• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Lord Celestant


About Mc1gamer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

332 profile views
  1. Thanks. Yes, I'll be doing that and more. I plan to do quiet a lot once this releases and one will certainly be both overall horde lists, and horde lists for each sub-faction. I'm confident that everyone will be restructuring their lists to accommodate the new matched play options, and there are so many I really look forward to seeing all the crazy stuff people come up with. Thanks for tuning in!
  2. The new Kharadron Overlords are explored in this episode of Unlocking Age of Sigmar. Lists include faction focused KO, and one mixed with Fyreslayers and another with Dispossessed, along with discussion of what this shooty alpha striking army with transport capabilities does to the meta.
  3. So here's the 3 games I played at the local heat 2 of the circuit for Gamer Grunts, a lead up to a fairly big event coming up in August this year with some rather sizable prizes. Details at the end of this vid:
  4. So in continuing the trend to highlight how legacy warscrolls are still quite viable, I built a rather nice combination of destruction, focused around the Gutbusters. While there is a Thundertusk from the Beastclaw Raiders included (just one!!), that warscroll was part of the Ogre Kingdoms in 8th before being broken out for the newly updated sub-faction when they got their own battletome, and is still part of the overall Destruction general alliance. Likewise, mixed in are some segments from the Moonclan Grots, for variety, some nice mechanics and also for larger units size options to contest objectives. I plan to mix things up a bit and take this to an upcoming one day event in my area, and have tested it on the table in a few games of late. I was pretty surprised at how not only mobile the army is, but also how resilent it is. Its able to absorb damage pretty well, certainly can dish it out, and is reasonably able to compete in all phases of the game. The list provides a nice array of options, and isn't a one trick pony. While I'm sure it would struggle against Disciples of Tzeentch (what doesn't??), I think it would do reasonably well against Sylvaneth, most Stormcast builds and dish out enough damage against FEC to delete most of their units before they could regen their numbers. Against the new Khorne, I'm sure it would be a bloody affair but I imagine it would be a fun one to try out and I look foward to testing that. Again, while not likely an event winner, older players with armies pre-AoS can make a good game of it, and with a few tweaks and uses of the Allegiance abilities, could contend. Here's the link to the video. I hope you enjoy!
  5. Swifthawk Agents and the battalion scroll Guardians of Dawnspire provide a VERY mobile and shooty force that can compete on the very similarly to how old school woods elves did in 8th edition WHFB. They can move in, shoot barages of arrows, wither down your opponents forces to where your close combat units can stand a better chance to measure up, and get out of range for counterattack or even counter shooting. They can move to objectives mid-late game and potentially steal scenarios. Not extremely resilient, but with movement, shooting and great volume in ranged attacks, they can make up for their deficiencies and compete with top tier lists. See the video here. Let me know your thoughts.
  6. I've reported on this topic quite a bit, well, since the game launched actually. Especially now I think this whole thing is going to work itself out. Why? Well base to base is becoming the defacto tournament comp rule. I played model to model early on....alot....and there's alot that works just fine. A few things are wonky, but its nothing that can't be worked out. Height is an issue if you go to base to base b/c then you have to insert some volume measuring but again, its just a few tweaks to make it work. Here's the thing, these details don't REALLY amount to much. However you wish to do it, its not game breaking, as long as both parties are playing it the same way. Sure, events or even local communities that prefer base to base will remove some of the flying base advantages outlined in one of the faq's, and some square bases can give a few extra attacks, but ultimately its not profound. Should you rebase? I rebased several hundred models (skeletons/zombes/ghouls) and its a hard soul-crushing process, and at least in my case the bases weren't so pretty that I questioned doing so. Some of the bases on my Treemen and all of my Giants are rounds instead of ovals and I won't rebase those. There's advantages and disadvantages to larger/smaller bases sizes (I was one of the early people to test this with model to model too btw in one of my first AoS videos). Still, some might require the exact base they come with. However, some models still don't have a repack, and we have to approximate. GW doesn't have a standard other than what they release and there's some differences in similar sized models too. Community standards aren't uniform or official. So how to square this circle (or the reverse lol)? It will work out in the end. See all the new shiny releases are on rounds. Sure, the older armies that many people have are on squares, but no one is going to build newer releases on those. Over time, with new rules, new battle tomes, and the inevitable power creep, the new will push out the old. We will see organically the squares fade away. No need to push that out. I understand, being in the hobby for 30 years, the desire to keep playing armies that still have warscrolls and are usable in the game. So they can be