Talk:Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Old/Order/Cities of Sigmar

From 1d4chan

Should we mention the City Alliances from the Grand Order Alliance page?GreySeerCriak (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Honestly Im not sure. At the moment nobody is quite sure if those rules will even be valid anymore once this book drops. All signs point to this book replacing them so I would say only mention them as a reference to their initial introduction into the official rules and the history of the city alliances concepts came to be. But for tactics reasons I say leave them out as they likely won't be legal anymore following the battletome release [gbc343].
    • Agreed, and comment added. Fully expecting Firestorm to go on the dump heap. A74xhx (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

organizing subfactions[edit]

With so many units, should they be organized by sub-faction like in the Legions of Nagash page?

Personally I think that's how every grand alliance should be ordered. I'm trying to do that myself to the Chaos page, however it's so long and I don't have as much time as I'd like to work on it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats going to be a tricky one as even that might look wonky due to all the units in this book. And than we are also going to have to decide do we also want the units that are allowed but not included in the battletoe (like the Stormcast Eternals alone would add over 30 more entries alone without taking things like the Sylvaneth into account). At first I thought of maybe organizing them by city but all are available to all cities for the most part so that won't work either really. I personally vote divided by sub-faction but with additional information on things like what makes what battleline and if their are any unique restrictions when used in some cities if their are any when the book drops. Not sure if they should be drop down or not but that would keep the page shorter. -- GBC343 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
That's basically what I'm doing with my chaos rewrite, listing allegiance abilities with some pros, cons and suggestions while keeping the in-depth breakdown within the collapsed part. The units themselves are also held within similarly tagged groups, and in some cases separated by race (when it comes to Skaven) with each summary telling you what you can expect out of them, which allegiance you might want to consider for them and what they can offer to non-specialized armies. The unit breakdowns themselves are also kept collapsible, and even though it's a little odd at first (like the 30k tactics page for the Space Marine Legions) I feel it does a better job of encouraging cross-army unit selection, since unlike WHFB you're not so limited on your army and unit selection. Splitting all of the tactics pages is something I feel was a mistake because it's pretending as if you can only use certain units with one allegiance, when that's not the case and the benefits of using those units outside of their unique allegiance isn't mentioned anywhere on the wiki, despite the rather substantial benefits you can get. As an example, I will unironically argue that Skaven are better off in a generic Chaos allegiance and supported by units from other armies than in their own. Why this is the xmcase is because you can get an artefact that allows you to ignore battleshock (unlike your endless spell your opponent cannot stop it when it's convenient, and it allows you to spend command points on more useful abilities) and if they're backed up by something like a Magma Cannon sniping out the enemy heroes/character killers, they can be much more effective than if they stuck with their own allegiance abilities. A lot of their army losses happen due to battleshock so ignoring that is like getting an extra 500 points over your opponent, if not more, but that kind of combo was skipped over because people got too caught up with only using an army with their specific allegiance, and that's it. -- Triacom (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't like how the Nagash page collapses the sections. I did a similar separation with the Gloomspite Gitz without the collapsing. It depends how the CoS battletome splits it up too. We just want to keep similar things together for the average reader. A74xhx (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
It collapses the sections for the benefit of the reader, since this way the reader doesn't need to scroll through something like nearly a dozen allegiance abilities they won't be using since they can only use one. The various units are separated by their main keywords, which is important when you want to make an army that changes which units their roles while in that army (such as certain units becoming Battleline for example. -- Triacom (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
All the CoS units, with links to the new CoS warscrolls, added. Suspect some of the battleline aren't battleline - will have to wait for the book to be sure. It's a start. Feel free to reorder however. A74xhx (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Might need to double check the links. I checked the Fleetmaster and it instead gave me the Runelord’s warscroll. Also what’s the reason for the article being labeled bad?- GreySeerCriak (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It's labeled bad because it's dumb to make an article before the book even comes out. All we've got is speculation, so the page just says "well we think this stuff will probably end up here" and it makes us look stupid. Feel free to remove the tag once the back actually comes out (beyond preorder) but until then making the page without being able to put anything of value onto it was a bad idea. -- Triacom (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
...Except now we've got all the warscrolls and various abilities - no speculation on any of those. That's the basics for starting to write the tactics.A74xhx (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
And you know which ones of those are going to be battleline, or that they will not have any other rules changes in between now and the book's release, and you know which city each unit works best with, all before the book comes out? All that's on the page is speculation and assumption, and it will continue to be the case until the book's out. -- Triacom (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Given GW will have printed the books weeks/months ago to ensure they are ready on time for next week's release, it'd be a real dick move of them to release new warscrolls on the store pages, a battletome list on the community site, and various rules on FB... then on release day reveal some of them were not what is in the book. As for which units work best with, most of the other AOS pages on here don't even have that (baring some basic army lists). A74xhx (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that sometimes it takes them a while to update warscrolls. Also it's not an excuse to have this page be lacking in that area, just because other pages are also lacking in that area. The cities are the main gimmick of this book, pretending that you can skimp over their inclusion as if it doesn't matter would be ridiculous. -- Triacom (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at how it is now, we should definitely organize the city allegiances similar to the LoN. There’s just too much info to have it all in one spot. Even without the actual data it looks cluttered.-GreySeerCriak (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless there's objections, I'm going to re-organize the page sometime tomorrow to be similar to what I proposed below. If anyone has a better way of organizing it, please speak up. -- Triacom (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How not to add entries[edit]

