is not the war machines, but it's the chalice and the lore of hasphet that really are not OK. Especially Chalice. 3. The K'Daii destroyer is sort of a problem. In my experience, *most* veteran players with *most* lists will have a fairly easy time controlling or dealing with it (at least, with one). But for less experienced players it can be exceedingly un-fun to play against. The exception to this for me is bull centaurs, which I really like, look amazing on paper, and consistently under-perform due to volume of attacks issue. They feel like a surprisingly well balanced unit. I agree with the sentiments of people above regarding the models and all, I just think it's important to be aware of these potential issues when picking an army. Good luck!

Is anyone up for a fantasy game tonight at Guardian Games? I'll be down there with the wife while she attends another meetup.

I definitely like the idea of splitting up the dogs into more smaller units. I think you should experiment with different lores on your level 4. With your current build you have access to fire, shadow, death, metal and nurgle. While death is probably the strongest lore outside of any context, you should see what works well with your list and your play style. For example, you're running large warrior blocks, which is not normal in the current competitive lists. The blocks themselves really like to have a lore with some buffs which are pretty good in nurgle and shadow. I would experiment with the different lores over the course of a number of games, especially since doing so doesn't require a difference in the models you field. One other thing to consider, core warriors get magic banners. If a level 4 is your general, standard of discipline on the nurgle warriors is a must. This leaves banner of swiftness as an option for the khorne ones. Also consider adding and testing out some variation of the following character: Exalted hero Mark of Nurgle Scaly Skin Dragonhelm Dawnstone Great Weapon Battle Standard Bearer Total: 208 This will really add some punch to the nurgle block and allow them to have much needed pych re-rolls. He's durable enough most opponents will end up not directing attacks at him when possible.

My experience with 5 man chaos knight units is that they tend to give up their points very easily. If it was me, I would drop the knights and take a BSB and a sorceror with a dispel scroll. To me those are very key components to the list that seem missing.

I think the crown prevents a sufficient defensive kit on the scar vet (he only gets 50 points!) Dismounting the scar vet makes his saves worse are really limits movement (and charge distance!) Agent, I think you're spot on with the scar vet, he is a utility piece specifically in there to deal with what lizards are bad at - single tough models that make flee shenanigans not work and get to your skink lines. The ideal example is a core chaos chariot which is a nightmare for skinks and gets gibbed by a scar vet. They're in the lizardman list to fill those holes. I like the rippers, but I think they take some practice. We have a player out here using 3 units because they're cheap in swedish and the performance of the units has really changed between game 1 and game 15 with the list. They're not intuitive to use, and you have to turn them around backwards a fair amount of the time, but I think the learning curve may be worth it in the long run. *hint* experiment running them with champs and using odd formations and shapes. My main issue with the list is the saurus. Every time I set up against a lizard player with a Saurus block this is exactly what goes through my head: "Yes! Points I know I can get to." You're playing a mobile hunt and peck army, and, in my experience, the saurus don't really have the staying power to change that equation. Remember that a scar-vet with a charmed shield and talisman of preservation can join a unit of rank and file skinks just fine - he'll shrug one cannonball at least and safe against bolt throwers. I would say that playing competitive lizards is one of the hardest things in the game to do well. In order to win you will be doing a lot of fleeing a lot of careful re-directing and sacrificing of units. It's very difficult to get it all right and I suspect you'll have a number of games where one small mistake in the movement phase will translate into a blown game. I guess the point is, if you start playing lizards and you lose your first 10 games, don't lose heart, that's normal! You will get better and better at skink shenanigans and eventually successfully finish a game with your opponent bewildered how he never got any meaningful points! Also - try out wandering deliberations. 0.0

I have also seen them run horde with a hag w/ frenzy upgrade. This is a cheap way to give the unit frenzy and you can leave the hag on the corner to avoid having attacks come at her if needed in many situations. Personally I would prefer running them horse with no characters and full command. They hit as hard as most characters, and they'll be wide enough that adding the characters doesn't reduce the incoming damage. You're basically trying to stay steadfast. A stripped down master is like 9 more executioners that could be maintaining ranks. You can always move a mounted dreadlord into the unit at the last second to deal with challenges if needed. Another thing I like was running them with a beasts wizard in the army. Wisen's helps these guys out more than soulblight due to the increased armor penetration. Haven't run them myself though so this could all be wrong!

