@23:55 to the sad topic of infantry beeing in a very bad position. i still think that my solution to this problem would solve a lot of the meta issues, even though i have to test it with a few friends. my solution is to FINALY change the unit classification in army list building. for almost 30 years, we have characters, core, special and rare, with core beeing the "must have" option. so what would i prefer? changing it to: characters infantry (that includes normal, heavy and monstrous) range (includes normal archers, monstrous archers) cavalry (includes light, normal, heavy and monstrous ) war machinery (includes all kinds of artillery, shrines, chariots and mechanical units like copters and steamtanks etc) rare (everything "monster like", including dragons, hydras, vargheists, giants etc) with infantry beeing the "must have" 25% option. by doing that, you pretty much FORCE the meta to be changed. so you cant just run "range core" + "flyers and monsters". and that would also automaticly bring back the good old fantasy days, with big infantry units clashing together, because everyone HAS to play atleast SOME infantry. and i also think, that monster options for characters, should ALSO count towards your max rare. so a 300 points dragon should also take away 300 rare points and not JUST character points. because with that change, people would atleast consider not to bring a dragon or two in EVERY FREAKING GAME!!!!!!! i played against a list with 4 terrorgheists and that is beyond any fun. what do you guys think of my general idea? doesnt have to be exactly like that and in the end, the most important part for me is the 25% infantry "must have" change. (20% must have would also be a good option)
I like the idea. My problem is some factions have really bad melee infantry. I'd be down for 25% infantry required as long as it's both ranged and melee.
The slann just boggles the mind unlike anything else. It was pretty alright back when tow released. Expensive, but alright. Cupped hands and the Dispel discipline went a long way. Then they just arbitrarily decided to make the slann borderline unplayable for absolutely no reason when they faqed it to be a monster instead of infantry. The dumbest part is that apotheosis doesn't even make sense anymore since it heals d3+1 on models that cap out at 3 wounds.
Re. Ward saves for High Elves - you can take a Prince on Star Dragon with Armour of Caledor which frees up the Talisman for your archmage, but you have to cut some corners. Example: Archmage [520pts]: Pure of Heart, Star Dragon, Wizard Level 4, High Magic, Silvery Wand, Talisman Of Protection Prince [480pts]: Shield, General, Pure of Heart, Star Dragon, Light Armour, Armour of Caledor, Seed of Rebirth, Halberd So technically it's doable, but dk if it's actually worth it vs keeping the 2+ on your Prince and having the AM slum it with a regen
That's interesting - I had somehow missed the double ward Another option is to go full send and take Blood of Caledor on both for 30pts and just play VERY aggressively. That could be fun actually
Against level 4's? Low The 18" dispell and low casting bonus make them a non-starter in comparison to a regular level 4. You only really see them because the Slaan is so clunky/bad
The problem is you should get the Skaven warlord for 100pts, which gives you the 10ld general (with rank bonus), which is very important and something Grey Seers can't provide unless you're placing one in a block of say Stormvermin, which isn't efficient imo. Personally i opt for 1 Grey Seer and have a Warlock Engineer carrying a ruby ring. Warlord plus Warlock is 160pts, significantly cheaper than a 2nd lv4 Grey Seer without the restriction of having to bunker a caster in a unit.
Skaven casters usually want to live in units from my experience - especially with how omnipresent Pillar of Fire is. The way to make Skaven perform typically hinges on a Daemonolgy caster who needs to be in a unit to buff them
@@CloseOrder Personally prefer Elementalism with Loremaster, only really competitive choice is Gutter Runners. A top tier skaven list will revolve around them so take plague of rust. The main unit i'd take to fill out core is Stormvermin over 25+ models, with bsb to get d3+ combat res banner and swiftstride on top. Champion is very important with cautious shield to challenge (2+ armour save). The static combat res on that unit is massive and they can chase down anything with swiftstride. Getting earthen ramparts off is icing on the cake to give the unit a 5+ ward and low linear obstacle
You sound like you're talking about Jack Allen's list. I'm not sold, I've played him/it multiple times and beaten it every time. Myself and Anubis both have had good success with Daemonolgy as a main caster - second caster to flavour
@@CloseOrder what about mounting them on an Imperial Griffon? They're one of the few models who can ride one. Is a multi-griffon army build potentially viable?
To be honest... these tier lists just show how boring it must be to play with tournament formats rather than more interesting scenarios. I understand that infantry is rather bad in the settings that tournaments are played, but I don't think Warhammer like most GW games do well with balance in tournament format and never have. Except for the tripple saves on mounter ridden behemouths there are no real issue with infantry. I think these things obviously colour the way you view the value of allot of choices.