I want to focus on these two entries in particular as an example of what you should not do when you're trying to add entries to a tactics page:

  • Black Guard: (140pts, min 10, max 30)
    • Elite Bodyguards, with 2 attacks hitting and wounding on 3+ with rend. Gain +1 to hit when near a Sorceress. Taken Quality over Quantity.
  • Executioners:' (130/330pts, min 10, max 30)
    • Elite Swordsmen, 2 attacks hitting and wounding on 3+, with Unmodifed wounds of 6 dealing a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends (do not make a wound or save roll).

Great, so with these entries I know we should use Black Guard and Executioners to... well at least I know to send them against... well I guess they shouldn't be used against... well they're at least better than... I don't have a clue just going off of anything offered here. If all you're going to do is post the obvious taken straight off their datasheets, then don't post anything at all. You're not being helpful, anyone can see their stats just by going through the link, and re-posting their stats does not help the player use them in any way, shape or form. -- Triacom (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood --Tw6464 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Properly organizing the page[edit]

So after reading through the book, there's a lot less in there than I'd originally thought there'd be, and given how we're using collapsible tags I feel like there's something we need to discuss.

Creating a new sub-topic inside a collapsible tag doesn't do anything, the reason you'd want to make a topic is to make it easier to control edits and also to assist with navigation. You cannot directly navigate to anything located within a collapsible section, so making it a topic just bloats up the navigation section for no benefit.

If you want to make it look similar to making a topic to break up a section, then you can just

Make it Big and Bold.

Add whatever colour you want on top of that too.

Secondly I feel like we should separate the units into their roles, for example changing the lists so that they group up humans with a sub-set of "Conditional Battleline: HUMAN general" would be a bit more beneficial than trying to link all the keywords. It would be pretty easy to have something like:

Human

This encompasses the Collegiate Arcanite, Devoted of Sigmar (Flagellants) and all Freeguild.

  • All Human Heroes/Leaders can go here.
  • All Human units who are not Heroes/Conditional Battleline can go here.

Conditional Battleline: Human General

  • All conditional battleline units can go here, regardless of which faction they're from. Just make sure to separate them by which conditional battleline they are.
Duardin

This encompasses the Dispossessed.


  • All Dispossessed Heroes/Leaders can go here.
  • All Dispossessed units who are not Heroes/Conditional Battleline can go here.

Conditional Battleline: Duardin General

  • All conditional battleline units can go here, regardless of which faction they're from.


Ironweld Arsenal

This encompasses the Human/Dwarf war machines you can field.

  • All Ironweld Arsenal Heroes/Leaders can go here.
  • All Ironweld Arsenal units who are not Heroes/Conditional Battleline can go here.

Conditional Battleline: Duardin General

  • All conditional battleline units can go here, regardless of which faction they're from.
Aelves

This encompasses the Darkling Covens, Phoenix Temple, Order Serpentis, Shadowblades, Scourge Privateers, and Wanderers.

This one is the only one that's a little crowded, however it's still not any worse than any other tactics page when it comes to choice and all that we'd need to do is make sure each conditional segment is clear.

  • All Elf Heroes/Leaders can go here.
  • All Elf units who are not Heroes/Conditional Battleline can go here.

Conditional Battleline: Insert faction here General

  • All conditional battleline units can go here, regardless of which faction they're from. Given that the Elves are split up a lot more this would just require more conditional battleline entries.

I also didn't mention it but if we need to we can also separate Behemoths from the others, though given the relative rarity of them in this list I don't think there's going to be a need for them to have their own category, we could probably just have the keyword at the start of the entry.

By separating them like this we can make it much easier on the reader, the more busywork they need to do to read a page the less user-friendly it is and this will also help out the structure for some of the factions that have next to nothing. Devoted of Sigmar stand out, as there's literally only one unit for them. Keep in mind that a lot of players will be using their old armies and so making it easier to find them by their race will be more beneficial to those players as well. Breaking them into their races also helps compare and contrast the units in races that have a lot of overlap, the Elves in particular come to mind as they have a fair amount of elite infantry.

So what do you think? As I've already laid out I think a quick restructure of this page would make it much easier to use in the future, and I'm curious to hear any other ways to improve it, or reasons for why we should keep it as is. -- Triacom (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Agree with getting rid of sub topics inside collapsible sections. I tried using Table Of Contents fields so they didn't show the inner sections, but 1d4chan doesn't have all the TOC fields that latest media wiki does (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:TOC#Limiting_the_headings_listed_in_a_table_of_contents).

