8th Ed. What is the very best Army Book lore of magic?

[NIGHTBRINGER]

This is a fair point, but in that 40K rule you have futuristic races that often have multiple different rounds of ammunition or settings on their tech. In Fantasy however I just couldn’t see that happening - how could pathetic little Skinks configure their poisoned darts to somehow make them great at killing a stone statue? I’m sure I remember seeing an Ogre unit that was immune to poison somehow, so if an Ogre can a statue can. Stone is almost as resilient as metal against impacts and cannot be affected in any way by poison. Also as I mentioned before, how could Monstrous Infantry-size statues be Toughness 4, yet some big fat Crypt Ghouls somehow have Toughness 5, despite being creatures of flesh and blood? Flesh is in no way tougher than stone.

The exact same thing applies to a fantasy setting, there is no difference. The Necron example I provided is equally applicable to our stone Ushabti discussion.

A Skink finds some exotic tree sap in the jungle and notices that when it drips onto stone, the stone becomes brittle and flakes away. Having heard that the Tomb Kings command animated statues of stone, the Skink collects and employs the strange sap as pseudo "poison". Done... just like they described in the Necron passage. That's just one example, you could come up with hundreds of iterations.

A bit off topic, but in terms of resistance to impact, stone is nowhere near as resilient as something like steel. Put a sledgehammer to a stone statue and it will crack, break and crumble. Do the same against the same statue made of steel, and you'll have a much more difficult time of it. Sure you can slowly deform it, but it won't shatter in the same way unless it is stupidly hardened.

I understand your reasoning with Skeletons and Daemons, but to be fair most of those are smaller models that would be more likely to be damaged by the impact from a poisoned dart alone (and Daemons, though made of warp-stuff, still have some sort of body and organs, so I would assume poison could still damage those internal organs, including the K’daai which has Daemonic body parts that could be focus-fired upon).

The impact from the dart itself would have a no effect on something like bone, and little effect on flesh. It is too light and is moving too slowly. That's why you wouldn't really expect non-poisoned blow darts to feature on a real battlefield.

As for affecting Daemons, who knows. It's a fictional creature so it's up to the author. Many animals have either partial or full immunity to poisons and toxins that would kill other creatures. We get bit by a cobra and we die, while a Honey Badger can tank it. So it is not unreasonable to propose that a Daemon would be immune to it... heck, GW puts forth the very same concept in the Necron passage I quoted (and GW is more of an authority on the subject than you or I).

As for the K'daai....

...I see fire and metal, both of which I feel would be immune to poison. I'm not seeing these vulnerabilities that you speak of.


The problem with using fluff to alter official rules is that it is too reliant on interpretation. Every army book builds up their troops, characters and units. Kholek should be able to single handedly crush an entire army, and a Slann should be able to topple an empire with a flick of his wrist. Unless the rules writer has incorporated something from the fluff directly into the game, it is best to maintain a healthy distinction between the two.

Another example:
"With the K'daai they have sought to do something more, to create a race of beings, half-daemon stuff and half-raging fire drawn from the magma of the deep earth and birthed in the boiling blood of Hashut's burning sacrifices, given form and contained within an armoured framework of articulated iron and rune-stamped bronze"

In the fluff passage above, it actually outright states that the K'daai have an armoured framework of iron and bronze, yet in the rules for the K'daai (Fireborn or the Destroyer) there is no mention of an armour save. Ergo, the Fireborn should have at least a 4+ armour save and the Destroyer a 1+ (since it is essentially a fire daemon encased in a giant armoured statue). Fluff-wise it makes logical sense, but game-wise it is rather silly.


This type of rules manipulation is nothing more than wish-listing manifested to life. Fun for the person who is manipulating the rules, but not as much so for anybody else. It's either going to lead to an escalation of arms or people refusing to use the made up rules.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

I think it is a very problematic proposition to alter rules based on fluff. It reminds me of an old reference made in the 3rd edition Necron codex from way back in the day:

"Necrons are largely mechanical creatures, and as such it might seem inappropriate that weapons such as sniper rifles, which normally use poison to achieve their effect, and agonisers, which work against an enemy's nervous system, should be effective against them. In practice, anyone using these weapons against Necrons would make adjustments to counter the Necrons' defences, for example, using acid rounds instead of poisoned rounds or altering the charge from an agoniser to affect the Necrons' power systems. Because of this, Necrons do not receive any special immunities in this regard. In the Warhammer 40,000 universe there are many troops with an equal claim to special immunities, such as Tyranids and Daemons. It is therefore logical to assume that weaponry will keep pace to maintain fairness and avoid unnecessary complication."