The joy of Warhammer is you can play it the way you enjoy. I don't seek out narrative focused players to tell them the way they enjoy the game is wrong, do me the same courtesy.
@@CloseOrder I'm sorry... that was not my intention. I just meant that it is interesting how tournament format change what is good or bad. That was my point... Not sure what you mean about Narrative players... you mean that playing different scenarios than tournamen ones is Narrative play and not competetive?!? ' I still enjoy the content neverthelss... ;)
@@GhostGuitars Surely the most brutal FAQ ruling for us Lizardmen players. as MI it still had 360 LOS and could use the lone character rule with normal Saurus. Made not being able to join any unit in our army semi-bearable. Never thought I'd say this but it was a bad day for LM when GW went back on their statement of not supporting the legacy PDF's
@@CloseOrder As much as I love my Lizardmen it feels like a very expensive way to get ld 9 and a very ordinary lvl4 mage in my army, and as I am not convinced that Ethereal protects that well I always play it with a unit of 7x2 TG. Pre-planning is key as mobility on the Slann is not great. As a footnote: Falcon Horn of Fredemund turning Slann into a M2 slow poke feels...well...terrible😂
Also Lizardmen player here, relying on bastiladons out off the enemy wizard dispel range for my magic Sad because Slann in a Temple Guard bunker was my favorite playstyle in 8th Miss the lore of beast signature spell spam with skink priests 😂
@23:55 to the sad topic of infantry beeing in a very bad position.
i still think that my solution to this problem would solve a lot of the meta issues, even though i have to test it with a few friends.
my solution is to FINALY change the unit classification in army list building.
for almost 30 years, we have characters, core, special and rare, with core beeing the "must have" option.
so what would i prefer?
changing it to:
characters
infantry (that includes normal, heavy and monstrous)
range (includes normal archers, monstrous archers)
cavalry (includes light, normal, heavy and monstrous )
war machinery (includes all kinds of artillery, shrines, chariots and mechanical units like copters and steamtanks etc)
rare (everything "monster like", including dragons, hydras, vargheists, giants etc)
with infantry beeing the "must have" 25% option.
by doing that, you pretty much FORCE the meta to be changed.
so you cant just run "range core" + "flyers and monsters".
and that would also automaticly bring back the good old fantasy days, with big infantry units clashing together, because everyone HAS to play atleast SOME infantry.
and i also think, that monster options for characters, should ALSO count towards your max rare.
so a 300 points dragon should also take away 300 rare points and not JUST character points.
because with that change, people would atleast consider not to bring a dragon or two in EVERY FREAKING GAME!!!!!!!
i played against a list with 4 terrorgheists and that is beyond any fun.
what do you guys think of my general idea?
doesnt have to be exactly like that and in the end, the most important part for me is the 25% infantry "must have" change. (20% must have would also be a good option)
I like the idea. My problem is some factions have really bad melee infantry. I'd be down for 25% infantry required as long as it's both ranged and melee.
The slann just boggles the mind unlike anything else. It was pretty alright back when tow released. Expensive, but alright. Cupped hands and the Dispel discipline went a long way.
Then they just arbitrarily decided to make the slann borderline unplayable for absolutely no reason when they faqed it to be a monster instead of infantry.
The dumbest part is that apotheosis doesn't even make sense anymore since it heals d3+1 on models that cap out at 3 wounds.
Yeah it's not ideal
Hopefully with 2.0 we see a Lizardmen rewrite!
Re. Ward saves for High Elves - you can take a Prince on Star Dragon with Armour of Caledor which frees up the Talisman for your archmage, but you have to cut some corners. Example:
Archmage [520pts]: Pure of Heart, Star Dragon, Wizard Level 4, High Magic, Silvery Wand, Talisman Of Protection
Prince [480pts]: Shield, General, Pure of Heart, Star Dragon, Light Armour, Armour of Caledor, Seed of Rebirth, Halberd
So technically it's doable, but dk if it's actually worth it vs keeping the 2+ on your Prince and having the AM slum it with a regen
That's interesting - I had somehow missed the double ward
Another option is to go full send and take Blood of Caledor on both for 30pts and just play VERY aggressively.
That could be fun actually
Play vs Chris fairly regularly such a nice guy and was great at magic missileing my army to next week 😂.
Nah he's awful, can't even win a game without Battle magic!
@@chriscousens111battle magic master race
Where would you rate Skink Priests?