Reservations I have with your layout above are:

  • Ironweld Arsenal is a tiny subfaction, whereas 'aelves' is a huge multi sub faction. This is why I lumped Duardin and Human together - ensures it's roughly a 50/50 split with Aelves.
  • Do we really want to mix all the aelves together. Is it better to keep, say, the Phoenix guard close to the various Phoenixes, or all the other aelf battlines? (...same question for Humans too)
  • However I'm not that strongly opinionated on either of the above.

I considered putting everything into a large table with the columns race, subfaction, unit type. Use could then sort table based on column. However, 1d4chan can't do that (mediwiki can) and I don't think it's good solution.

If everything does get merged as suggested, then how about adding the subfaction next to the unit name. For example:

Leaders

  • Sorceress: (Darkling Covens, 90pts)
    • Your Coven leaders and non-collage wizard. They do a lot of things. for a magic side like Sacrificing another Darkling(Ideally the cheaper ones) to gain +2 to cast and know a damage spell that also lowers the enemy's hits by 1. When Paired with other casting buffs, they can reliably cast High-level spells and not be worried that your opponent will unbind your linchpins. They also Command ability that lets one Darkling Run, Shoot, And/or charge, letting the footsloggers cover more ground.
  • Anointed: (Phoenix Temple, 100pts)
    • Same brutal save as Phoenix Guard, cheap way to make them not take Battleshock tests, unbinds one spell or endless spell per turn like a wizard and is decent at combat. He has a command ability that allows PHOENIX TEMPLE units wholly within 12" inches to re-roll failed wound rolls, making him an excellent force multiplier since your army only knows how to get stuck in to close combat. Unless you really need to fill out Hero slots in your army, or you explicitly want to be able to unbind enemy spells then your first choice should always be to take an Anointed on a Phoenix of one form or another. If you have the GW model for the Anointed then you will have a Phoenix anyway, since they both came in the same box.

A74xhx (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason I kept Ironweld Arsenal separate is because not only are they both human and Dwarfs, but a few of them are frequently used in other armies (most notably Elves) to give them some backline punch. Keeping them separate makes it easier for a player to read and consider what they could add to their backline, since Humans, Dwarfs and Elves no longer have access to the backline units they once had. I don't have an issue in separating the factions that way, so long as we keep each faction grouped up together in the area they're in it should work well. The one thing I feel that does work well is having the description separate from the unit name, it looks sloppy to me and I'm not sure what the point of it is. -- Triacom (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Treelord teleport is a bad idea[edit]

Can anyone explain why you would want to build towards a teleporting Treelord in Cities of Sigmar? Cities already has a far more powerful teleport that doesn't rely on a Treelord, Alarielle, eight units of chaff (since that's all you'll be able to afford, so the rest of your army sucks) and a lot of luck to make itself useful. As far as I can see, trying to do it is a terrible idea when you can just teleport him at the start of the game, move in, then get your 3" charge. -- Triacom (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Duardin mages?[edit]

Reading over some of the rules, I realized that with the right command abilities - 1) The Living City's "Druid of the Everspring Circle", 2) Anvilgards's "Secretive Warlock", and 3) The Phoenicium's "One with Fire and Ice" - any non-mage general, and I do mean ANY, can know one spell from their city's lore. So... non-Chaos duardin can into mage? I'm... not sure how and where to address this - whether to list as a pro and/or con (eg. "Pro: Duardin mages with the right command traits! Con: Duardin mages are possible? That's going in the BookOfGrudges!"), which spells are "best" suited for duardin, etc. People willing to help me sort out this concept? -- Kimarous (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, Dwarfs can become mages, just like Steam Tanks can become mages and can also fly, provided they're from Aqshy. As far as suggested spells go, I'd recommend Cage of Thorns for Living Cities Dwarfs, since their movement is generally poor and slowing down the enemy is a must. The Mortal Wounds are just a nice cherry on top. As for Steam tanks, you want Lifesurge, they're already hard to kill and that also fixes their profiles up. For Phoenicium my recommendation is Amber Tide and Golden Mist respectively, and for exactly the same reasons. For Anvilguard the spell you want for both is Vitriolic Spray. That spell's ridiculous, and should it go off you should have no problem killing anything it's on (including somebody like Archaon) unless it's somebody with a really powerful save after their save like Gotrek. -- Triacom (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Elite Infantry[edit]

