• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

410 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

367 profile views
  1. A note on the Clash at Dawn (Skirmish scenario) since I've played it a lot as the "basic" Skirmish scenario at 50 Renown. It can be VERY random; if you roll to where you have a bunch of models in one quadrant, you can easily gang up on the enemy if they are spread out, and since the victory conditions are the Skirmish version of "kill everything" (reduce to over 50% of total models) most games end very fast even by skirmish standards. I've heard a few complaints about the random deployment, but overall I find it to be a really fun and fast scenario that usually ends within 3 turns or even sooner. You can also sort of game it by deploying your first model right in the middle of the square, and then force opponents to deploy on the outskirts more than 9" away.
  2. My AOS meta is very small, just a few of us, so we don't have this issue yet. However that also means that we are very insular, in that we are all friends and I'm not sure if we will have people come into our group who are more of the hyper competitive type; we play at a game store so we can't exactly be selective about who we "let in" without risking the game store stepping in.
  3. But the fear of those problems is exactly what keeps people from being willing to try non-Matched Play games. I absolutely agree that things should be a problem before you look at solving them, but the fact remains most people are going to already be afraid of an open play game because there are no restrictions. I maintain that the major issue is that people do not want to take responsibility they want to point to the points and say I'm allowed to take this because it's within my point limit regardless of how good it is. Open Play removes that cushion and if somebody brings nothing but the most overpowered things they cannot hide behind anything other than the fact that they are a ******. But it is the fear of showing up to a game that uses open Play and being massively outnumbered or facing some ridiculous game breaking combination or the dreaded I'm going to fill my entire board age with the most powerful units in the game because I can that keeps people from even wanting to do it because that is considered a waste. I know for a fact that I only tend to play one game a week and I would not want to show up to a game and have it be a bust because it feels like I just wasted my time and I do not feel like adding things mid-way through the game to balance it out is something that should be done. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
  4. Unfortunately even if true, my group doesn't like the idea that a scenario is what fixes gross imbalances; the perception is that it's imbalanced lists so cannot be enjoyable.
  5. I really hope it fixes some of the glaring issues. I love the concept of Path to Glory but nobody I know will touch it due to the gross imbalances; nobody wants to be the guy who ends up with a handful of Plague Monks led by a Plague Priest and turning up to face what would be a 2000+ point Stormcast list led by a Lord Celestant on Stardrake.
  6. Unless path to glory fixes some of the glaring imbalances, it's a pass for me. Great idea, but such poor execution that nobody I know will touch it since there's less thought than usual to balance and nobody wants to be the guy rolling up with some plague monks and a plague priest against like a nearly 2000 point Stormcast army. It would be really nice if it used Renown like skirmish to actually have something slightly resembling balance (although Skirmish is far from balanced) but it's doubtful as it's too much overlap. So I'm curious to see how, if at all, anything remotely like balance is achieved.
  7. I mean, Skirmish does what it says. It's a fun way to have a bunch of small, laid back games, just it requires restraint to not break it, similar to say Path to Glory which also is a great idea ruined by "eh balance is on you" mindset.
  8. same like a lot of fan comps were way better than GHB/SCGT comp
  9. I think so. It definitely feels phoned in and very basic, and of course with barely any thought to balance since it's VERY easy to game the scenarios even for casual players without really trying. I wasn't expecting much for a small $10 book, and I still find it fun, but it requires a lot of effort to not just say to hell with it and try to break it or just cheese the mission. I would hate to see a skirmish tournament because of how easy it is to game the system and how woefully inadequate some armies are with it.
  10. Unfortunately, that means people don't want to think for themselves and want the illusion of balance/points, which is bad because I thought GW had a good social experiment to bring back the actual essence of the hobby instead of degenerating everything to "competitive". Instead we have the same type of "meta" and "competitive lists" and stuff that plagued fantasy for years and plagues 40k.
  11. I just plan to play both like I always wanted to and did some 20 years ago. I have some friends that only play AOS, some that only play 40k and some that dabble in both like me, so I think I will be fine.
  12. The Abhorrant Ghoul King in the Grand Alliance: Death book is different than the one in the Flesh-Eater Courts battletome; arguably better (trades the lackluster summoning command ability for the much better IMHO +1 to hit and wound for any Flesh-Eater Courts model within I think 10 or 15") but loses 1 attack (big whoop). Technically, the FEC book supersedes the GA: Death book (the FEC version is the only one in the AoS app, for example) but GW's official policy is that you can pick which scroll to use since GA: Death has not been invalidated. TO/EOs can, of course, change this and often make it so you need to use the most recent version (the FEC version in this case)
  13. Basically. It's "not competitive" because you could get something FOR FREE (it's not fair! Waaaah! It's not fair you can do this! etc. etc.) so therefore is worthless because "real" points are so much better than the half-arsed implementation of power level.
  14. You can use Command Traits, so yes you could do that. As it stands there are only two buffs: The Black Hunger spell on the king on foot and the crypt ghast courtier's buff to nearby ghouls if he kills something (which might actually be worth it in skirmish since he has no replenishment), however IIRC you can only have one Hero so the Ghast, while cheap, is a really lackluster choice however with Master of the Dark Arts he becomes a very interesting option... however the problem then is that your general is a 4 wound model with a 5+ save and no regen, and if he dies your army is Bravery 5 so even with a horde of ghouls, you'll lose most of them to Battleshock.
  15. My GW manager said the core rules (12 page fold out) will be free like AOS, but it's only the most basic rules