I think the same principle holds true in WFB. If we retroactively grant Ushabti or Sphinxes immunity to poison because they are made from stone, many others can make an equally legitimate claim:

• Undead aren't alive, so poison should have no effect on them
• it wouldn't make too much sense for Daemons to be affected by poison either
• and what about the K'daai Destroyer... a fire daemon bound to a metal body would most definitely be immune from poison (which by the way would instantly erase the Destroyer's only two losses in the Best CC units tournament!).

This is why I think they should have a better armour save, to reflect the fact that they are solid stone. With literally no blood or bodily fluids of any kind for a poison to be transmitted through the system.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

The exact same thing applies to a fantasy setting, there is no difference. The Necron example I provided is equally applicable to our stone Ushabti discussion.

A Skink finds some exotic tree sap in the jungle and notices that when it drips onto stone, the stone becomes brittle and flakes away. Having heard that the Tomb Kings command animated statues of stone, the Skink collects and employs the strange sap as pseudo "poison". Done... just like they described in the Necron passage. That's just one example, you could come up with hundreds of iterations.

A bit off topic, but in terms of resistance to impact, stone is nowhere near as resilient as something like steel. Put a sledgehammer to a stone statue and it will crack, break and crumble. Do the same against the same statue made of steel, and you'll have a much more difficult time of it. Sure you can slowly deform it, but it won't shatter in the same way unless it is stupidly hardened.




The impact from the dart itself would have a no effect on something like bone, and little effect on flesh. It is too light and is moving too slowly. That's why you wouldn't really expect non-poisoned blow darts to feature on a real battlefield.

As for affecting Daemons, who knows. It's a fictional creature so it's up to the author. Many animals have either partial or full immunity to poisons and toxins that would kill other creatures. We get bit by a cobra and we die, while a Honey Badger can tank it. So it is not unreasonable to propose that a Daemon would be immune to it... heck, GW puts forth the very same concept in the Necron passage I quoted (and GW is more of an authority on the subject than you or I).

As for the K'daai....

...I see fire and metal, both of which I feel would be immune to poison. I'm not seeing these vulnerabilities that you speak of.


The problem with using fluff to alter official rules is that it is too reliant on interpretation. Every army book builds up their troops, characters and units. Kholek should be able to single handedly crush an entire army, and a Slann should be able to topple an empire with a flick of his wrist. Unless the rules writer has incorporated something from the fluff directly into the game, it is best to maintain a healthy distinction between the two.

Another example:
"With the K'daai they have sought to do something more, to create a race of beings, half-daemon stuff and half-raging fire drawn from the magma of the deep earth and birthed in the boiling blood of Hashut's burning sacrifices, given form and contained within an armoured framework of articulated iron and rune-stamped bronze"

In the fluff passage above, it actually outright states that the K'daai have an armoured framework of iron and bronze, yet in the rules for the K'daai (Fireborn or the Destroyer) there is no mention of an armour save. Ergo, the Fireborn should have at least a 4+ armour save and the Destroyer a 1+ (since it is essentially a fire daemon encased in a giant armoured statue). Fluff-wise it makes logical sense, but game-wise it is rather silly.


This type of rules manipulation is nothing more than wish-listing manifested to life. Fun for the person who is manipulating the rules, but not as much so for anybody else. It's either going to lead to an escalation of arms or people refusing to use the made up rules.

All true.

Obviously the rule-makers have to make a choice at some point. I just wished their choice didn't massively go against TK's...

 

[BrotherSutek]

All true.

Obviously the rule-makers have to make a choice at some point. I just wished their choice didn't massively go against TK's...

I just wish that whoever made the army list loved the army and knows the rules. I'm not looking for over the top, I just want the rules to work. 6th edition TK were the most balanced army ever IMO and I loved it.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Update on this, one member on EEFL has suggested giving Ushabti a mighty Toughness of 6 to even better represent their stony endurance:

2+ toughness at what level of points increase?