Just to get other people's opinions on the matter, is there anything that the elite infantry in the book who are not Greatswords or Phoenix Guard can offer that the Great Swords or Phoenix guard can't do better? Greatswords outperform Phoenix Guard if you want to take offensive elite infantry, whereas Phoenix Guard outperform Greatswords if you want troops who'll last the whole game. Maybe I'm not seeing what Black Guard/Executioners/Wildwood Rangers/Hammerers really offer, but it feels like they all just fall short; either lacking the punch that the Greatswords can get (both because of their buffs to hit and to wound, as well as their Mortal Wounds), or the defence that the Phoenix Guard have with their extra save. -- Triacom (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Elite infantry from the other subfactions while looking worse in a vacuum you need to look at what they can do with price and unit synergies. For example, Executioners are obviously worse than Greatswords in a vacuum, but they are cheaper and also have some great synergies with Darkling coven units and battletome artefacts. For example, they can get a run and charge ability I believe from the Sorcerous, along with battleshock immunity with the right command abilites among others. Than they don't look so bad. Hammerers by the same token can benefit greatly from Disspossed synergies, I think you can give them also battleshock immunity, -2 rend with FNP, improved hit and would. Than in a Hammerhal army they also can hit twice and suddenly they don't look so bad. Don't look in a vacuum, think about what they can do with what else your building. Yes Greatswords and Pheonix guard can get buffed but generally in different ways to the others. Don't be afraid to branch into different things you might be pleasantly surprised. -- GBC343 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to look at them in a vacuum, however you're giving the other elite infantry unfair advantages over the Greatswords/Phoenix Guard. Being immune to Battleshock and being able to fight twice in a Hammerhal army? Greatswords get both. Being able to get an extra attack via the Warden King's command ability? Sounds sweet, until you realize that Greatswords buffed by the Freeguild General's Command Ability actually outperform buffed Hammerers in terms of damage, despite having fewer attacks. Not only that, but a Freeguild General can buff three units in this way, rather than focusing only on one enemy unit, and their buff affects more than just melee attack. Even if you like how they are immune to Battleshock in other cities so long as they're around a Dispossessed Hero and intend to keep them around, you should just get Phoenix Guard for that because they're far tougher to kill and have the same exact rule, but for Phoenix Temple Heroes, The wound negation the Runelord can give them is pathetic compared to the Phoenix Guard's save and if you really want to stack the buffs onto them, you might as well get a Battlemage and use Transmutation of Lead on whatever you want your Greatswords to kill, along with buffing them from the Freeguild General. They're still going to outperform the Hammerers like that, and I'm not seeing how you can buff the Hammerer's to hit and to wound. The only use I can see for Hammerers so far is if you really want to stack attacks to try and go for Mortal Wounds, and even that can be shut down if you're up against an army with a decent negation/item that forces you to re-roll 6's like what Nurgle has. As far as Executioners and Black Guard go, they're marginally cheaper, and the slight decrease in cost comes with a huge dip in quality. Losing the buffs the Greatswords have access to or the Phoenix Guard's extra save? That's not worth saving the 20/30 points over. Even if you like the idea of running and charging with them, you're still burning a Command Point for fewer results than even Hammerers can give you, and if you want a fast-moving hard-hitting unit, why not go with something like Drakespawn Knights? They have the same wounds, except they can be healed if you go for something like the Living City, they have a higher damage output, they're much faster, they can be buffed by a Dreadlord, they can fight twice in a Hammerhal army and can receive the benefit of their lances both times they fight which also gives them greater Rend. This is also all done without the downside of forming a Deathstar which leaves the rest of your army wanting, which any build I've seen that attempts to make units like Hammerers useful will do. -- Triacom (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose if I'm trying to be generous, I could see somebody trying to use Hammerers still to get the Mortal Wounds with all of their attacks, as well as the fact that they end up being significantly cheaper than Greatswords/Phoenix Guard if you max them out, but only then would I consider them worth it since they just perform worse than the other two if you don't do that. -- Triacom (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Everything you said has merit but from what i've been seeing and hearing a consensus forming is that Greatswords are just too overcosted for what they do and die too fast and I agree. As you said greatswords can get pretty much similar bonuses to other elites, but again for much greater price. If a greatsword dies just as easy as an executioner for much greater cost and really in the grand scheme of things only doing somewhat more damage than an equally buffed executioner than people seem to prefer the Executioner. In fact, due to their cost their relatively small unit sizes means they are very vulnerable to ranged shooting and being picked off before combat, as again they are no more durable than their competitors. And when they reach combat it is found overall they don't tend to perform too much better than similiarly buffed competiton (for instance their have been several lists created that can get Hammerers and Exectutions up to 2+ 2+ hit and wounding while one is tankier and the other is faster with the right combos, and again cheaper). Overall I am actually leaning into the camp that Greatswords are a little overcosted for what they do, really I actually think your probably better off list-tailoring wise going with either Hammerers or Executioners, or really just getting more Freeguild Guard as I actually fine they tend to outperform Greatswords. I don't quite understand why they made them 160 as I just don't see how they justify that kind of cost. Now Pheonix guard I won't too much into but feel they are downright great. Them I agree with the pricing and general concensus and they are really one of the best things in this book. I have never