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

  • Days Won


someone2040 last won the day on February 9

someone2040 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

667 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About someone2040

  1. The Rumour Thread

    I think there's also the fact that the Hobbit ruins will be cheaper as well... (Although apparently you can only buy the Osgiliath Ruins in sets of 3 now) Overall though, I'm not going to say no to more AoS terrain. It's definitely something I'm interested in picking up, even just to throw some scatter terrain on the table or make a little ruins section. Interestingly I think it's probably more useful for Skirmish with the treasure chests and sewer grates and the hatches and the like.
  2. Black Knights vs. Blood Knights

    So I think it's important to take a look at a few things: 1. Are 10 Black Knights even going to all be able to attack? Certainly I suspect not all the Horses will be able to. 2. Black Knights don't have any rend on their attacks. Rend is huge on Cavalry, and a large part of why a lot of 'old world' Cavalry aren't super great (Although, most of them only having 1 attack from the rider is also another reason). 3. Blood Knight horses are better than Black Knight horses. 4. The extra point of save I think is not something to be overlooked. So what I think you'll find overall, is that they serve different purposes in your army. Black Knights are probably more mobile tank that can put out some damage. Blood Knights are meant to be your hammer. Whether or not they're overpriced, I think purely based on the fact they get +1 attack in Legion of Blood is unlikely to see them come down in points. That's a problem when you share a unit between multiple 'factions', is that they end up being balanced when they're at their peak.
  3. What could the next faction be?

    Yes and no. First and foremost, it's not a battletome. But basically, the Firestorm allegiances I guess you could say are... half cooked. They build upon the base grand alliance abilities, which means there aren't any specialised command traits, magic artefacts, spell lores, etc. These all add up to being part of how powerful allegiance abilities turn out to be. I mean, Legions of Nagash would not be anywhere near as powerful without the spell lores and specialised artefacts. My gut feeling on Stoneklaw's (without running it), is that probably it leans towards the Ironjawz and Bonesplitterz units with some Grots thrown in where necessary. It's also missing Troggoths for some peculiar reason. So my reasoning is that, a battletome such as 'Rampaging Hordes' or whatever it's called, would basically be to wrap up those factions that are unlikely to see expansion in future into a proper battletome.
  4. Is there any point in allied flesh eater courts?

    Yep. Perhaps because they wanted the Danse Macabre to effect only the truly dead things, so they shifted it to Summonable units only. I'm guessing they didn't want to give Ghouls summonable because they're not truly dead, and it removes synergies with the Legions of Nagash (Gravesites for one, restoration from heroes, etc). FEC have their own form of restoration. But yeah, it basically kills the Necromancer from being a viable choice. May as well pay 10 extra points for a Ghoul King who is better in every way in a FEC army.
  5. What could the next faction be?