Ushabti are costly already and even at toughness 6 I don't think I'd invest too heavily into them. Yes it helps but I don't see how it would help all that much.

Or making them not be auto wounded by poison...

No points increase to start with, Ushabti were generally deemed overpriced at 50 points per model for what they were

So the suggestion is a WS4, S6, T6, 3W and 3A monstrous infantry unit, that is unbreakable for 50 points?!?! At this point we're dealing with the best monstrous infantry unit in the game, and @BrotherSutek , you're still suggesting that you wouldn't invest that much into them? What TK combat unit would you invest in over T6 Ushabti? Who would ever field Tomb Guard at that point? Or Necropolis Knights? Or Sphinxes? Or a Colossus? Armies would literally consist of lords/heroes, magic/casket, core tax and filling out the rest of the army with nothing but Ushabti as their combat units.

A bonus of +2T is not a small tweak but rather a complete overhaul of the unit. I know for sure that I would be rocking entire 18+ horde unit of these guys (and a couple of smaller satellite units of them too) and stomp everything in my path. Most units in the game have S3 or S4, with elites being lucky to sport S5 or S6. Wounding these guys would be very hard, and they are not that expensive at 16.7 points/wound. Toughness 6 is extremely rare in Warhammer, typically reserved for monsters and the odd character.

Then you have the compounding effect of all these rules suggestions:

• toughness 6
• immunity from poison
• @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl 's rule suggestion that Animated Constructs can be healed D3+1 wound per casting via the Restless Dead lore attribute

So not only are the Ushabti potent offensively and defensively, but they can be healed fairly easily. They would be the ultimate hammer + anvil unit. A unit of any significant size, but especially the horde units would be obscene.

The next issue would be the domino or cascade effect. If Ushabti are so generously boosted, then what about a Troglodon or giant or any number of units that are in more need of a power up than the Ushabti. If your Ushabti get improved so drastically, why not my Kroxigor or Bull Centaurs? Very quickly we end up with a situation where "if you boost your unit, I get to boost mine". That will of course cause disagreement between which units should be boosted and by how much. At that point, you might as well play 9th Age, as that is their entire focus.

If this discussion is theoretical, as in what GW should do in a potential next edition, then fair play, but if the aim is to house rule the Ushabti and TK, you'll have to hope you can find a friend who is gullible enough to play against it. That said, to each their own, but in my opinion, the idea is destined to fail. Too much of a boost that is driven by, in my humble estimation, faction bias (and that's coming from a fellow TK player).

 

[BrotherSutek]

So the suggestion is a WS4, S6, T6, 3W and 3A monstrous infantry unit, that is unbreakable for 50 points?!?! At this point we're dealing with the best monstrous infantry unit in the game, and @BrotherSutek , you're still suggesting that you wouldn't invest that much into them? What TK combat unit would you invest in over T6 Ushabti? Who would ever field Tomb Guard at that point? Or Necropolis Knights? Or Sphinxes? Or a Colossus? Armies would literally consist of lords/heroes, magic/casket, core tax and filling out the rest of the army with nothing but Ushabti as their combat units.

A bonus of +2T is not a small tweak but rather a complete overhaul of the unit. I know for sure that I would be rocking entire 18+ horde unit of these guys (and a couple of smaller satellite units of them too) and stomp everything in my path. Most units in the game have S3 or S4, with elites being lucky to sport S5 or S6. Wounding these guys would be very hard, and they are not that expensive at 16.7 points/wound. Toughness 6 is extremely rare in Warhammer, typically reserved for monsters and the odd character.

Then you have the compounding effect of all these rules suggestions:

• toughness 6
• immunity from poison
• @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl 's rule suggestion that Animated Constructs can be healed D3+1 wound per casting via the Restless Dead lore attribute

So not only are the Ushabti potent offensively and defensively, but they can be healed fairly easily. They would be the ultimate hammer + anvil unit. A unit of any significant size, but especially the horde units would be obscene.

