Jump to content

GH2017: the honeymoon is over


WoollyMammoth

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

Of course there is business value on letting your clients know about your future releases so they can make informed decissions on future purchases.

First it gives assurance that your army of choice is not going completely neglected for years with no end in sight, so making purchases for that army is reasonable.

Second you don't get negative feedback which makes for happy and trusty customers eager to buy your products if you invest enough into informing them of what is going one.

I think we can all point out that no matter what GW has done over the past two years, they've gotten plenty of negative feedback. If they started giving out free 3000-point Stormcast armies, plenty of people would be up in arms with the "Stormcast again!?" talk. GW has made some phenomenal decisions and some terrible decisions, but they've paid a price for each and every decision regardless of how good it was (or wasn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply
16 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Legitimacy in tournaments and pickup games. 

Its a lot of effort to write up a battletome only to have tournaments and your playgroup tell you that they'd rather you not use house rules and prefer official sources for the games only.  To most people I know, fan projects are largely a waste of time to back because you can only use them in your garage, and not at pick up games or tournaments.

A couple of years ago before GHB came out there was a lot of fan content being produced.  Now that things are back to the official-only mindset, you see a lot less.  

Forums particularly seem to be populated mostly with tournament and pickup gamers more than anything else, which is why I think on forums you see pushback on this solution.

I think for a narrative group, which I think are a lot more uncommon, that that solution is fine.

 

Legitimacy in tournaments and pickup games can come. Games Workshop has shown that they are eager for fanmade products in the past with Age of Sigmar. It's very likely the army builder and Age of Sigmar Skirmish wouldn't have excisted without it. A great idea can come from anywhere...

With the way Generals Handbook 2017 and Tournament rules are written I'd say GW still says you should embrace House rules. Most of us allready use a house-rule that is meassuring from base to base.

What I see is energy wasted in complaints. I wished for easy accesable Blood Tithe cards and Artefact cards for Blades of Khorne. Instead of complaining about the lack for them I created them myself.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Auticus said:

I agree to a point.  I created a Bretonnian battletome for my group because a couple guys wanted to play Bretonnians but not without allegiance abiliities and being brought up to date.  

There are a lot of fan projects out there, but the odds of GW picking one up and making it official are slim to none.  The Tomb Kings battletome that Tyler did is probably an example of the best one to date, and it still is not tournament legit and to a giant swathe of the AOS pool therefore might as well not even exist.  (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't seen GW state that its official or have its stamp of officialdom placed on it)

For me the prime thing is that Im trying to enjoy my time and if someone has put the effort into content it matters little to me how balanced it is. As someone who's played a lot of games I can say that Age of Sigmar isn't perfectly balanced but most games are not, so if your working as an underdog (Death) I think anyone who feels he's not winning on just new releases but skills aswell should be willing to accept a more difficult challenge.

The odds of GW picking it up are indeed slim, unless someone puts down the maximum effort and the community picks up on it (like army builders and skirmish) it's not like we're trying to pull factions out of discountinued lines, which is unfortunatly the case for Tomb Kings and Brettonnia.

In any case, I'd personally rather put effort into discussing what is specifically 'wrong' with certain Death Warscrolls instead of globally making statements that the reason they are unpopular directly has to do with the lack of newly released content. The fact of the matter is that quite a lot of factions don't recieve a ton of new releases like Stormcast do but if you really want that, why not play Stormcast instead? I feel on a personal level that if something bothers you could spend energy in changing that situation :) 

As a global short statement I'd say the only thing Death needs is to have someone give a good look at several Warscrolls and consider changing specific Keywords into others. In addition to that I'd also say that a tally of killed models could be kept to basically improve Summonning outcome (adding more models easier). But that's just my short relfection on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Killax said:

What specifically is the fans of Death stopping from creating house-ruled Battletome's that adress this issue?

It depends, if tournament rules are normalized in your area, houseruled battletomes are a no-go, for starters. And it also depends on what are they expectations out of the game. House-ruling can be seen as finishing an unifinished product. About the problems, i am not a death player, but i don't think it is about the warscrolls themselves but lack of battallions and very lackluster and limited options in the factions themselves, which are too many. 