Against level 4's? Low
The 18" dispell and low casting bonus make them a non-starter in comparison to a regular level 4. You only really see them because the Slaan is so clunky/bad
The problem is you should get the Skaven warlord for 100pts, which gives you the 10ld general (with rank bonus), which is very important and something Grey Seers can't provide unless you're placing one in a block of say Stormvermin, which isn't efficient imo. Personally i opt for 1 Grey Seer and have a Warlock Engineer carrying a ruby ring.
Warlord plus Warlock is 160pts, significantly cheaper than a 2nd lv4 Grey Seer without the restriction of having to bunker a caster in a unit.
Grey Seer is also LD7, so gives an Aura of LD10 as well
@@CloseOrder You don't want a wizard stuck in a unit though in an ideal situation.
Skaven casters usually want to live in units from my experience - especially with how omnipresent Pillar of Fire is.
The way to make Skaven perform typically hinges on a Daemonolgy caster who needs to be in a unit to buff them
@@CloseOrder Personally prefer Elementalism with Loremaster, only really competitive choice is Gutter Runners. A top tier skaven list will revolve around them so take plague of rust.
The main unit i'd take to fill out core is Stormvermin over 25+ models, with bsb to get d3+ combat res banner and swiftstride on top. Champion is very important with cautious shield to challenge (2+ armour save). The static combat res on that unit is massive and they can chase down anything with swiftstride. Getting earthen ramparts off is icing on the cake to give the unit a 5+ ward and low linear obstacle
You sound like you're talking about Jack Allen's list.
I'm not sold, I've played him/it multiple times and beaten it every time.
Myself and Anubis both have had good success with Daemonolgy as a main caster - second caster to flavour
I'm surprised the empire one is so low, cheap level 4 with access to most lores and plenty of magic items to increase survivability.
No signature Lore for Empire and no Spell Familiar really hurts them
@@CloseOrder what about mounting them on an Imperial Griffon? They're one of the few models who can ride one.
Is a multi-griffon army build potentially viable?
The daemons of chaos daemon prince doesn’t have the regen save like the WoC, in case no one has mentioned it
Thanks James, I couldn't remember off the top of my head why he was squishier than the WoC one - but I knew he was!
ive had an illusion slaughtermaster do some real work with the tenderiser. 2d6 hits from that will wreck pretty much anything.
Spectral Doppleganger feels amazing when it goes off!
Otherwise you're left with a slow, expensive, squishy caster - which is less than ideal
@@CloseOrder i mean, you can get him to tough 6 and hes got 5 wounds. sounds kinda like a monster to me.
To be honest... these tier lists just show how boring it must be to play with tournament formats rather than more interesting scenarios. I understand that infantry is rather bad in the settings that tournaments are played, but I don't think Warhammer like most GW games do well with balance in tournament format and never have. Except for the tripple saves on mounter ridden behemouths there are no real issue with infantry. I think these things obviously colour the way you view the value of allot of choices.
The joy of Warhammer is you can play it the way you enjoy.
I don't seek out narrative focused players to tell them the way they enjoy the game is wrong, do me the same courtesy.
@@CloseOrder I'm sorry... that was not my intention. I just meant that it is interesting how tournament format change what is good or bad. That was my point...
Not sure what you mean about Narrative players... you mean that playing different scenarios than tournamen ones is Narrative play and not competetive?!?
'
I still enjoy the content neverthelss... ;)
I am playing a Slann...pity me please😂
they are disappointing. Being a monster gives it NO benefit and the lack of 360 kills it. PLUS, you are only allowed one in an army wtf
@@GhostGuitars Surely the most brutal FAQ ruling for us Lizardmen players. as MI it still had 360 LOS and could use the lone character rule with normal Saurus. Made not being able to join any unit in our army semi-bearable. Never thought I'd say this but it was a bad day for LM when GW went back on their statement of not supporting the legacy PDF's
How are you finding it on the table?
@@CloseOrder As much as I love my Lizardmen it feels like a very expensive way to get ld 9 and a very ordinary lvl4 mage in my army, and as I am not convinced that Ethereal protects that well I always play it with a unit of 7x2 TG. Pre-planning is key as mobility on the Slann is not great. As a footnote: Falcon Horn of Fredemund turning Slann into a M2 slow poke feels...well...terrible😂
Also Lizardmen player here, relying on bastiladons out off the enemy wizard dispel range for my magic
Sad because Slann in a Temple Guard bunker was my favorite playstyle in 8th
Miss the lore of beast signature spell spam with skink priests 😂