The next issue would be the domino or cascade effect. If Ushabti are so generously boosted, then what about a Troglodon or giant or any number of units that are in more need of a power up than the Ushabti. If your Ushabti get improved so drastically, why not my Kroxigor or Bull Centaurs? Very quickly we end up with a situation where "if you boost your unit, I get to boost mine". That will of course cause disagreement between which units should be boosted and by how much. At that point, you might as well play 9th Age, as that is their entire focus.

If this discussion is theoretical, as in what GW should do in a potential next edition, then fair play, but if the aim is to house rule the Ushabti and TK, you'll have to hope you can find a friend who is gullible enough to play against it. That said, to each their own, but in my opinion, the idea is destined to fail. Too much of a boost that is driven by, in my humble estimation, faction bias (and that's coming from a fellow TK player).

If you add all those things then yes it would be over the top. I was commenting on adding 6 toughness only, you're changing the narrative by saying they should get all those benefits. As ushabti are now I think they are overcost for what we get. If they got improvements, healing or poison needing to wound normally, then they would be more likely to be worth their points. Added toughness would affect cost without being amazing as they could still be hurt by anything on a 6, this is my personal bias against 8th edition in general so take that with a grain of salt. I didn't remember they were str 4 with great weapons as it had been awhile. I'd still personally prefer Tomb Guard with their killing blow but that is my playstyle. Heck part of why I didn't care for 8th is with so many units just spammed hordes the use for chariots is far less. As I've said I'm not looking for the ubre destroy all who come before me book but as is I don't see ushabti used much and would like to see some improvement. With all the upgrades you were saying they would be busted but good.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If you add all those things then yes it would be over the top. I was commenting on adding 6 toughness only, you're changing the narrative by saying they should get all those benefits

I'm not changing the narrative, it was a general reply to multiple people suggesting various upgrades. That said, if you are simply proposing a 2+ toughness boost, then disregard the paragraph about the compounding bonuses. The rest however, still stands on its own:

So the suggestion is a WS4, S6, T6, 3W and 3A monstrous infantry unit, that is unbreakable for 50 points?!?! At this point we're dealing with the best monstrous infantry unit in the game, and @BrotherSutek , you're still suggesting that you wouldn't invest that much into them? What TK combat unit would you invest in over T6 Ushabti? Who would ever field Tomb Guard at that point? Or Necropolis Knights? Or Sphinxes? Or a Colossus? Armies would literally consist of lords/heroes, magic/casket, core tax and filling out the rest of the army with nothing but Ushabti as their combat units.

A bonus of +2T is not a small tweak but rather a complete overhaul of the unit. I know for sure that I would be rocking entire 18+ horde unit of these guys (and a couple of smaller satellite units of them too) and stomp everything in my path. Most units in the game have S3 or S4, with elites being lucky to sport S5 or S6. Wounding these guys would be very hard, and they are not that expensive at 16.7 points/wound. Toughness 6 is extremely rare in Warhammer, typically reserved for monsters and the odd character.

Then you have the compounding effect of all these rules suggestions:

• toughness 6
• immunity from poison
• @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl 's rule suggestion that Animated Constructs can be healed D3+1 wound per casting via the Restless Dead lore attribute

So not only are the Ushabti potent offensively and defensively, but they can be healed fairly easily. They would be the ultimate hammer + anvil unit. A unit of any significant size, but especially the horde units would be obscene.

The next issue would be the domino or cascade effect. If Ushabti are so generously boosted, then what about a Troglodon or giant or any number of units that are in more need of a power up than the Ushabti. If your Ushabti get improved so drastically, why not my Kroxigor or Bull Centaurs? Very quickly we end up with a situation where "if you boost your unit, I get to boost mine". That will of course cause disagreement between which units should be boosted and by how much. At that point, you might as well play 9th Age, as that is their entire focus.

If this discussion is theoretical, as in what GW should do in a potential next edition, then fair play, but if the aim is to house rule the Ushabti and TK, you'll have to hope you can find a friend who is gullible enough to play against it. That said, to each their own, but in my opinion, the idea is destined to fail. Too much of a boost that is driven by, in my humble estimation, faction bias (and that's coming from a fellow TK player).

I'd still personally prefer Tomb Guard with their killing blow but that is my playstyle.