@rokapoke That's simply not true. If you base your whole premise against information on a vocal minority, you are missing the point i am making. It reminds me of "people are entlited/spoiled brats". Yes, they are, but there is a diminish return on how many people will feel entlited to more and instead switch to support the game as it is. That's the spot you want to find as a company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keldaur said:

About the problems, i am not a death player, but i don't think it is about the warscrolls themselves but lack of battallions and very lackluster and limited options in the factions themselves, which are too many. 

Still the point remains, if you want something why not create it if you cant obtain it easily?

Battalions are Warscroll Battalions and 100% of options is Keyword related thus Unit Warscroll related. 

I get that there are excuses to not do it but multiple hours of topic creation could have been spend in Warscroll re-creation. The game really thrives on Keywords, several characters and engines recieving it in Death directly means more options. That really applies for all factions :) e.g. Brayherd Keyword could have been put on every bull and the Allegiance ability could have been Gor and Ungor Keyword tied instead. That switch alone would open over 6 unit choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Arkiham
There is a ton of story about Death in AoS - yes even stuff that could have been new models. 

@Keldaur
Elves have been in a bad shape, especially High Elves being split up so small like death. Based on the rumors, It seems like HE are going to get a reboot soon though.
-
I wish I could play only Death, having too many models is not a good thing, since I take days to paint each model now. I've wanted to sell everything but Death and just focus on one 'grand alliance' but I can't do that quite yet.

@Captain Marius
Since the start of AoS I've started Stormcast, Sylvaneth, Seraphon, Nurgle Deamons/Mortals and the Silver Tower box, as well as getting really into the Death Guard for 40k. Its too much - I sold my Sylvaneth and plan so sell more soon. I try to enjoy other stuff but my heart is always with Death.  

I never complained of needing new models when I played Vampire Counts, it was known that you would have to wait a decade. But VC was a nice big army with tons of options, and as @Thebiggesthat points out, they seem to have split it up for no real reason.

@Thebiggesthat
My budget is only limited to the amount of grief I'm willing to take from the wife for buying too much.

@Auticus
I think that AoS and especially the new GH is designed to get closer and closer to the idea that any army can win if you are good at the game. I have had very few losses with Death TBH, and each of those losses each taught me an important lesson. (I've had plenty of losses, but not much with Death TBH)

@Killax
It would be a wonderful world if most people felt the same way you do about house rules. Unfortunately (as you can see from peoples responses to you) you are in the minority for being willing to play with made up rules. I had thought up some ideas for Death in the past:

But I gave up thinking about it because frankly - it's just not going to go anywhere. At least not in local community play/tournaments which is my focus.
 

On 10/3/2017 at 9:09 AM, rokapoke said:

I think we can all point out that no matter what GW has done over the past two years, they've gotten plenty of negative feedback. If they started giving out free 3000-point Stormcast armies, plenty of people would be up in arms with the "Stormcast again!?" talk. GW has made some phenomenal decisions and some terrible decisions, but they've paid a price for each and every decision regardless of how good it was (or wasn't).

The only feedback that matters is sales, and that feedback is very good.

---

This topic has gone on a long tangent. I was just trying to say that the GH1 was amazing and wonderful and at least an 8 month honeymoon of excitement. The GH2 had a big buildup but came with more pain for many of us than excitement. Its a great book, and we are lucky for getting an update in just one short year, but my excitement for it went right into the mud.

I got my mojo back, but not from AoS - from Armies on Parade. This year will be my first entry, and I'm working hard on my first display board. Truth be told I'm also starting to appreciate FEC more with the new allegiance stuff, driven on by my weekly AoS games. I'm going to try to be more positive, even despite the fact that there is a lot to be negative about. I just need to focus on whatever positivity I can find. If that means quitting AoS for a while to play 40k, or other stuff - so be it.   