    IMO with Legions of Nagash dropping, it'll be interesting to see what happens for the future of sub-faction armies. What I'm hoping is it leads to a trend of consolidating factions that have a thematic link which Games Workshop are not interested in evolving further (or perhaps, not in the roadmap). Out of Destruction factions that exist, in my opinion only Moonclan and Spiderfang Grots have strong enough identities to further develop. For the rest, I'd like to see them consolidated into two battletomes: Ogor Tribes - Gutbusters, Maneaters, Firebellies. Mainly this is because I don't really see them expanding Maneaters and Firebellies into full factions, so they may as well join the Gutbuster fun train and gain benefits from allegiance abilities (Similarly to how Deathmages gain what they need by being in the combined Legions tome). A spell lore for Firebellies might give them so much needed love, while the Gutbusters as a whole are a pretty well rounded faction anyway and just need some more interesting allegiance abilities to prop them up IMO. Rampaging Hordes - Greenskinz, Gitmob Grots, Troggoths and Aleguzzler Gargants. A return to the Orcs and Goblins of old! Again, some good allegiance abilities would go a long way to making the core factions (greenskinz and gitmob) interesting to play. You can of course make this army today as both have 'true' battleline options, but the Destruction allegiances and the one dimensional spells and buffs restrict this army from breaking out. I really hope this 'is a thing' in the future, as the kind of vanilla rampaging hordes style is what made me buy a Orcs and Goblins army back in the first place. Lore of Big and Little Waaagh! please :). Of course, I want to see what kind of iconic race Games Workshop can develop for Destruction as well though. Something new and interesting, that's not just another variation of Orc or Goblin. The likes of a completely new race would be super interesting to see but might be hard to find a place within Destruction in terms of allies. Definitely want to see the old stuff get some love, but super interested to see what GW can come up with as well.
  6. I would probably not pay for a subscription or patreon unless there was an incentive that resonated with me that I wanted to obtain (I kinda lump them both in the same boat, as essentially you're paying a monthly fee for some added extra). I guess in general I'm someone that relates more to tangible incentives, not boys club super secret forum spaces. That being said, I think there are ways you can get it to work. I know for Bloodbowl the NAF had an annual fee you could pay. As part of that, paying at least once got you on their rankings (Which people love), but more people paid annually because you got new block dice every year. This is the kind of tangible incentive that gets people to pay (The only reason I paid for so long was certainly to get the dice), and I'm sure a portion of that $15AUD I paid went towards site upkeep and the like. Of course, they had a lot of players worldwide and contacts in a lot of countries that acted as a hub of sorts to distribute merch, so there's that postage thing you have to tackle. But I think it'd be cool, whether you pay monthly or annually, to get something tangible alongside it. Whether that's a yearly combat gauge design, or different coloured TGA dice, or whatever. That being said, no idea on the logistics of it and how many subscriptions you'd need to get to make it work. Otherwise. Ads are unlikely to drive me away from TGA as long as they're not really too intrusive. Definitely something I'd live with. Edit: Also would mention that I would probably pay a once-off donation every 12 months of my choosing than a subscription fee for benefits on the forums. That's just me though, as I said, I like something tangible, and I struggle in a fashion to think of something I would pay a subscription to online on a forum.
  7. Let's Chat: Free Peoples

    Yeah, I think the Great Hammer is the better choice over the Lance for the Griffon General only because you get to take the Shield for free. If you couldn't take the shield, it'd be a lot more of an interesting decision to make IMO. Most likely I think you'd stick to the Lance+Shield for your first General (The one that gets the Armour of Meteoric Iron), but the 2nd general I could see being a more offensive beast with a Great Hammer. But as it stands, the fact you get it for free. The Great Hammer is just the more reliable option. Not only does it deal more damage on average (although, it's potentially more swingy due to the D3s), but it also has higher rend so gets through tougher armour more reliably. The only time a charging lance deals more is against units with a 6+ save (and the non-charging variant is worse all round). So yeah, definitely a big supporter of Great Hammers on Griffons
  8. Allies across faction

    This isn't quite correct as GW updated all the Monsters of Chaos keywords when the whole Chaos allies debacle came up: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/15/chaos-warscroll-updatesgw-homepage-post-4/ I really hope that GW clear up the writing of how allies are selected. I'm of the opinion that actually people play it as both. For example: Plenty of people ally in Grot War Artillery. This does not have the Gitmob Grots keyword, so the only plausible reason this may be valid is because it's under the Gitmob Grots faction in the GHB2017. Plenty of people ally in Sayl the Faithless. He belongs to the Tamurkhan's Horde faction, but people ally him on the basis of being allowed to use Slaves to Darkness allies. A combination of both, wouldn't actually be an issue except you get this weird case where racial keywords are also being used as faction keywords (pretty stupid if you ask me). It also wouldn't be a problem, except there's a weird ommission in the GHB of actually stating you need to select all your warscrolls from a single grand alliance. This is implied all over the place, but never strictly said as far as I could find. Anyway. At the end of the day, I would not be trying to pull in models from other grand alliances in matched play. This will most likely be FAQed or the writing updated in the next GHB to make this perfectly clear. I even get this feeling that it was mentioned specifically under GHB2016, but I don't have my copy available to check.
  9. Monthly conversion challenge poll

    Hmm I guess that is so. I know that kitbashing is converting as well, but it's not the type of thing that comes to mind when I think conversion competition. Haha whoops... I voted no as well for the same reason. Probably would not partake in it, but would likely view the topic to see what other people are doing.
  10. Is there any point in allied flesh eater courts?

