Razorwing flock spam - its amazing

Murder of Crowz


https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2453994/zombicide-box-zombies-set-8-murder-crowz

Are RWF even viable anymore? I still have a box of murder of crows. Lol

They're not bad. I just don't see anyone needing more than like 10

Viable? Yes, more than 10? most likely not.

They aren't useful in numbers, since their damage/points ratio is very bad now.

But they are still one of the cheapest units that we can get (because 2*14 is not a lot for an entire unit), so taking small squads as deployment control and anti DS is pretty useful.

They are also decent objective holders 28 points for 8 wounds is preeeetty nice.

I thought the FAQ said 3+ now?

But i normally take 2x3 units and then always did great! Every game was very useful and help me win my games much easier.

One game someone DS like 900 pts in my back field, b.c i had them spread out (for that purpose) he couldnt get any good damage off and then i move them just in range of his crap so he couldnt move over/threw/around them for a turn.

For 84pts, holding off 900pts for 2 turns made my day (PS he waited 2 turns to get a good DS, but i fly my vehicles up on buildings and had the birds in the open spots to make it harder)

If anyone is foolish enough to allow a competitive event using Power Levels, then they're still amazing.

In points games, less so, but still not a terrible choice.

I like the doves best, I think. A bird is a bird. Just paint them in some evil looking colors. (Black and red, natch.)

Okay I'm going to propose someone quickly host a power level tournament so GW can release another errata correcting their power level.

I'm really sick of people trying to game the system, thoughts and prayers are with the design team to push these sorts of players out of the scene.

Power levels isnt made for tournaments at all.... its literally for "grab w/e you have, put on the table and throw dice around"

Why would they balance it? Its not meant to be balanced, its meant to be easy and fast.

Frankly I don't think this game has ever been particularly well suited to have a competitive scene but given that GW is clearly trying to push power level as the preference to points, and given that they've even taken some pains to spell out why it's a superior method to organizing play than points, I would not be surprised to see the old guard eventually change over and see power level become a tournament standard or at least a possibility.

They are not pushing PL's over points...... they are actually going to all the top tournaments that uses points to address the issues with points, they havent changed any PL's yet (that i know of, but i didnt look at all 80+ entries for PL's i could have easily over looked some).

Where do you even see them pushing points or PL at all? They even are address turn 1 problems and armies without codex's gaining ObjSec.

How about making me flip back and forth for the points costs and options for every unit? :p

It'd have been fairly straightforward to list both PL and points on every entry but that's not the case, either it's a very very weird design choice that is simply a fluke or it's a signal to new players that PL is the standard.

That's my read on it. I don't see how playing with power level = casual and playing with points = competitive.

Here's an article you've probably read on the subject that I find convincing

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/06/18/making-the-case-for-using-power-level-points-in-tournaments/

I think the reality is that so many of us play points because that's just what we've always done, we never had a choice and years of building lists the same way has just left us ignoring the option for power level and continuing to play with points.

There is no wildly convincing reason why one system necessarily results in a more healthy competitive scene than the other, and I personally find it kinda odd that the designers would introduce a new accounting method that they actually neither care about nor have bigger plans for.

GW is trying REALLY hard to NOT scare away new players, all the list building is daunting to some, looking at 100pts compare to 1000 and adding up every little thing, compare to this unit is 5 or 9 with 10man, its SO MUCH easier to list build, its visually easier also AND you can just play with what you got without adding them in, "I have 8 SM with 2 ML's ok that X PL's easy"


The wildly convincing reason? Its not balanced, wasnt meant to be balanced, gw isnt currently making it more balanced, and it was design to be simple and fun.

Power Levels are wildly, demonstrably unbalanced. If you run them in a competitive scene, SOMEONE is going to bend everyone else over a pickle barrel. The Razorwing Flocks just happen to be one of our best tools for doing that. (Ravagers aren't bad at it, either.)

You think they're demonstrably unbalanced because a Ravager's Power Level covers a potential 30pt total difference in wargear ?

We might have to agree to disagree at this stage, I think having a modular force that can change based on the opponent will test player skill in a more even handed way than points list building. I'm really partial to that argument for Power Level, but I'm not a TO and don't plan to be one so I don't suppose it matters much what I think on the subject.

Hopefully someone will give it a whirl going forward or maybe folks playing at locals that have organized small PL tournaments can provide some feedback as to how play may have differed from doing things the old fashioned way.

In my opinion, its not the PL system that's the problem, it's how some units interact with the system that causes a problem. units like devastators and Harlequins that have a wide range of options for weapons, that vary hugely Points wise but have no impact on the units PL, messes with the balance of the game, making them "OP". The way to reduce a units OP-ness (heh) is to balance them, either reduce stats, increase price or change everything else.

Honestly tho, 12+ lascannons supported by Girlyman aura would be terrifying.

What I think, would be the simplest solution is to have certain upgrades cost extra PL. (insert argument that you might as well use points here). For example, on a Dev squad, Lascannnons could be 3PL and Heavy Bolters could be 1. The extra 2 PL could then go into putting plasma guns in your tac squads. Or something like that. *sidenote* [would be cool to have PL upgrades for Kab->True or Wych-> BB.]

Sorry once again for arguing this point, I just think it has potential that needs to be explored. My argument is 3-fold:
1. The ability to switch upgrades between battles will make for more interesting and balanced gameplay
2. PL's makes it easier to run events, and it'll be easier for players to switch upgrades with PL instead of points.
3. The change to the intricacy of list building will bring a breath of fresh air to lists (not that they necessarily need it, lol, similar argument to pt1 about balance I guess)

The Ravager is far from the worst example; it's just very good in comparison with other 9 PL choices.

