Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

613 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

568 profile views
  1. Open War Cards - Your Thoughts?

    I tried them a few times before AOS dried up in my area (sad times), I love them. What I did was I drew a random deployment, random objective (I dabbled with having each player draw one so they each had their own, but decided against it), ignored Sudden Death but drew a Twist and let each player draw a Ruse as a sort of one-time special trick (similar to Feats in Warmachine/Hordes). It worked out really well. I think they're great ideas if you want to have a casual game with some interesting, non-symmetrical structure. I played my FEC against a Freeguild list and we drew the deployment that had one force in the middle and the opposing force split between two sides, and our objective was "The Messenger", so we whipped up a quick narrative that my ghouls had ambushed a freeguild force "tresspassing" in their kingdom (a force of brigands looking to pillage, no doubt!), and the freeguild needed to have a messenger escape (luckily, the foul brigand was struck down by my noble winged knights before he could escape!).
  2. GH2017: the honeymoon is over

    I feel almost the same. In my area AOS was dwindling before (it basically died on the vine the moment 8th edition came out), and GH2017 didn't change anything around here. It was an interesting book, and I like it, but it didn't really do much for the game in my experience. People are still salty that they didn't change the spammy shooting meta, people are salty that they "nerfed" all battalions, and I as a FEC player feel it didn't do much for my army beyond giving some mediocre abilities and relics, but didn't address any of the major issues with the army. I wish I could say I'm still excited for AOS, but right now I'm not
  3. If so, it's something nobody ever has used because "muh balance"
  4. It doesn't even have to be either or (i.e. Matched Play w/Restrictions or Matched Play w/No Restrictions), people just need to not strictly adhere to the matched play stuff for casual games. Like I said above, what does it really matter in a friendly game if someone only has 2 battleline or 8 heroes or is 20 points over the limit which is abstract anyways? Why nitpick if it's a friendly game? Just let them do it, you're still getting "mostly" balanced play with points; a far cry from the alternatives. Yet people refuse to budge on these things for regular games.
  5. Right. GW seems to think that if you're only using matched play for tournaments, and if not you're not using it. When that's not how it works. But it's also that a lot of people are unwilling to budge from "pure" Matched Play even if they aren't doing a tournament. People should, for example, allow you to field a bunch of heroes, Hero restrictions be damned, in a casual game even if it's using Matched Play guidelines, but people are too often just "nope, not legal army" and treat everything like a tournament environment where you want to be heavily restricted. The onus in this case is on players who still want to TREAT everything as though it's a strict tournament, when it's a fun game. Loosen up restrictions for regular play, you can still use points. The issue is there's no really accepted middle ground between "play whatever you want" and "arbitrary restrictions suitable for tournaments".. That, arguably, is why I am in favor of Matched Play w/out restrictions, because that IS the middle ground. Basically I see way too many people who use Matched Play as written-in-stone rules rather than guidelines for some balance. In a tournament sure, go stricter. In a friendly game where you want something resembling balance, use them as a guide and loosen up restrictions if someone has a cool idea they want to try instead of telling them "No that's not legal" and force them to change.. But that's "house rules" and house rules seems to be evil and reviled. In a friendly game what the hell does it matter if someone has 2 Battleline instead of 3, or 8 heroes instead of 6, or is 20 points over because they can't drop something (just roll with it and take a Triumph or something).
  6. Maybe the solution would have been to make battalions more appealing, so you wanted to take "core" unit Battalions? Reallythough my problem with Battleline is I feel it stifles what I want to play by "forcing" me to take not only certain units, but certain amounts of them. It feels too much like the old WHFB "at least 50% Core" stuff.
  7. I like doing this anyways. I feel that the matched play restrictions are too much to "WHFB Lite", Battleline especially, and stifles too many good ideas with a "tax".
  8. Lets Chat: Flesh Eater Courts

    Really I think it's either going to be gimmicky Deadwatch lists like yours above, or some variation of three units of 30 ghouls (I think 40 isn't worth it IMHO), King on Terrorgheist, Flayers (I think Horrors now took a nosedive; still don't get why they got a points increase as they weren't that good before, just roadblocks basically with a crappy save and no Rend), and then with the points you save by NOT taking 40 ghouls, taking Ghoul Patrol or an allied Necromancer. So basically a duobuild army and that's all that's going to be worth a damn.
  9. No sadly I think they are too imbalanced to do in matched without significant work. A shame since I was excited for time of war to add flavour to the game. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
  10. Open war cards and Warlord Ed

    Different. Warlord edition has cards for the battleplans and the triumph and treachery things Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
  11. So having skimmed through GH2017, here are some of my thoughts on it: First, while not technically part of GH2017 they are mentioned, and the Open War cards seem great. I plan to make great use of them as my go-to for AOS games. Draw a deployment zone, draw an objective, possibly a twist, possibly give each player a ruse, and let that drive the narrative. Amazing idea. I really like the changes to Coalition of Death and Triumph and Treachery to make them more interesting, although I doubt you'll see many people bother with the optional rules for limiting communication (too much of a hassle for most people to do). Triumph & Treachery in particular seems really good with the concept of "neutral" armies that you can't interact with unless they are your chosen enemy, and the "Treachery Points" mechanic seems really fun. The Siege rules I'll be honest I skipped as I'm not really interested in that, but from a quick glance they seem fairly solid. Not for me though, so I can't really comment more on them. The Realmgate Wars battleplans seem pretty good for when you don't want an asymmetrical approach using the Pitched Battles, but as I said above I think Open War will be my go-to for most games. Speaking of the Pitched Battles, they definitely seem to be an improvement over the IMHO rather bland ones from the previous General's Handbook and should provide a lot of tactical flexibility and depth during the game. The points and abilities changes have been discussed elsewhere so I won't get into them, but I will say that some I like, some I think weren't enough (especially for Death) but overall they are better than getting nothing. The Time of War rules I found to be a bit disappointing however, I had expected more generic rules simply for playing in a particular realm, rather than a specific segment of said realm. Some of the abilities are cool, some can be over the top and make them unsuitable for even a rough balance approach (the beast one where you each get a free MONSTER, or the Metal one where you might have to roll a save for each model in a unit that's not in cover, and if they fail the save the unit takes a mortal wound, the Death one that can instantly slay models on a 6 while providing bonuses for DEATH units). These are still unsuitable IMHO without extra work to strip out the crazy effects but leave some of the more thematic ones in place. The bonus wizard spells are very cool and at the least I could see those being in play to provide a "feel" to each realm, but most of the special things can be too unbalanced to make them worth using, which is a shame as I was really looking forward to being able to make use of different realms in games to give the game a different feel. Overall, despite my disliking some of the points and abilities changes, this is a solid book. Everything really seems improved from before, and with the Open War cards there's a lot of variety that can be done in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar games.
  12. NEW FAQs, Compendium, Forgeworld

    It's specifically referring to Compendium Archaeon aka Mini-Me Archaeon.
  13. NEW FAQs, Compendium, Forgeworld

    One way charge.
  14. NEW FAQs, Compendium, Forgeworld

    Yeah I don't understand that change. It seems to be the same as before? Not sure what was changed.
  15. Ruler of the night 2017????

    Yes but that could have been fixed by requiring a Hero to be the general. I think Ruler needed to be nerfed just so it didn't override any other possible choice.