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?

Kamose

Members
  • Content count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kamose last won the day on December 23 2016

Kamose had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

145 Celestant-Prime

About Kamose

  • Rank
    Retributor
  1. 'Creamy' is a good way to describe the scales of albino alligators I've seen on online. I like the idea of mixing bone and white. I'll also check out Pallid Witch Flesh...a color I've never used. Thanks for the advice! 😊
  2. So I've expanded my Fyreslayers with a new Start Collecting box and I built the 'droth as a Runesmiter (Country Mac) to go with the Runerfather (Frank) on his Magmadroth (Popkins). Since the Runesmiter's Magmadroth would presumably be of religious significance, I decided to really make her stand out. I've decided I want to try an albino color scheme. I've had some experience painting white on clothes before (for Freeguild) but never on a living creature. Normally I prime grey and basecoat with Celestra Grey. Then I use ever lighter layers of Ulthuan Grey and White Scar to build up white on the raised areas. I'm wondering how this will look though since albino creatures tend to be pinkish. Should I try a red wash at least for some areas (eyes, mouth) and highlight up to light pink? My concern is that the red wash will be rather too dark and, well, red. I've also not used a wash in the past when painting white. Also are the dry brush whites worth a look? I've never used them before. If anyone has experience and advice I'd greatly appreciate it
  3. One of the key differences between Matched play and Narrative comes down to player agency. Specifically Narrative play should have less player agency and Match play should have more. In my mind, and I admit I'm not a tournament regular, a tournament is supposed to be a competition of skill between players. Ideally a player at a tournament should except to be able to control all aspects of their games at a tournament except their dice rolls, to some extent, and their opponents. Models, list design, tactical decisions in-game, and perhaps even board and terrain set-up should either be set and unchanging or completely under the player's control. That way it comes down, as much as possible, to skillful list building and generalship. I know some of that is a bit unrealistic but I'm speaking in ideals. At a narrative event, players would expect somewhat less agency. As some people have suggested they may not have complete control over the models they can bring to a game like with Path to Glory or Skirmish advancement tables. I would also suggest that the board and terrain needs to play a much larger role bordering on being a '3rd player' even. In its way, Narrative is a far more realistic than depiction of battle than Matched play is or should be. If a group of historical players wanted to play through Hannibal's invasion of Italy, they would surely include come way to represent 'the Alps' and the huge impact it had on his forces. Likewise, it would be a poor retelling (replaying?) of the battles of the Vietnam War without taking into account the hardships of jungle warfare. Narrative is about telling a story and in a good story the setting is never a passive background but an active participant, helping and hindering the characters in the narrative. This means determining where the battles are occurring and how the terrain impacts the armies. GW has released 2 or 3 tables of terrain effects and many Times of War. Skim over those and use them wholesale or mix and match but I would make full use of these. Not every piece of terrain needs to have its own special rule but every board should have at least 1 or 2 that do. A couple of special 'Time of War' style rules that impact the whole board would be good as well. For Narrative I think the challenge is more about managing the in-game complexity that the players experience rather than ensuring 'balance'. Too many battlefield rules and most will be forgotten and not used, or worse become frustrating distractions. Too few or none and you've basically created a poorly designed Matched play tournament like Auticus was describing in the initial post. Needless to say, the players at the event should be well aware of these factors going into it and also aware that the event organizer has the last word, a la the D&D Game Master. If they do not like how something played and felt that it was 'unfun' or 'ruined my game', there is a time and a place to politely and constructively express those concerns. Unless the problem is literally, and I stress literally, game breaking, then all concerns should be expressed after the event has ended. The point should be to enjoy the story as it unfolds not to win every game. Its weird, I know, but at a Narrative event, I feel the narrative is the point! If a player at a Matched play tournament complained that they lost their game because specifically because of a random terrain, then that's a legitimate concern. Terrain should not be determining the outcomes of Matched play games. On the other hand, the same complaint occurring at a Narrative event is not a problem because the impact of terrain on the narrative is 'not a bug but a feature' as they say. As the organizer, I would remember that complaints that boil down to, '...your Narrative event wasn't a Matched play event,..' are not helpful or constructive and can be safely ignored.
  4. Well...the Stegadon's hide is 'impenetrable' until the Lord of Khorne with his terrible, terrible axe decides to chop the poor Stegadon in half in one blow...after making a 12" charge no less!!
  5. Open Play Allegiance Abilities?