    None of the warscrolls lost their keywords. So just like the Soulblight and Nighthaunt allegiances, the FEC use the keywords of the particular warscrolls to determine which units are able to be allied in. Which means they are restricted to Deadwalkers, Deathmages and Deathlords just like before. So pretty slim pickings, and actually overall puts FEC in a worse spot than prior because Necromancers can't use Danse Macabre on the FEC anymore.
  11. Let's Chat: Free Peoples

    Pretty sure that's what @MrCharisma ran at Cancon, so looks pretty strong to me.
  12. Monthly conversion challenge poll

    So personally, no. Only because to me, converting is a lengthy and thought out process. You have to think about what you want to convert, what parts you're going to use, which bits are you going to sculpt, sourcing those parts and then finally after it's all come together, start putting it together. It's certainly not something I tend to do on a month by month basis. That being said, I think a monthly hobby challenge of some sort would be a good idea. I was just browsing Bolter and Chainsword the other day and saw they started some kinda Blood Angels vs Black Templars feud, where each week there is a different set of model types they need to build from scratch to the base-coated stage. All they do is commit each week, and then build it up. At first it's not something that felt very appealing. I mean, they're not even painting the models, they're just building them. But then I thought, you know, I have a huge amount of unbuilt models. So maybe there is some merit in a challenge which is just building models, which is not something I really thought of before. The thing I like about monthly challenges, no matter what they are, is that they don't always have to appeal to everyone. Maybe one month is conversion, and the next is assemble as many monsters as you can, then the next month is paint a unit of 5-10 infantry, while after that it's paint using an advanced technique (NMM, glazing, etc).
  13. What battletomes are next for elves?

    I think it'll be interesting to see whether Legions of Nagash is a once off thing, or whether it's something GW are seriously looking at to support those armies migrated from the old world but aren't interested in developing further. I've always though it's most likely that they'll develop the more interesting sub-factions into fully fleshed out ones. The ones that are very iconic in their own ways. It's why every force that has been migrated so far tends to have a very stylized look, something that's very easy to say "That's Warhammer". So the question is, will it happen? and will it happen for the Aelves? What I think may be the biggest hurdle for Games Workshop to do this though, is the fluff. All these various Aelven sub-factions now have their own separate pieces of fluff. So what brings them back to fighting alongside each other once more? We know the Darkling Covens purchase Dragons from the Order Serpentis (aka fluff reason why Sorceress' fly around on Black Dragons), but otherwise the Covens kinda want to create a legion of braindead aelves that follow the coven, perhaps something that doesn't align with the Serpentis or Shadowblades. Similarly, the High Aelven factions don't really have any links between each other than a shared heritage of being Highborn. IMO that's the gap that needs to be bridged more than any. For Death it's very simple, they obviously all serve Nagash. There might be some politicing between the things that have personality in the force, but at the end of the day, when Nagash or his Mortarchs come calling, you better be on board. Similarly, I think it's quite possible we'll see a few shared Destruction tomes (Gutbuster + Maneater + Firebelly and another Greenskinz + Gitmob + Troggoths + Aleguzzler Gargants) as well as Beasts of Chaos (Brayher + Warherd + Thunderscorn + Monsters of Chaos). They all have very common causes and reasons to be fighting alongside each other naturally. So that would be my concern with the Aelven sub-factions. There's been no reason (yet) as to why they would fight as an entire cohesive army together. That being said, I do think perhaps GW have realised with Legions of Nagash that when they split all the sub-factions down they bit off a bit more than they could chew in terms of factions they want to support. While I would love to see almost all the sub-factions expanded in their own ways, I think the realistic situation is we'll be lucky if 1/3 of them get expanded into full Age of Sigmar armies. So I very much hope we see more combined battletomes in the future for the armies which aren't in the roadmap.
  14. Let's Chat: Free Peoples

    Generals on Griffon are probably one of the most competitively priced warscrolls Free Peoples have access to. They're a nice blend of tank, mobility and killing power in a single model, and importantly in free peoples gives us our main access to rend -2 attacks.
  15. Freepeoples Shopping List

    That's all good, then run them and see how you feel. Was just pointing out why most people choose Swordsmen. That being said, I've never been very impressed with the fact that Freeguild Guard hit better in large numbers (+1/+2/+3 to hit depending on 20/30/40 models) and tend to write it off (forgetting a lot of the time when my Freeguild Guard get into combat unscathed), but on Militia they get to double dip into the hit bonus as it effects both their shooting and combat.