EDIT:  I found some new gems in the GH:2017:

- Skaven are hyper-punished by bravery in AoS, which is why the Chieftain BSB is an essential unit - giving no battleshock within 13". The GH:2017 removes his Verminous keyword, ups his points by 20, and changes the banner to no longer affect battleshock. 

In contrast, Skyre and Pestelins have a +2 bravery for every 10 models. The Cheiftan however was key to Verminous. Hopefully this is because Verminous is getting a battletome soon.

- Flesh Eater Courts can only ally with Deadwalkers, Deathlords and Deathmages. The Wight King, which was a very key unit to a lot of Flesh Eater Courts lists, is no longer legal. If a Ghoul King summons a Spirit Host, everything is fine, but if one shows up to help, the FEC get pissed and turn him away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick note on the skaven banner; they removed all banners that were legacy that caused no battleshock. Look at the dwarf standard bearer. Some people here are so myopic to only see their own faction.

In addition, skaven still have the Grey Seer which can now be your commander and gives you a 4+ to not route. This is half as good as before but it is better than nothing. Your post asserts that there is no other choice, which is not the case.

GW honestly seems to want to make hordes and bravery feel important in this edition, and removing banners seems to be a key element of that.

I can say all this and think that All skaven factions need strength in numbers, but that will require a tome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2017 at 1:48 AM, WoollyMammoth said:

The vortex hasn't been nerfed

I’m not entirely sure I agree with you in that it hasn’t been nerfed.

Every cast of the Vortex now costs 100.

Cast it, 100. Unsummon it and recast it? Another 100. Etc. etc. 

Previously I had seen it played as a one time charge. That change makes it pretty brutal of a nerf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

I’m not entirely sure I agree with you in that it hasn’t been nerfed.

Every cast of the Vortex now costs 100.

Cast it, 100. Unsummon it and recast it? Another 100. Etc. etc. 

Previously I had seen it played as a one time charge. That change makes it pretty brutal of a nerf.

I think the word is "clarification." There was a loophole in the way that points had been applied, and GW has officially clarified how it was intended. Not a nerf -- just removing the buff of the unexpected interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I think the word is "clarification." There was a loophole in the way that points had been applied, and GW has officially clarified how it was intended. Not a nerf -- just removing the buff of the unexpected interpretation.

I believe that what you describe is the classic definition of “Nerfing”.

Nerfing is a change that makes something less effective or desired. Because the opposite of Nerf is Buff. And you said it yourself ... that it was the removal of a buff.

While it may have come from an “unexpected interpretation” it was a relatively widely held interpretation.

Some might say that GW did a whole bunch of “clarification” with the GHB 2017. Others might call those nerfs. ¬¬

Either way, it certainly made the Balewind Vortex less desirable. And certainly less effective for the points after the “clarification” than it was before the “clarification”.

Whatever we want to call it today. O.o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 10:16 PM, WoollyMammoth said:



It's not an issue with winning games, you can still win games with death lists. But its not about winning games, its about having the models, allies, battalions and rules that everyone else is up to par on.

The fundamental issue with Death is the lack of models for a  while now - which a GHB17 was never going to fix because its a book :)

It is impossible to tell from the outside why there have been so few Death model. It could be marketing led - a lack of perceived interest backed up by a lack of sales. It could be creativity led - the modelers try to come up with Death model ranges but nobody in the studio is feeling the wow factor. It could be something else entirely. 

However GHB17 did as much for Death as could be reasonably expected. You can still win games and you have some new options  and rules to help keep your games interesting and fresh - that is about all that anybody should have expected from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Designers are rarely spoiled with an option of choosing among the projects. It's usually what the project division assigns, if you're lucky you might swap a project with a coworker. I doubt it's because no one in the regular and irregular concept design team couldn't come up with something new that wouldn't satisfy the upper offices. Same with elves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tokek said:

The fundamental issue with Death is the lack of models for a  while now - which a GHB17 was never going to fix because its a book :)

It is impossible to tell from the outside why there have been so few Death model. It could be marketing led - a lack of perceived interest backed up by a lack of sales. It could be creativity led - the modelers try to come up with Death model ranges but nobody in the studio is feeling the wow factor. It could be something else entirely. 