It's weird to me that they gave him I1 but left Nagash with no stateline weaknesses? I think he's fine, he's not fast, his lore isn't amazing, he's an easy purple sun and pit target, and no true ward save. But he still feels useful enough to see play. The only thing that I find problematic about him is when you compare him to Nagash, which doesn't have the same glaring weaknesses. On the other hand, the book is a huge boon (as a warriors player, I think too much) to warriors as a whole as for some reason it seems to give them the reign of chaos table for free with mitigated downsides?

I like the idea with the sorc, Also seems like a fairly balanced list overall. One thought could be considering beasts over shadow because 1. for casual games wisens is still good and less gimicky than mindrazor and 2. savage beasts is killer for DE and for swedish games beasts is much lighter comp than shadow. My concern with this is that in a swedish environment you're starting at a 7.8. That means if you play say a 14, you'll start down 600 points. I'm not sure if the list has the punch to make up that much difference against a 14 that decided to sit on their point bump?

AgentP, while it's important that you've identified what you enjoy in the game, I also think its important to recognize that not everyone is looking for the same things. In my opinion, tournaments only "warp your thinking" if you assume there is one correct perspective from which to play the game. I believe there are many. So I wanted to go back to the question of player or list: First, it has to be both. I think there's a lot of sentiment in the anti-netlist crowd that you "make up for the list difference with skill". What happens when you play someone of approximately the same skill with a much higher power level list? Yes, those people exist, and because you're both good players and they took an optimized list, you will lose most of the time. If you're fine with that, that's great, but it means the list does matter. Second, I think there is maybe a false impression sometimes that lists are either hard or soft. To me there are four kinds of lists rather than two. 1. Casual list: A list designed purely on whim, the designer does not think about what they might be playing, doesn't think about how to deal with various other options in the game, and just plays what they feel like (think a themed all infantry DE list, it's not necessarily bad, but there are some matchups where it doesn't have a realistic chance of winning). 2. Optimized list (net list)(skew list): These lists are designed to be as powerful as possible, sometimes by the player themselves, but often by someone else. (Kairos Epidemus) 3. Balanced List: These lists are consciously designed to both not take the most obvious choices but to take some form of all the tools necessary to walk into a match and have a chance. At first glance it may look more like casual that optimized, because it may use odd unit choices or not match expectation, but the builder incorporated the elements they think they need. Balanced lists have a way to deal with war machines, a strategy against evasion, and a strategy against deathstars. They may not all be amazing options, but they are there, and every game is a real game. I'll post a copy of what I think is a 3k balanced DE list later (I took this to a soft comp event and received 14/20 for comp). (this is the kind of list I would take to casual games where I wasn't preparing for an event) 4. Optimized Comped list (most swedish 10+) These lists are designed to be as powerful as possible within a set of restrictions. When the restrictions are designed well, players attempting to build Type 2 lists will end up with Type 3 lists. I love this type of list because (like type 3) it can generally be beaten by any of the other types and lose to any of the other types depending on the dice and the player. I guess the point is, Murphy, while I appreciate that it can be frustrating for new players to feel like they have no chance (save a cascade) going into a game, much of that really is a list design issue, and can be mitigated without taking net lists. There's a wide variety of power and versatility levels, and if you're committing the time to go to a tournament I think it's worth setting yourself up so that you don't often end up frustrated in no-win scenarios. Maybe this means getting list help from friends or playing some practice games. My group (especially the newer players) tend to circulate their tournament lists via email asking for opinions before turning them in. As far as casual games go, that feels like a very different issue, and as Ghram said in a different thread, it's important to have a mutual understanding of what you're looking for in a game before it begins.