seem them go wrong. Just a good all rounder. -- GBC343 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "much greater cost" though, not when it only varies by a few points which is why I pointed out that Hammerers are only significantly cheaper when you're taking 30 of them, but with them you're still losing out on damage if you're pretending that only Hammerers can have their attack stuffed buffed and be given re-rolls to let them chew through enemy units, and horde units have a lot of issues anyway especially when they only have a move of 4". Hammerers aren't any more durable than Greatswords are, and how exactly are you going to give them and Executioners the Freeguild General buffs, spread out across your army for only one Command Point? I'm just not quite seeing how that gets done, or what buffs the Hammerers/Executioners have that the Greatswords don't get that puts them in a better position when compared to their cost. I'm not disagreeing that Greatswords are slightly overcosted (I feel the same about the other elite infantry barring Phoenix Guard), however compared to the other elite infantry meant to go on the offensive I don't see what they offer that Greatswords can't do better. Before you suggest other buffs, like being able to fight twice in a turn or being able to get an extra attack, please think if whether or not Greatswords can get it too from one source or another and skip it if they can. It's a little disingenuous to pretend that only one unit can get something when it isn't unit-specific. -- Triacom (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Well your entitled to continue to use them but from what I've seen I just don't see this massive damage output difference between them and other competition, I mean their damage output really in practice is not that much greater than comparative competition, their not anymore durable and their a little slow. On paper yes what your saying does look like a no brainer but in practice their just too expensive for a slightly higher damage output than some other options (for example sure they get another swing after getting a mortal wound, but people are always assuming that that attack will always generate more damage. On average i find they only tend to to slightly more wounds than executioners to most targets, usually 2-4 but are much slower than them so are less likely to survive to reach combat in the first place. In fact I have found from their smaller numbers due to cost they actually slightly underform against good shooting armies as their are fewer ways to increase their speed). And their are ways to buff their attacks through things like hurricanums, to artefacts and certain hero abilities. Once those are in place they will statistically outperform greatswords in most practical settings. I would suggest leave greatswords only if your going all freeguild and invest more into things like Executioners, Hammererers, Kurnoth Hunters or Stormcast Paladins. They each do a better job in comparison to their cost and synergies. -- GBC343 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Remember how you just said not to compare them in a vacuum? On their own their damage output is the same, buffed up though to a 2+ on both, with a re-roll from something like Blood of the Twelve or Transmutation of Lead for example gives a much greater return on them than it would on the others, since re-rolling ones on a 2+ is much better than on a 3+ and if you're worried about durability, you can still buff them with something like a Luminark to give them the exact same save the Hammerers can get from the Runelord, or you can throw negative to hit/wound penalties on the enemy, or be in cover, or play Tempest's Eye, etc. The only difference between the Freeguild and the Dwarfs/Elves for the buffs that they hand out to their units is that the Freeguild hand out multiple buffs at a time to several units across your army, with the buffs being able to fill multiple roles (both shooting and close combat) and the others do not. That's one of the main reasons why I'm a little confused why anyone would choose Hammerers/Executioners/Rangers/Black Guard over Greatswords, they can both be buffed, but one can be buffed better than the others while the rest of your army is buffed at the same time. I also just asked you not to list pretend that certain buffs are unit specific, yet you're doing that again with the Hurricanum as if Greatswords can't receive the same buff. Before you bring it up as if having better than a 2+ roll doesn't matter, it most certainly does if you're up against any army that has any kind of negative to-hit penalty they can inflict on you. For the record, that currently happens to be almost all of them since almost every army has access to endless spells, and most have access to debuffing spells of their own or debuffing scenery/unit rules/army rules. This is especially prudent if you're up against a Nurgle army. -- Triacom (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me try something else: If you have a Freeguild General and three units of Greatswords, as well as a Warden King and three units of Hammerers, and each unit of Hammerers/Greatswords has an enemy unit it needs to kill, then the Greatswords will outperform the Hammerers by far. One Command Point will buff all three squads whereas one command point from the Warden King will only be able to buff a single unit of Hammerers, and that's on top of getting the additional bonus to hit which will let them hit even Nurgle on 2+ (as opposed to the Hammerer's 4+). Could you explain to me how saving 20 points is worth everything you're losing there? -- Triacom (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not comparing them in a vacuum, I am comparing them based on potential combinations based on their synergies and price (and also the greatsword ability technically can't be taken in a vacuum as you have to be assuming theres always a character around to have it work, so in a vacuum they don't have that abilty technically). Again nothing you have said creates any argument they aren't overcosted for what they do in comparison to competition. Listing off combos to up their hit rolls again can be done by many factions, and its not like you need much, they already hit on threes for most elites upping to 2's only requires one buff, additional options for that specifically is generally un. And again many cheaper alternatives can get 2+ just as easily, if perhaps not get the wound bonus quite as well. While perhaps you point out they do it more effectively with greater inter-army synergy I still don't think they bring enough to the table. And I also didn't list those options like paladins with the assumption