However GHB17 did as much for Death as could be reasonably expected. You can still win games and you have some new options  and rules to help keep your games interesting and fresh - that is about all that anybody should have expected from it.

I have to dissagree with that. The prime issue that Death works with is that several of their Warscrolls are starting to show their age. In their initial conception there was an age without Allegiance bonusses or Ally rules that both restrict army design. This army design restriction means you have to work with even less Warscrolls and almost all the Warscroll designs initially where created keeping others within the Grand Allegiance in mind.

What this has lead to is that the newer Warscrolls do function within GH2017 and a lot of the older ones do not. Luckily we have allready seen sub-Factions merge into new Factions because it only makes sence.
To date I expected the Death Errata to cover these Warscrolls specifically by changing quite some Keywords on them but to date GW has not done that. The unfortunate effect of this is that you either play GA Death, maby Flesh-Eaters or have to work with an extreme tactical army build restriction. But lack of models... no, that's not the case at all. Many armies who recieved new models cannot compete because they do not have the Warscrolls that are on the same level as others. Or alternatively lack the Battle Trait, Command Trait etc. content.

Where I agree with is that with more options Death as a faction would become more interesting. What I hope that the AoS team will do sooner as later is to go through all the Warscrolls again and judge/alter Keywords printed on them. The issue that Death has comes from it's sub-factions, reflected into Keywords that before where useless but now actually hinder them thanks to how Ally rules work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 11:47 AM, Cerlin said:

Quick note on the skaven banner; they removed all banners that were legacy that caused no battleshock. Look at the dwarf standard bearer. Some people here are so myopic to only see their own faction.

In addition, skaven still have the Grey Seer which can now be your commander and gives you a 4+ to not route. This is half as good as before but it is better than nothing. Your post asserts that there is no other choice, which is not the case.

GW honestly seems to want to make hordes and bravery feel important in this edition, and removing banners seems to be a key element of that.

I can say all this and think that All skaven factions need strength in numbers, but that will require a tome.

It hard to keep track of all the things that GH2017 took away from people. Regardless, Dwarves don't have 4 bravery. The Skaven BSB was a Verminous unit, and completely essential. Verminous didn't get strength in numbers, making it even more important. Verminous cannot take a Grey seer as a general, no one but 'Masterclan' can, which has no battleline so cannot be a faction. Verminous are screwed until they get an update. All 3 Dwarves have nice allegiance stuff now. 

Hordes unfortunately still have all their hard counters, so are not really competitive. The more competitive they become, the more common their hard counters will be.  

On 10/7/2017 at 7:20 PM, TheOtherJosh said:

I’m not entirely sure I agree with you in that it hasn’t been nerfed.

Every cast of the Vortex now costs 100.

Cast it, 100. Unsummon it and recast it? Another 100. Etc. etc. 

Previously I had seen it played as a one time charge. That change makes it pretty brutal of a nerf.

If there are actually people out there who thought it was cool to summon the same vortex multiple times in one game, they have more problems than this nerf.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fearless hordes are something I would prefer not to have in the game. I was wandering around in a 40k tournament last summer and it didn't look too fun...

 

Oh and about death, I don't have much experience from the field, as I'm just building the army, but at least it feels very flexible as even if you go with Soulblight or Nighthaunt allegiance, you'll have the allies and then you can summon almost everything you would want. But of course compared to a lot of other stuff, it has very few options due to the whole grand alliance having so few different units. The grand alliance book is thinner than the battletomes after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Its hard to keep track of all the things that GH2017 took away from people. Regardless, Dwarves don't have 4 bravery. The Skaven BSB was a Verminous unit, and completely essential. Verminous didn't get strength in numbers, making it even more important. Verminous cannot take a Grey seer as a general, no one but 'Masterclan' can, which has no battleline so cannot be a faction. Verminous are screwed until they get an update. All 3 Dwarves have nice allegiance stuff now.