Thanks!

Also, congrats on taking a medusa!

I think this is a mischaracterization of the conversation. It not that they don't know how to deal with filth, most of those people bring and deal with the filthiest possible lists at the few no comp events in the region. It's because of that that they know exactly what you can do with filth, and (reasonably), think that filth is bad for the game from a balance standpoint and thus makes it less fun and less competitive. "This is what happens when comp gamers get it into their heads that they play this game competitively. " I really hope I'm reading this wrong and apologize if I am. I'm petty sure what you're insinuating here is that Warhammer can't actually by played competitively and "comp gamers" are wrong about this issue because they make the mistake of trying. (please correct me if I'm wrong) I would respond that warhammer is a strategy game, and while GW has made it clear that's not their focus, that doesn't mean a community can't edit (comp) a game they enjoy to try to balance it enough to be a functional strategy game. I, personally, deeply enjoy warhammer AS a strategy game. The number of options and possibilities and unique builds means it provides something I haven't had enough of in other strategy games. I would rather that strategy game be balanced, and would rather both my opponent and I have lists of similar power level. You may not view warhamemr as a strategy game. Maybe it's social and modeling/hobby and you aren't interested in playing chess with painted toys. That's fine, and is, of course, a legitimate way to enjoy your hobby, because you define what is a legitimate way you enjoy your hobby, not me. So is playing it as a strategy game. I do agree some people are overreacting.

I hadn't even considered the idea of people doing that within their own club/casual play. 0.0 Good point. I was just talking about tournaments. I am now remembering a certain player in a GW store a couple years back when I just started.... point taken. =P

20 Grail Reliquiae (14 Pilgrims and Reliquiae) ... I have never seen this unit! (holy crap) What does it do 0.0? Besides that, I think you might be happier with 4 units of 10 archer,s 2 with braziers, and a couple units of yeomen. Also it would be really nice to find the points to make those casters LVL2 (especially beasts casters). Also worth considering making the footslogger beasts as well. Reason: The life sig doesn't do much since you already have prayer icon. Also: Step 1: roll the footslogger last, Step 2: get transformation step 3: mountain chimera. Good reason to model a sweet mountain chimera! Also, due to weird 3 man ranks, you probably could take mirror instead of stubborn crown. That's your hardest hitting unit anyways. I like this list, I think with splitting up archers and some mobile chaff, protecting the trebs and forcing your opponent to come to you for a knight charge feels like a solid plan. still no idea what Grail Reliquiae are!

*note - obviously there are things that are objectively dickish: palming dice, knowingly playing a rule wrong, moving a unit farther than is allowed, but I think all of the objectively diskish stuff is just called "cheating." =P

I actually don't like this rule. Bear with me! Different people think different things make people a dick. The rules is fine with a "here are all the other rules which explains exactly what that means in a clearly defined way". To me, no one is being a dick while they build their list within the rules laid out by the tournament, they're making a legal choice in a strategy game and I'd better have a counter or a strategy to mitigate. Other people think taking a no-holds barred list to a tournament with no comp is being a dick. Who is right? Why should one person get to judge another when there was no objective standard laid out? Maybe this isn't an issue back in the Northwest (which i honestly half believe because I'm homesick and at this point the streets of Portland are paved with cheese and everyone is super nice) but where I am now too many people spend too much time judging other people's moves in what to me is inherently a strategy game on some self defined moral compass. =/ I find that very frustrating. I'm already signed up for two tournaments when I come back, and I'm really excited for both, but list building is much harder for one than the other. One is swedish, your tournament, and the list I'll be taking is about a 10, I'm still tweaking. There's no stress in the list building, it's swedish, so I can take what I want and the score differential deals with power level issues. The other is no comp, and I'm having a very hard time making a choice of what to bring. It sounds like a great event, and I'm really looking forward to it, but the list building is stressful because I want to A: bring a list that is not under-powered compared to whatever the most broken lists people bring are and B: bring a list that other people won't think makes me a dick. Where is that beautiful grey area? It depends on the subjective perceptions of my opponents as to what constitutes a dick. Which is why I don't like rule #1. TLDR: Different people define dick differently and that makes me sad.