played. However the newest armies over time will just overshadow those and eventually (already happening btw) will see more use and those will be on rounds. As squares recede just based on what people buy and play, this will just work itself out on its own. Its happened faster in Europe but its starting to happen in the US already. In the four stores I frequent, I'm already seeing old school players jumping in with the newer releases over their legacy armies, and even if they use in some cases older models on squares, no one really cares. So over time, in a few years, this will all correct itself, and in the meantime, I don't think a few dice rolls will be the major factor over the 5 games. The top players still are at the top despite the occasional dice flub, so a few extra dice for or against because of base concentration isn't that big a deal. In my humble opinion naturally
  7. Actually my list is below. I had 320 pts in summoning and pulled in different combos of zombies, hexwraiths, etc., as needed. Its a general Death list, what I had painted to a quality needed for an event of Adepticon's caliber, and while its pretty tough, but its not top tier. by any means. Some elements are tough, but there are severe weaknesses too, especially against the apex armies and lists out there. I often like to play non-standard/non-net lists and try to mix in units that aren't played much. If I over-achieve, its more of a win for me. There were some very tough lists at Adepticon, but there were also many very very good players. Its the combo that makes people do well in the standings, along with good sportsmanship and paint. I think it was nice to see Death faction well represented and even more so that there were non-TK lists that did well. Death still has tools to compete, though its an uphill climb vs the more recent released sub-factions....and the creative list builders. Tom for example outright won a test game we played to see how viable his list half a turn. Yep...we didn't play it out, but it was clear in the top of 1 that he won the game. We'd have rolled the dice if it was at the event, but just looking at the board we both have enough experience that we both knew what was happening and how it would play out. My list had few to no answers for what he had. I expected he'd have gone in the end to top 3 but that's why we roll the dice and play the games right? Allegiance: DeathLeadersCoven Throne (260)- General- Trait: Ruler of the Night- Artefact: Tomb BladeHeinrich Kemmler, The Lichemaster (160)Vampire Lord On Abyssal Terror (220)- DeathlanceBattleline5 x Blood Knights (260)10 x Zombies (60)10 x Zombies (60)10 x Zombies (60)BehemothsMourngul (400)Mortis Engine (180)Total: 1660/2000
  8. Its called having I dialogue. I'm not here trying to provoke but it seems engaging in a conversation in a constructive manner still garnishes these kinds of responses. Why do you bother bother posting then? I'm looking for counter points as I'm not 100% convinced either, and I've said so. I've also said the same as you that GW needs to be more clear. What? I can't introduce my own opinion or participate in the conversation after posing a question? Where do you get your conversational guidelines? lol I'm not instigating or trolling, merely looking for people's PoV. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and if anything its the reverse, looking to see if there's points that might change my own view. How about we keep it civil and don't attack anyone for engaging in a constructive dialogue, hmm? How about we just discuss. and lets please be civil. Thanks.
  9. Easy now, don't degenerate into trolling. Its a discussion. I don't agree, and I explain my points. If you cannot be civil and do the same, then don't join the conversation. You've said your peace and now you are just repeating and getting irate. Time to walk away fella.
  10. You keep saying that but this is just not the case. Hey, I get it, you don't agree this should be legal, and I can appreciate that, since there's a grey area here and some wording issues that do need to be cleared up. If this was so clear I wouldn't be asking and we wouldn't be having this discussion lol. However there is no creating of a new unit (nothing new has been added to the table, plain and simple) nor are you adding models more than the starting values. You have two units of 20 zombies that you PAID for, you still have 40 when they merge. Its a massively different thing than summoning a new unit that wasn't paid for and not even part of your list, taking your total points value higher than the games max (usually 2k). This does none of that. You have the same points value you started with, nothing more or less. Sure, there's some pushing the envelope on the interpretation, like a thousand other issue, and the debate has points all over, but lets not cloud the discussion by saying things that aren't true. No unit was sacrificed. Models weren't lost. No unit or new models were added. To say otherwise is just trying to twist the discussion towards your pov. I respect it, but lets analyze the specifics not create false logic. The FAQ by virtue of not saying its completely unusable in Matched Play is saying it is, and by saying that the only inhibition is that a merge cannot exceed max unit size, its actually validating that its usable in Matched Play. However, I don't hold 100% to this as there have been not only contradictory rulings in the FaQ's, but even full retractions, so what we need is a clear answer from GW. I feel we've got a reasonable one, but its obviously not clear enough
  11. Ah, well maybe I replied to the wrong post loi. Hahaha. Either way, thanks for weighing in.