    I've been playing Warhammer (40k and Fantasy) for nearly 14 years and I have to say I completely agree. I actually had this epiphany just a couple days ago. Two friends and I decided to play a Triumph &Treachery game and we were halfway through the game before I realized that none of us ever asked about points level or restrictions. We just grabbed what we wanted and played. The game turned out to be incredibly fun in spite of (some would say) it's freeform nature. This has just been how we've playing lately (at least the last 12 months) and we just sort of stepped into it. Probably not much help for others trying to get friends into Open Play but there you have it.
  6. Age of sigmar & terrain

    That was my exact point when someone told me they didn't like the double turn because they could play a 'perfect game' and it would be ruined because of the double turn. Well if you didn't account for the double turn, then you didn't play a 'perfect game'. Also I think Auticus' explanation for why most tournaments and competitive games shun lots of terrain and the terrain rules is likely spot on. As for terrain, my LGS is lucky that we have a whole back wall of terrain to choose from. We have a good selection of GW terrain that I and others have assembled and painted for the store, but most of it is generic, scratch-built terrain. Its still pretty high quality (we have some skilled modelers in the store) and there's plenty to use for three or more games simultaneously. I usually try to play with about a 10-15 pieces of terrain and I personally love the terrain rules and the warscrolls. When I'm setting up a board I have about 3-4 pieces of with terrain rules (Mystical, Damned, etc) and 1-2 using the warscrolls. These ones are 'strategically' set up where the two players will have to at least approach and hopefully interact with them. Folks are right that some of the terrain warscrolls favor certain factions or unit types but I just consider that an extra challenge. Its kind of a secondary objective. For example if I'm playing my Fyreslayers against an army with wizards, and we have a Dreadfire Portal on the battlefield, one of my goals is to keep his wizards away from it. If you don't know what the rules for the Dreadfire Portal are, you should look them up ;). Let's just say....orbital laser! The game is more of a narrative story and war simulation to me. A huge part of war is seizing and denying the enemy's valuable territory, and there's not much incentive to do that is none of the territory (read terrain) is valuable!
  7. So I just finished the first Open War game. My Fyreslayers vs. my friend's Moonclan. We drew Kingslayer (Kill Points based on wounds & a warlord kill doubles your points). We had two twists, healing D3 wounds in the hero phase and splitting our forces into 3rds and having them deploy over the first two turns. My ruse was to burn down a terrain piece, killing everyone on it. We also used the Realm of Fire rules from the GHB17. So in short my πŸ”₯-slayers, in the Realm of πŸ”₯ were attacked by πŸ”₯-y, flying grots (Doom Diver) and were setting πŸ”₯ to stuff killing said πŸ”₯-y grots. πŸ”₯ everywhere! It was great!! In the end, a πŸ”₯-slayers victory! I think the Open War cards work just as for AoS as 40k. As hellalugosi said, they work well with the Time of War rules too! πŸ˜€
  8. My group's been using them a lot for 40k games. I haven't had an AoS game since the AoS set came out but I intend to use them for a game tomorrow. I know the 40k ones have been great each time we've used them. The AoS set is very similar so they should work fine. The only lopsided game I've had was my Tyranids versus a friend's Grey Knights and that was just abysmal dice on his part. 1250pts a side and he had 6 models left at the TOP of turn three...😨 Needless to say the Open War cards didn't even enter into it!
  9. NEW FAQs, Compendium, Forgeworld