they would be in a vacuum, I listed them as options of other potential elites that have access to hit modifiers and potential high damage attacks that from my opinion would be more effective fighters for their cost. And if anything your evidence in favour of Greatswords actually leads me again believe that Free Guild Guard would be the better option with its nearly as high damage output but cheaper cost that can benefit from almost the same buffs as the greatswords. And as you said the interconnectivity of freeguild benefits them more than most other sub factions. Larger amounts guard would be great use in defending your softer targets such as characters that are essintial for that type of army. But anyway no sorry I still am just not seeing Greatswords really that competitive. Taking them if you want too is perfectly reasonable for what they are i guess, but their just not point efficient in comparison to other competition, that is more in line with the points cost and can still more-or-less cover in the same roles. -- GBC343 (talk) 1:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You just said "I mean their damage output really in practice is not that much greater than comparative competition-" Which is only true if we look at them in a vacuum. If you really want to look at their synergy across your army then please tell me how the Hammerers can stand up to them in terms of performance in the example I listed above. In fact, please tell me how Black Guard/Executioners/Wildwood Rangers can outperform them if they take the place of Hammerers in the example above. I'm not claiming they aren't overcosted, in fact I think the other elite infantry are also overcosted for what they offer, and they're also too close to Phoenix Guard and Greatswords in price. That's why I made this topic in the first place, to try and see why anyone would use them over the other two, and so far all I'm seeing is the price being used as the argument when they're only slightly cheaper and give you way less for it. I also don't think you get that the reason I single out Greatswords as important for their buffs is not because they get a buff to their to hit roll, it's because you can give three units a buff to both to hit and to wound rolls all for a single command point while also having something that counters negative to hit rolls on them natively. That's why I made the example above, compared to each other in an army where you have multiple units the Greatswords are going to heavily beat out the Hammerers every single time thanks to their multi-unit buffs, whereas the Hammerers can only almost match Greatswords with one of their units and the other two are just left out to dry. I think you've also completely forgotten what we're talking about, I made the topic to discuss Greatswords and Phoenix Guard in comparison to Black Guard/Hammerers/Executioners/Wildwood Rangers. If you're trying to argue overall value in comparison to something that isn't one of those, then this isn't the topic for it, I just want to discuss if it's worth picking any of the others over Greatswords if you want offense, or Phoenix Guard if you want defence. -- Triacom (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Again you keep saying im looking at them in a vacuum and I am not. I am well aware of what synergies can do to them, the one you keep mentioning in reguards to the general and their inherent abiliites is not some secret synergy you discovered I am well aware of what you can do with them and what they are capable of. And even then I still don't think their worth it, you want a straight answer to your question, no I don't think Greatswords are worth and the other elite options in the book are worth taking over them , again greatswords are just to slow and too expensive for what they do. Even with three attacks each with synergy buffs and a general their still too expensive in my book. And honestly yes I agree no elite is really all that good in this book and I mentioned that, drop the greatswords and just get more Freeguild guard. They out compete them in the long run and make a way better hammer/anvil. Your just repeating the same thing over and over again and its just not convincing me otherwise, you can say the same about me but I just can't make my response any clearer, if you don't want to hear Greatswords are bad than use them. See if you can make them work, but I think you are better off with cheaper options if you insist on even bringing elites. So no I don't think their the best offense choice, as for defense, yes, Pheonix Guard are hands down the best choice. Good offense, good defense, reasonbly priced. One of the best battleline in the book and game. If you insist on bringing a fighting elite choice I say ditch the greatswords and get Pheonix guard, you'll get much better milage with them and with less support needed. -- GBC343 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're aware of that synergy, then why do you keep saying they have relatively the same damage output when they clearly don't? I'm repeating the same thing because I want to know why people would choose Executioners/Hammerers/Wildwood Rangers/Black Guard over Greatswords. Are Greatswords worth it? Are they cost effective? Can Freeguild Guard do their job better? None of those are questions I'm asking, and the answers do not matter because they've got nothing to do with the topic. You've said multiple times that I can keep using Greatswords if I want, acting as if I'm trying to get advice on army composition when I'm not, I just want to know what the reason would be for picking other elite infantry over them. If you don't want to discuss Greatswords against those four then fine, don't participate in the discussion, you should have been clued in to what I was looking for when I opened with "is there anything that the elite infantry in the book who are not Greatswords or Phoenix Guard can offer that the Great Swords or Phoenix guard can't do better?" -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I gave you several reasons to take other selections over Greatswords, go back and reread what I said, unless you didn't actually read them. I outlined several selections and why they would be better choices than Greatswords. You disagreed with them and double down on your ideas involving Greatswords. You wanted opinion I gave them to you, you not agreeing with them doesn't mean I didn't give them too you. I'm not here to change your mind. Reread what I posted. -- GBC343 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you list any of those benefits that isn't just saving 20-30 points? That's all you've given. Dwarf Warden King Buff? I already pointed out how despite having