To each their own, but if the Ushabti got the 2+ toughness boost as suggested, you'd be pretty much the only person to do so. Competitively the Tomb Guard would be obsolete (along with every other TK combat unit). Killing blow, while random, is great against infantry, cavalry and war beasts, but leaves the TK in trouble against other unit types with significant armour. S6 is much more reliable in my opinion.

No need to take my word for it, simply run the numbers between the two units. I bet a horde of T6 Ushabti crush an equal points sized unit of Tomb Guard with little difficulty.

 

[BrotherSutek]

This pandoras box would be an issue if opened I agree. We saw a similar issue with monstrous cavalry being so much better than many other units that they dominated tables. At least in my area we saw demigryph and mournfang become an autoinclude which made too many lists copy/paste and boring IMO. I don't think the toughness should go up on Ushabti as I said I want a balanced choice that is good but not an automatic pick. In 8th the only auto thing for me was a casket everything else was flexible. In 7th the only auto include was scorpions . For the ushabti to be worth taking more often I really only want better healing and would like poison still needing to wound, that being said just being able to heal them would get over the hump of them being slow, no marching, which keeps them from being OP as we still need magic to do anything in this army. On a side note Troglodon are a wonky unit that needs addressing esp for such a cool looking model.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

I think this highlights the difficulties in working out how to balance out each army...

Hopefully they've got players working this out for TOW... with a bunch of actual real-time play testing being done.

8th Edition has many things that I don't agree with, but I like it the best out of the rulesets that I have played.

 

[BrotherSutek]

I think this highlights the difficulties in working out how to balance out each army...

Hopefully they've got players working this out for TOW... with a bunch of actual real-time play testing being done.

8th Edition has many things that I don't agree with, but I like it the best out of the rulesets that I have played.

I still prefer 7th for rules less so for later army books. So many issues with balancing things.

 

[Cptn Timmy]

Hey everyone, I dont have much merit in this conversation because I have never played with or against the tomb king constructs, but wouldn't making them immune to poison make them absurdly good? I know that 6's always wound but just going off my experience fighting frosthearts which I guess are effectively t7 with their rules, are extremely hard to kill off. Not to mention if the elves have lore of life to bring wounds back. One caveat is that I do not have an army that has mass st3 shooting so that might be one reason I have so much difficulty. The tomb king monsters are t8 with a 4+ right?

 

[Cptn Timmy]

In Fantasy however I just couldn’t see that happening - how could pathetic little Skinks configure their poisoned darts to somehow make them great at killing a stone statue?

woah woah woah let's not go hating on the little guys! Without them how would our saurus know what to do?

 

[BrotherSutek]

woah woah woah let's not go hating on the little guys! Without them how would our saurus know what to do?

Without them I'd actually think about fielding constructs against Lizards. As is the cloud of poison death kills my constructs so fast its crazy.

 

[Cptn Timmy]

Without them I'd actually think about fielding constructs against Lizards. As is the cloud of poison death kills my constructs so fast its crazy.

Is this in regard to a skink cloud list or does it also apply to say a list with 2 units of skirmishers and a unit of chameleons?

 

[Cptn Timmy]

Also does the unmodified arrows of Asaph work to cancel out skinks or is it not efficient enough?

 

[BrotherSutek]

Is this in regard to a skink cloud list or does it also apply to say a list with 2 units of skirmishers and a unit of chameleons?

Just three units don't tend to be overwhelming but I've never seen that in 8th. Arrows are decent but you have to commit to enough and if it's the cloud list then you really have to commit as they can move quickly and shoot well. I'm not against the list and I play it myself sometimes when fielding my Lizards but constructs fold to it. Last edition I saw more shooting lists for TK, 8th was more snake surfers and Tomb Guard with some archers in core. Once we get to them the skinks die easily enough but they are tricky

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

We saw a similar issue with monstrous cavalry being so much better than many other units that they dominated tables.

Monstrous cavalry are definitely quite potent. Much better than monstrous infantry at small unit sizes. At larger unit sizes, Monstrous Infantry really begin to bridge the gap because of how supporting attacks work.

8th Edition has many things that I don't agree with, but I like it the best out of the rulesets that I have played.