    The reason you don't understand the reason for all the rage is because there isn't actually a legitimate reason for all the rage. As with most online discussions, let hyperbole and rage be your watchwords. You are correct of course. Everyone can still play with all their models. No models have been invalidated, only some army builds at specific points levels have to change now. After 14 years in this hobby I've found that most of the anger during these transitions boils down to a couple of things. Some of it comes from fears that amount to , "...my army may not be as easy to win with as I want it to be." Some of it also comes from worries that, "...the way I want to build/have been building my army might not be as efficient/powerful as I want it to be." But these things are to be expected when a big update like GHB2017 is released. These are the facts of life for Wargaming. Rules change, army lists change, the ways we play change. What's truly baffling is the notion that GW are somehow being petty or insulting towards their customers by slowly (seriously, folks, its been ongoing for 2 years now) distancing Legacy armies and removing keyword synergies with supported armies. How exactly is it petty that they provided and updated, for free, rules for models they do not sell and make no money from. The fact is that they actively lose money and customers to the 2nd hand market due to the presence of these rules. How is it insulting that they have been providing and still provide veteran players with the means to play with their entire collections, even those models that GW does not sell anymore? How can anyone look at the support they have freely provided and think that is more insulting than releasing AoS with the announcement that all Tomb Kings and Brettonia players can trash their armies because they have no rules in the new game? The release of the original pdf's was intended to tide people over until the Grand Alliance Books were released. The reason that more than 18 months later, they are still updating the Compendium rules, in spite of lost business, can only be due to their respect for the players, the models they've released in the past, and the years of lore they've created for Warhammer. There is literally no other reason to support Legacy armies, and that is the exact opposite of being insulting and petty.
  10. NEW FAQs, Compendium, Forgeworld

    I'm quite happy with the new FAQ's and updates. I think they did a good job of identifying loopholes, rules abuses, and overpowered models and of brought those into line with the rest of the game. Removing the stacking of buffs and clarifying that "a roll of 6" is synonymous with "a roll of 6+" are real biggies for me. I'm also very happy that the Squig Gobba was improved and I don't even play Moonclan. I painted one for my friend's army and I love the model! All of this speaks to GW's desire to ensure that AoS is fun and enjoyable first and foremost. My only sadness is that my Skink Chief lost his Command Ability. Oh well, he'll make it through. He's Marked for Greatness after all! Needless to say I'm very excited for all the new Seraphon goodies and if I really want to run my Skink Chief and Jungle Swarms, I still can. I'll just run an Order army instead of a Seraphon army. I know I'll be giving up the shiny new Seraphon goodies for one game but that's fine. Tomb Kings are my second army and I have to say I'm quite pleased with how they updated the Compendium Warscrolls. They've distanced them from the current armies while still updating their rules to match the game as it has grown over these two years. The update basically removes any synergies between the Compendium and the supported Warscrolls as well as matching keywords. My Tomb Kings lost "Deathrattle" but gained their own keyword "Desert Legions". They have synergy within themselves but not with the other Death factions unless the synergies target units with the Death keyword. Like with my Seraphon if I want to run my Tomb Kings with other Death units, I'll just run a Death army, not a Tomb Kings army. Everyone knew GW should and would move in this direction with the Compendium Warscrolls and its been two years. No one can honestly claim that this was a surprising move or was unnecessary. At this point GW has been losing sales to eBay for 2 years because they provide rules for models they do not sell. The fact that they've updated the Compendium one more time (assuming this is the final time) is a real sign of GW's respect for the games and models they've produced and the player base. As for the notion that this makes the Compendium units 'unplayable', let me quote a famous Spaniard. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya. None of the Compendium Warscrolls are unplayable. "Unplayable" means that the rules and their interactions in game are nonsensical or irrelevant. Every Compendium Warscroll is perfectly playable in the game. Even moreso now they been updated to match the current wording of the game. Twice now I've even stated how; run a Grand Alliance (Order, Death, Destruction, Chaos) army, and not a faction specific army. In fact the one thing that GW could have done to make the Compendium Warscrolls nearly unplayable would have been to remove the Grand Alliance keywords from the Warscrolls, but they didn't. Please don't forget that not every person plays AoS like you and please don't assume that Matched Play is all there is. There are lots of us Narrative and Open players out there, who will happily use our Skink Chiefs without issue. If you're are unhappy with the changes to the Warscrolls then, "These are less than optimal choices in the army that I choose to play for tournaments and matched play games", would be the words that you're looking for. TLDR; Love the changes & bandying about hyperbole like 'unplayable' is a bit disrespectful to the rest of the AoS community; think before you post.
  11. There is an actual explanation for this in the old fluff. Back in the 1st Undead Army Book, there is a bit of fluff about why they don't get along. So a skeleton walked into a bar in Sylvania. He sat down and ordered a drink. Just then some ghosts came up behind him and shouted, "Hey!! Mr. Skelly-tun!! We don't take kindly to yer type 'round here!" The bartender looked up from cleaning mugs. "Now Skeeter. I don't want no trouble." To which Skeeter (the ghost) replied, "No trouble! I just got a question fer Mr. Skelly-tun here! Why you Skellingtons always walking around with yet bones out, going all clackity-clack?! You some kinda comedian, Boy?!" This went on for a while before the skeleton (Jack) just quietly up and left. He never responded to Skeeter's barbed words because, you see, skeletons have no vocal cords and can't talk. And that's why ghosts and skeletons can't ally. The ghosts totally started it. If you don't believe me, just Google "A skeleton walks into a bar..." and follow that rabbit hole aaaaalllll the way down. It's fun!!!! 😁
  12. "Never won a major tournament"