fewer attacks the Greatswords outperform them. Executioners? They get other buffs that also can be used on Greatswords, same with Black Guard. The only benefit they have on Greatswords is that a unit can run and charge with a Command Point, but then you're just using them as a much worse cavalry which isn't a good role for them. You've also given nothing for Wildwood Rangers. I did read your arguments and I did disagree with them, and you had no further defence for those units, instead you began listing unrelated units like Freeguild Guard while dropping discussion of the elites, as if you didn't know that this discussion was focusing on them despite it literally being the first sentence. -- Triacom (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Wildwood rangers i have no opinion on. Yes I did give you my opinion and you disagreed with them, you doubled down on your defense on Greatswords and I didn't find your arguments convincing or really refute any of my points and really don't really address any of the issues that i raised regarding Greatswords. And I know the conversation is about elites I mentioned them repeately in the earlier discussion where I outlined various cheaper options you can take that would be a more effective elite choose for your army,and a faster elite choose is exactly what you want for them, they would definately not act like calvary and only an idiot would treat them as such, but would be much more likely to reach combat in the first place without getting shot down and would be taken in greater numbers thanks too their price and can individually put out almost as much damgage as Greatswords for much lower cost, just screaming freeguild general at me isn't going to change that, and an additional hit and wound won't make that much of difference in most cases as negatives to hit are not nearly common enough to require that much redundancy, a single buff to 2+ is all that is needed and than bam, Exectuioners will statistically outperform Greatswords. I mentioned guard as I felt they deserved a mention if you wanted to stick with humans. Saying stuff like that is what is making me think you aren't really reading my posts properly and are just going in circles with the same defense of Greatswords that again, I am not finding convincing in that they that are better than the units I mentioned. -- GBC343 (talk) 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Which point didn't I refute? The damage they could do? Already did that, Greatswords are the #1 damage dealer out of the elite infantry. Army synergy? I did that too, pointing out how you can get far more value out of using multiple units of Greatswords compared to multiple units of Hammerers. The issues you raised about Greatswords are not in comparison to the other elite infantry (Freeguild Guard and units like them are unrelated, and complaining about their save when the others have the same save is pointless) and have no purpose being in this discussion. And I know the conversation is about elites I mentioned them repeately in the earlier discussion where I outlined various cheaper options you can take that would be a more effective elite choose for your army- Could you point to me where you did that? If you're talking about the Black Guard/Executioner running and charging strat, then speeding them across the board with the Command Ability IS using them like cavalry, and you're also burning through your command points as you do it which is going to cheat you out of other Command Abilities like All-out Attack or All-out Defence. If you don't intend to use Black Guard/Executioners as a fast moving-hard hitting unit (aka Heavy Cavalry) then please tell me how you're going to use them, because actual Cavalry already covers that role quite well, no Command Points needed and they have a better save to boot. -an additional hit and wound won't make that much of difference in most cases- Except that it allows a unit with 20 attacks to outpace a unit with 30. That's a pretty big impact. a single buff to 2+ is all that is needed and than bam, Exectuioners will statistically outperform Greatswords- First of all, where are you getting the +1 to wound from? Aside from the Freeguild General the only way to get that when you want it is to successfully cast Ignite Weapons and that's only if you're playing Hallowheart, and even then you're only buffing one unit, not three. Second of all, how will they outperform them when they have the same profile, without the ability to be buffed as much? To go back to my earlier example, if you have a Freeguild General and 3 units of Greatswords, while also having a Sorcereress and 3 units of Executioners, the Greatswords are going to outpace the Executioners even if we gave the Executioners a Celestial Hurricanum with Ignite Weapons. In other words, you can sink an extra 220 points and a city-specific spell into the Executioners and they still won't be as good. Finally, if you're still not convinced, please tell me a new point where those units shine that is exclusive to them, and makes them outright better to the Greatswords, not equals. If it's for a specific role then it should also be a good role for them, and if you're going to bring up costs and talk about buffing them with something like a Celestial Hurricanum then please remember to take the Celestial Hurricanum into account before you claim they're cheaper, since 130+220 is in no way less than 160. -- Triacom (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll try one more example. Let's pull out all the buffs here, Executioners are with a Sorcerers, and a Celestial Hurricanum with Ignite Weapons. Base for a unit of 10 is 130, which combined with the Sorceress and Hurricanum is 440 points. That amount will get you two units of Greatswords and a Freeguild General, who you can make a wizard and give Ignite Weapons to, and a 20 point Endless Spell to boot. Which side do you think is going to put out more damage in melee, and if you still think a single buffed unit of Executioners can outperform two units of Greatswords, please explain to me how. Even if you got the charge on one unit of Greatswords and fully wipe them, you're still going to get counter-charged by the second unit who'll fully wipe them. Even if you wanted the full 30 discount on the Executioners (still buffed by a Sorceress and Hurricanum) to get the most value out of them, the opponent can field a full 30 Greatswords, their General, and have 120 points left over for whatever else they want. With that in mind, where's the value? Because even for their price point they're statistically worse than Greatswords. -- Triacom (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Squatted Allies[edit]