My favourite edition. Definitely not perfect, but far more balanced than 7th was by the end of its cycle.

I have never played with or against the tomb king constructs, but wouldn't making them immune to poison make them absurdly good?

Poison immunity is a very situational special rule to have. Not that many armies are able to spam sufficient numbers of poisoned attacks. Against an army like the Lizardmen or Wood Elves it would be great, but against many others, not so much. Still, it would be nice on Sphinxes, but less impactful on things like Ushabti.

The tomb king monsters are t8 with a 4+ right?

Sphinxes are toughness 8, but only a 5+ armour save.

 

[BrotherSutek]

Monstrous cavalry are definitely quite potent. Much better than monstrous infantry at small unit sizes. At larger unit sizes, Monstrous Infantry really begin to bridge the gap because of how supporting attacks work.


My favourite edition. Definitely not perfect, but far more balanced than 7th was by the end of its cycle.


Poison immunity is a very situational special rule to have. Not that many armies are able to spam sufficient numbers of poisoned attacks. Against an army like the Lizardmen or Wood Elves it would be great, but against many others, not so much. Still, it would be nice on Sphinxes, but less impactful on things like Ushabti.


Sphinxes are toughness 8, but only a 5+ armour save.

One of the armies I went against the most was VC and they spammed ghouls like it was their job. I do agree that the armies that can poison do it very well but there are a lot of armies that can't use it at all.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

All of you have made fair points.

I was concerned that Toughness 6 may have been too much, especially as only some monsters ever reached such a high Toughness, and I agree that alongside the Poison Immunity and additional healing it would be too much. I will disregard that suggestion and keep the Ushabti as Toughness 5. That still adequately represents their stony constitution and adheres to @NIGHTBRINGER ‘s point of being able to damage stone more easily with heavy equipment - Great Weapon Troops will still be able to wound T5 Ushabti on 4s or 3s depending on their base Strength, which sounds right. I don’t want to make Tomb Kings overpowered anymore than I want to leave them underpowered. I simply chose Ushabti to be the benefit of a fair few buffs from my amendments because they just seem to be the weakest unit in the book from what I’ve heard from you all, and I felt they deserved the most to benefit from a little boost. However, I wish to improve the army in general, not just one unit, and have done so with the other listed amendments.

I only wish to introduce amendments to those factions that really need it, i.e. those that are toward the lower tiers of power (Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, Beastmen and probably Greenskins too) plus those that are higher tier but have outdated/incomplete army lists (Skaven and Chaos Dwarfs) - the former because I just don’t think it’s fair that players who just happen to like these armies have to pull out all the stops to make a decent list to have any chance of winning (particularly because of GW’s shit faction bias reasons), and as a perfectionist I want to see the latter given full GW-style 8th Ed rules for sake of completeness (Chaos Dwarfs in particular because they’re list is undersized and underdeveloped, as well as having at least one outdated rule). The whole point of playing a game is to have a roughly equal chance of winning and I want to make those chances a bit more balanced for everyone. Of course simply improving the weakest factions doesn’t solve all problems and will simply rearrange the tier table a little, but my amendments should make sure all the factions are closer together in terms of balance, and that is all I want.

To ensure this is the case, it’d be great if as many of you as possible could have a go at playtesting these amendments and reporting back to me, and I’d be happy to alter these amendments as necessary if anything is too strong or too weak. @NIGHTBRINGER @Lizards of Renown @BrotherSutek @Killer Angel @Imrahil are you up for the fun of doing this?

Factions that are middle tier and upwards already have pretty good rules and have no need to be improved anymore (even if some of their units are subpar, they have enough other units to make competent, thematic armies), and I will not condone any updates toward those factions because they simply aren’t necessary and I don’t want an arm’s race on our hands.

Of course you’re all perfectly at will to either take these amendments or leave them, but if you leave them, you’ll be missing out on amendments that will almost certainly make your gaming experience with Tomb Kings and other underpowered factions more fun. I’m not just doing this for me, I’m doing this for you, the players of those armies that need the most attention, because you deserve a reward for your patience and dedication. GW aren’t going to give us one anymore, and officialness carries much less weight now that they no longer support it, so might as well take action and use the second best thing.

 

[BrotherSutek]

If I can get a game in