    It is an undeniable Fact of Life that the only thing cooler than dinosaurs is dinosaurs riding dinosaurs with LAZORS!!!
  13. "Never won a major tournament"

    I think the OP hit the nail on the head. Tourney data is easier to find, quantify, and analyze than other types of data about how "good" an army is. Unfortunately, that data tends to be rather myopic. It describes only one quality that makes an army "good". Other qualities, such as varied play styles, fun mechanics and themes, interactibility, artistic style of the models, and simply being "fun to play", are very hard or impossible to quantify. These are still very important when someone is determining if an army is "good". Needless to "good" is VERY subjective for many reasons. I play Seraphon because I love dinosaurs. Nothing GW did or could do about that. I just saw dinosaurs and thought they were awesome! Whether they are nerfed into the ground or "totally broken", I'll still play for reasons that have nothing to do with tournaments. To their credit, GW is quite good and consistent about ensuring armies play to their intended themes. That's why the very rarely ever change warscrolls themselves. Buffing or nerfing whole factions in response to a highly ephemeral tournament meta is noooooot wise.
  14. Thank you Ben! This is something that bears repeating every now and again. Having an opinion and voicing a complaint is all well and good, however the entire Internet seems to have forgotten (or never learned) that how a message is spoken is nearly as important, possibly more important, than the message itself. This forum does have it's share of negativity and keeping it in check is important. However, The Grand Alliance, seems almost full of starry-eyed optimists compared to other forums. Just check Dakkadakka's recent 8th Ed. 40k discussions. I'm so close to just leaving that whole god awful place and the only reason I don't is because they are actually the least miserable 40k forum out there. There is no other place quite like this for wargaming and I'd like to think that's due to the people who founded it and the spirit in which Ben created it. I would hate to see it slide into the nasty, entitled whining and bitter, hateful temper tantrums that fill most other forums. That behavior is what drove most of this community out of those places during AoS's 1st year.
  15. 😁 I'm so hoping this is another campaign like Realmgate Wars. I love me some narrative missions, lore development, and all those Battleplans!! Almost all my games I play using Battleplans from the campaign books or battletomes and I love the variety! πŸ˜€
Γ—