If a TO were to allow people to change their list options between games (Dissies vs Dark Lances on Ravs, f'rex) that make some units even more broken. I hadn't even fathomed a TO allowing that.

Barrywise wrote:

In my opinion, its  not the PL system  that's the problem, it's how some units interact with the system that causes a problem.  units like devastators and Harlequins that have a wide range of options for weapons, that vary hugely Points wise but have no impact on the units PL, messes with the balance of the game, making them "OP". The way to reduce a units OP-ness (heh) is to balance them, either reduce stats, increase price or change everything else.

Honestly tho, 12+ lascannons supported by Girlyman aura would be terrifying.

What I think, would be the simplest solution is to have certain upgrades cost extra PL. (insert argument that you might as well use points here). For example, on a Dev squad, Lascannnons could be 3PL and Heavy Bolters could be 1. The extra 2 PL could then go into putting plasma guns in your tac squads. Or something like that. *sidenote* [would be cool to have PL upgrades for Kab->True or Wych-> BB.]

Sorry once again for arguing this point, I just think it has potential that needs to be explored. My argument is 3-fold:
1. The ability to switch upgrades between battles will make for more interesting and balanced gameplay
2. PL's makes it easier to run events, and it'll be easier for players to switch upgrades with PL instead of points.
3. The change to the intricacy of list building will bring a breath of fresh air to lists (not that they necessarily need it, lol, similar argument to pt1 about balance I guess)

Upgrades costing PLs completely defeats the purpose of PL.

PL's are NOT made to competitive, they are literally made to pick a unit and play it, no fuss no mess.

Its not meant to be balanced, GW has said this time and time again, its for easy, fun, quick play, where you dont have to go through the mess of building army lists.

It's like AOS (which is a game i really do not care about), where there is a "free" game mode : pick what you have, and play with it. No points, no PL, no scenario : nobody cares, you're here to roll dice and eat bretzels.

Which i find infuriating since that is what replaced my beloved Warhammer Fantasy Battles. But i'm over it now. Totally not mad. I'm completly over it. I'm fine, really. Quit asking.

Mppqlmd, Im sorry for your loss.


Alright, let's throw the PL's out the window, stick to standard Points. What if you made 3 lists,
1. Anti Vehicle
2. TAC/Rounded
3. Anti Horde

In a game where you can be facing off against an army of 3 models (Knights) or against 200-300 conscripts, I believe that some flexibility is required. It wouldn't make sense for your army to bring a liquifier against a Knight and it wouldn't make sense to shoot a Dark Lance at a conscript. Being able to switch between Dark lances on your Scourges to a venom cannon, would, i think, make the game more "balanced"

And yes I realize that this change would make it 3x harder for TO's. That's why I suggested PL's


So if all 3 lists have to have the same units, same number of models, yadda yadda. Same points, the only thing that is different are the upgrades/special weapons. Would that still be unbalanced? Yes/no? And why?

Mppqlmd wrote:

It's like AOS (which is a game i really do not care about), where there is a "free" game mode : pick what you have, and play with it. No points, no PL, no scenario : nobody cares, you're here to roll dice and eat bretzels.

Which i find infuriating since that is what replaced my beloved Warhammer Fantasy Battles. But i'm over it now. Totally not mad. I'm completly over it. I'm fine, really. Quit asking.

I don't play AoS, but didn't they add point values for everything via the General's Handbook? Did that fix the 'lack of competitive option' issue?

Being forced to have a list that can face everyone is part of the game and challenge, for me. I never saw the point in list tailoring, and i always build my lists before knowing who i'll face.

That's the reason i love dissies so much. Flexibility is an incredible value in this game.

It is the same for CCGs, for example. If your list is good, but has hard match-ups, then it's not good. Then it becomes really interesting, as you can study the Meta, and build a counter-meta list. But then you might be screwed by someone that predicted that behavior, etc, etc.

Blind match-making is a crucial part of the game for me.

Quote :

I don't play AoS, but didn't they add point values for everything via the General's Handbook? Did that improve it?

The problem with AOS is that they replaced a strategy that was based on units match-ups and interactions (the WH style => bring the good tool for the good job, use a unit in a good situation, fight the enemy where he is weak, etc.) for a strategy based on combos (if i use X HQ with Y troops, they gain +1 to hit, etc.).
I had to open the General's Handbook for 5 minutes to find a broken list. The combos are plainly written. Once you drop your army on the table, there is no strategy. It's a game based on 2 things : list building, and dice rolling.
Once the game started, the only "effort" you have to provide is good dice-rolling...

[quote="amishprn86"]

Barrywise wrote:

Upgrades costing PLs completely defeats the purpose of PL..

But if awful spamming and cheese takes over because some net troll games the system with a million Razorwing Flocks, you could pretty swiftly punish the offending unit with a PL tax for the unit itself or any upgrades.

Obviously to universally use Power Level increases to somehow account for special weapon upgrade choices would make it no different from our granular system.

One of the major arguments for Power Level is the modularity of units before the next battle begins, having PL upgrades would make that impossible.

If someone is trying to cheese PL's then they are defeating the point of PL and you shouldnt play with them.

I dont play with WAAC players, play testing for tournaments is different story.

Pick up games has ZERO place for a WAAC player.

PLs are for fun friendly games. If someone tries to cheese a fun friendly game, it's not a fun friendly game anymore.
So you should only use PLs when you play with some unexperimented player, in a game where winning or losing doesn't matter.
It's the ultimate casual experience.