Can somebody explain to me where in the book it says you're allowed to take squatted races as allies? The only allies for Cities of Sigmar are Daughters of Khaine, Fyreslayers, Idoneth Deepkin, Kharadron Overlords and Sylvaneth. Squatted races are not a part of any of those. -- Triacom (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

At the moment technically you can't, the squatted races remain with their old alliegance groupings which you can't use as allies. So if you wanted to use them with the units in the cities of sigmar book you would have to run them as Grand Alliance Order. I believe this was intentional as they have made clear these models are discontinued/squatted. They don't want to encourage people parse to continue with them long-term so while currently supported they don't want them heavily invested in cross-faction synergies. The only big exceptions would be those listed as mercenery companies. Those you could include in the army. For example the blacksmoke battery one would give you your cannons back.-- GBC343 (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Comparing shooting units[edit]

Not including any math regarding unit champions... Compare 20 sisters and 30 handgunners, 320pts to 300pts.

Moving. Handgunners moving fire 30 shots, 15 hits, 10 wounds at -1. Sisters moving fire 20 shots, 13.333 hits, 8.888 wounds at no rend, plus two mortal wounds. Very similar scenario in terms of unsaved damage.

Not moving. You are deep striking with living city. Both units count as static. Sisters do 40 shots, 26.666 hits, 17.777 wounds plus 4 mortal wounds. Handgunners do 30 shots, 20 hits, 13.33 wounds at -1 rend.

The raw number of wounds output is better on sisters. The quality of the overall pool of wounds could be better on the handgunners? Let's see.

4+ save means half the normal wounds are saved against sisters. On the move, wound output becomes 4.444+2 mw or 6 dmg. Deep striking, it becomes 8.888+4 mw or 13 dmg. For handgunners 1/3 hits are saved. Moving, 10 wounds become 6.666 or 7 dmg. Deep striking, 13.33 wounds become 8.888 or 9.

Sisters have fewer models so require fewer casualties in order to reduce their effectiveness. They have better melee output (the same as freeguild swordsmen!) and better saves.

My conclusion is that sisters are a balance between defensive and offensive unit (you can use the deep strike, move them midfield for an objective, or stand still and shoot against an aggressive enemy) while handgunners will perform way better defensively against someone that comes to your lines, especially with a freeguild general giving hold thr line AoE buffs.

How about shadow warriors? 330pts of Shadow warriors moving: 30 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds at -1. Same as handgunners.

Shadow warriors in cover: 25 hits, 16.66 wounds. More than handgunners. Note that such placement is difficult to accomplish, you need a huge swath of cover terrain to fit 30 bases. If we are looking at 3 10-man units, it becomes more likely.

Shadow warrios have better saves, excessively better melee (we're talking stormcast quality here) and more mobility than handgunners for 1 more point per model. However, they lack stand and shoot.

Ergo, Shadow warrios are an offense unit rather than a shooty defensive screen. - Anon

Since this is a discussion I've moved it to the discussion page. -- Triacom (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Including quasi-allies?[edit]

Hey I have been wondering, should units such as Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth and Kharadron Overlords be included in the unit entries for cities? Since technically they are taken in the book not as allies with certain restrictions. My only concern with that is I am worried that might bloat the page even more. In addition, I know there can be arguments that they aren't cities armies to the same extent some other entries are, but they are more integrated than traditional allies and I know there are synergies that they can provide. Thoughts? -- GBC343 (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • It will be too messy to including direct entries, but it would be fine if to give brief mention under the allies and Tactics page. Stephenlucas600 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been wondering this myself, and I have to agree with Stephenlucas600. Considering most army sizes, you're only going to take 2-3 units at absolute most from Stormcast/Sylvaneth/Kharadron, so we should limit units from those armies to just the choice bits that would really make a difference and couldn't be recreated in your own army, or who have interesting synergy in Cities that they don't have in their own force. If they could be taken without the 1 in 4 restriction then I wouldn't have an issue in including the full mentions of those books. -- Triacom (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Is choosing among the 6 cities as mandatory as we think?[edit]

This is something I've noticed while reviewing the battletome. For what I've read, it doesn't force you to choose a city alleigance: <Copypasted from the battletome>

STRONGHOLDS OF ORDER

When you choose a Cities of Sigmar army, you must give it a city keyword from the list below. All CITIES OF SIGMAR units in your army gain that keyword, and you CAN use the allegiance abilities listed for that city on the pages indicated.

So, for what I see yes, you ARE forced to take a keyword, but NOT to take their alleigance abilities (because it says "you CAN" and not "you MUST"). I've also checked the FAQ and Designer's Commentary and didn't adressed this.

What do you think?
-- Korvalus (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to use the allegiance abilities, in that you can still go with generic order, by why would you ever skip the cities' allegiance abilities? -- Triacom (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes I knew that it would be moronic from a competitive standpoint, I made peace with that. However the alleigance you don't choose it's the cities', not the "Cities of Sigmar", you keep those. Also, I haven't went down with this too deep, but I think that even without the abilities, the magic, traits and relics are still avaliable. I'll have to see to it. It's "a bit" of rules-lawering, but the fact that it forced to choose one of the 6 cities angered me. My guys are from Chamon, not those cities!. -- Korvalus (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You're not getting the magic/artefacts/traits without picking a city. -- Triacom (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)