I hope the same! I will also admit that I would be more excited about this is the new chaos stuff was Tzeentch instead of Nurgle.

My current gaming group builds to the next event. That means sometimes we're etc, sometimes we're swedish, sometimes we're no comp. We tend to shy away from purposefully taking soft lists because self comping is subjective and we'd rather have an objective set of rules around making a balanced list that we all have to follow, whatever that restriction set it, we're all on the same page. So I'd say, I'm not in a meta where people willingly take soft lists, but I don't think we're stupidheads. =P (if we had our way every event would be heavily comped, so we'd never end up playing with of against no-comp lists)

I d I don't like it for basically the reason of your first post. You should need to have a hard time fitting in all the toys in the lord and hero slot. I play warriors and DE and there are a lot of unbalanced options opened up by this in the lord slot for warriors and the hero slow for de. The thing I think makes this a really bad decision is that none of the other 8th ed books were internally balanced with this assumption in place. Double greater daemon anyone? (note that I agree currently the no lord build is better for daemons, because one is a risk, but how about if there are two? Can you deal with both before they get there?) Some lists just won't be able to deal with that. I predict it will damage meta variety and push the meta toward three build types. 1: over the top character build 2: gunline/light council builds specifically designed to deal with the over the top character builds 3: "bodies" builds which beat the counter builds because high value low number shots don't matter against them. In general when you allow more of the same in one area, especially an area with power level issues caused by redundancy, you're going to lose build variety, and I think, make balanced "a little bit of everything" builds worse. In my opinion, the game is most fun when most armies take a little bit of everything. In addition, to me, the Lore of Undeath is clearly a marketing tool to sell the models that can be raised, and not well tested or balanced. Of course, none of this is really an issue if you're in a soft meta where people willing take reasonable lists, then the change is fine and won't affect you much. Equally, you'll eventually be fine in swedish because they'll have to take the change into account in their point system (which will take awhile to do well). TLDR: It won't end the world, and it won't affect how much I play the game, but I think it will make armies more rock paper scissors and make the game less fun. I hope I'm wrong.

The end times is feeling like an increasingly appropriate title. =/

haha, fair enough!

I'm not sure what the answer to this question, but I don't think the above part is relevant to the ruling. Most ridden monsters are a ton of points and restrict other character selections. Any dragon rider for example. They're still ridiculously weak to cannons. Most are even weaker since the chance of one-shotting a 2 or 3 wound rider with a cannonball is significantly higher than one-shotting a 4 wound hunter. What about a HE dragon mage? It's a 400 point 2 wound hero on a mount. It's definitely a weird case.

The BSB is a 12 inch bubble. It's totally reasonable to almost never fail a terror check within that bubble. Not all terror checks happen in that bubble, and those fail fairly regularly. I actually really like how the BSB works because the potential affects of psychology on the movement phase. Are you 6 inches away from the chaff unit that's about to die? Are you within 12 of the general and BSB? The differential effect of pych checks based on both inspiring presence and BSB bubble constrain the movement of the defender (moving to get the bonuses) and provide different routes to attack for the aggressor (targeting/singling out units that aren't in the bubble, or more importantly, making a move where the best counter is for your opponent to leave the bubble). If your opponent is always on 10 re-rollable, then they're keeping their army in a very constrained space, and that allows you a lot more freedom. I guess what I'm saying is that I would agree that BSB re-rolls were a problem if they covered the entire board, but they don't, and so instead of me they are an additional tactical element.

I kind of like the loadout, but the pointcost is very high. If the goal is to not give up the overkill in the challenge there are also some cheaper routes to that. Something like big boss, charmed shield, opal amulet, potion of toughness would be my first thought.

Wow, thanks for answering this stuff so quickly, you guys are really on top of it.