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

618 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

594 profile views
  1. Lull in releases for Matched play AoS

    Between AOS generally being less popular, 40k 8th edition coming out and for some strange reason General's Handbook 2017 (most of my community seemed to regard it as not really doing anything and making things worse, for some unknown reason), AOS has fallen by the wayside here in my area. There's a very tiny handful of people who still play, but they don't really advertise it as part of the community; it's not like there's a designated AOS day anymore (it become a "GW Game Day" which really means 40k gets a second day).
  2. Let’s Chat: The State of Narrative Play

    Funnily enough the same here. GH2017 was not well received, a lot of people are saying how it "ruined" the game in fact, I think exactly because this area is not competitive. The irony here being that there's an answer to that problem (not going back to GHB1 as some people have indicated here...) in just not using matched play, but then people are too afraid of it being imbalanced. So they want balance, but they don't want balance...
  3. Let’s Chat: The State of Narrative Play

    I've very very rarely seen ANY clubs in the US. That seems to be a UK/European thing, the idea of the "game club". Here in the US it's 99% the community at a game store. Like in my area AOS is practically a dead game, since GH2017 nobody has played much, if any, games of it. The FLGS removed AOS open play day, the AOS (read: non-40k) stuff is in a corner with the other unsold games, and it's gone to be a 40k shop only, pretty much.
  4. Bloodied and glorified.

    IMHO the number of factions don't indicate diversity at all, it's the type of lists. If you have 5 different factions in the top 5 and all of them are doing mortal wounds spam, or dudespam, or monster spam, or whatnot that's IMHO not really diversity, but pretending there's diversity while there's stagnation because it's only the same type of thing, yet people will laud everything for being "so diverse" when it's really not. That said, curious about the KO list as I've heard they are rather bad in general.
  5. Sadly in my area 8th edition and, for some reason, the General's Handbook 2017 killed off AOS. I'm thinking of pitching a Path to Glory campaign to my GW to try and rekindle some interest in it. I'd want to run it mostly by the book, but with a few additions to try and add a little more balance so people don't immediately slag the idea as not being points-based (and, therefore, "not fair"). So first, could I get a bit of C&C on the following proposed house rules: (Still debating this one) Followers are randomly generated rather than chosen; if you roll a result you don't own you can re-roll No battalions allowed even if you get the followers to field one Battle Traits from the relevant battletome/GHB2017 will be used. Your leader can take a Command Trait and an Artefact, and this remains the same for the duration of the campaign (i.e. it becomes part of your warband roster). If you later must choose a new leader, you can pick a new command trait and/or artefact for the new leader. Followers represent your warband's roster, not their unit composition, and you can choose how to field your units in each battle. For example, if you had two units of 5 Liberators in your warband, you could opt for each battle to field one unit of 10 Liberators or 2 units of 5 Liberators. This choice must be decided during deployment and you must inform your opponent how you are fielding the followers. The Rules of One from matched play are in effect Summoning does NOT require reinforcement points, but have the following changes in addition to any restrictions outlined in the Path to Glory book: You may not summon anything with the MONSTER keyword Any summoning spell can alternatively be used to replenish a unit rather than summon a new one (e.g. if you successfully summon 10 skeletons, you could instead opt to replenish an existing unit of skeletons in your warband instead of creating a new unit) Replenishing (whether via summoning or abilities) can not take a unit past it's starting size as indicated on your roster; in this case any excess models are lost. Each time you successfully cast a summoning spell, roll a d6: On a 1-3 you cannot cast any further summoning spells that battle as whatever mechanism you use to summon (e.g. portal to the Realm of Chaos/Azyr, conduit to the underworlds of Shyish, etc.) is temporarily exhausted. Each successful summoning spell incurs a cumulative -1 penalty to this roll (such that 3 times would be the maximum before the roll would auto-fail). Abilities that are not summoning spells that create new units (e.g. Pink Horrors splitting) do not count for this. Second, I am hearing that the Path to Glory scenarios are not the greatest, so I'm looking for suggestions on what other scenarios work well. I am not sure yet if I want to have missions randomly generated each battle, or have them set for each week so any suggestions on how others have ran this would be appreciated. For fluff purposes I'm thinking of having the campaign take place in a predetermined realm and use the additional spells (but maybe not the crazy additonal rules) from GH2017. Third, given the relatively small size of Path to Glory warbands, how hard would it be to use 4x4 tables instead of 6x4? This would allow 2 games to go on simultaneously at the store as there is only one 8x4 AOS table available for use.
  6. Lets Chat: Flesh Eater Courts

    Honestly I would only take horrors because I have 9 horrors and only 3 flayers, and I don't want to buy several boxes to make like 12+ flayers. I will have to try the 40 ghouls though.
  7. Lets Chat: Flesh Eater Courts

    I honestly feel that 40 ghouls is a trap; 30 will likely do just as much. However, if you have 60 extra points, then might as well take 40. I still feel Horrors did not need a points increase however. No rend basically means they fall apart against anything with a good save, and being the same points as Flayers, Flayers are faster, have rend and a chance at mortal wounds, and a ranged attack (however lackluster it is).
  8. 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!).
  9. 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
  10. If so, it's something nobody ever has used because "muh balance"
  11. 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.
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. 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".
  15. 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.