Im not sure i agree with this. GW basically removed the compendium units from mixing with the proper factions, as defined in the GA books and GH16. In my view this was always going to happen and it is unreasonable to expect GW to continue providing rules support for units they dont sell, especially if theyre seen as important to a faction (e.g skaven standard bearer, vampire on abyssal terror), as they need to channel people to invest in what they actually sell.

Hopefully those factions like Verminus, Deathrattle, Swifthawk Agents and Spiderfangs, all factions who got no allegiance abilities in GH17 but could be turned into viable factions with those rules and a few new units each, will be early in the queue for new books!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

Im not sure i agree with this. GW basically removed the compendium units from mixing with the proper factions, as defined in the GA books and GH16. In my view this was always going to happen and it is unreasonable to expect GW to continue providing rules support for units they dont sell, especially if theyre seen as important to a faction (e.g skaven standard bearer, vampire on abyssal terror), as they need to channel people to invest in what they actually sell.

Hopefully those factions like Verminus, Deathrattle, Swifthawk Agents and Spiderfangs, all factions who got no allegiance abilities in GH17 but could be turned into viable factions with those rules and a few new units each, will be early in the queue for new books!

The Chieftain BSB was never a compendium unit, even the picture on the scroll was a Stormvermin banner bearer. There is no reason to discontinue it any more than discontinuing Flesh Eater Courtiers which are all unit champions turned into a heroes as well.

 

Fearless hordes are something I would prefer not to have in the game. I was wandering around in a 40k tournament last summer and it didn't look too fun...

 

Oh and about death, I don't have much experience from the field, as I'm just building the army, but at least it feels very flexible as even if you go with Soulblight or Nighthaunt allegiance, you'll have the allies and then you can summon almost everything you would want. But of course compared to a lot of other stuff, it has very few options due to the whole grand alliance having so few different units. The grand alliance book is thinner than the battletomes after all.


They are already all over the game. All of Khorne (Bloodsecrator) and any army that puts inspiring presence on a horde. 

Summoning is limited to specific units, and requires the use of spells. Almost always each of your wizards has a key spell and cannot afford to skip it to summon a unit. Summoning skeletons and zombies is limited as a chaff technique - only a few things are actually useful summoning, and they often have high casting values making it difficult. I've never seen a Death player rely on summoning. Now you might see it more often, because if you pick a specific allegiance, the only way to get certain units on the board is to summon them - but this is more of a crutch than a technique. I've played 100 death games and the only thing I've ever summoned is some spirit hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 40k hordes and age of sigmar. It is not the same. Movement, attack density, damage, range and character rules make both playsets very different to how they handle their hordes. You can say unbreakable hordes exist in Age of Sigmar, or that you don't want unbreakable hordes in AoS, but the game is different enough to allow some unbreakable hordes no probem. 40k hordes are completely silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

The Chieftain BSB was never a compendium unit, even the picture on the scroll was a Stormvermin banner bearer. There is no reason to discontinue it any more than discontinuing Flesh Eater Courtiers which are all unit champions turned into a heroes as well.

Do you mean it never had an official model? Cos, i mean, its rules were only in the skaven compendium pdf, its points were only in the gh16 skaven compendium list... that satisfies my definition of a compendium unit!

Still, i see why in gh17 GW removed all the compendium warscrolls: to streamline the factions in accordance with what they planned with the release of the original grand alliance books. Same reason they removed keywords and synergies from those units.

Id have preferred if theyd never included compendium in matched play in the first place, but here we are, left with hope that by cutting these quite major factions to the bone (#deathrattle ;)) they have plans for expansion in the near future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

Do you mean it never had an official model? Cos, i mean, its rules were only in the skaven compendium pdf, its points were only in the gh16 skaven compendium list... that satisfies my definition of a compendium unit!

Still, i see why in gh17 GW removed all the compendium warscrolls: to streamline the factions in accordance with what they planned with the release of the original grand alliance books. Same reason they removed keywords and synergies from those units.

Id have preferred if theyd never included compendium in matched play in the first place, but here we are, left with hope that by cutting these quite major factions to the bone (#deathrattle ;)) they have plans for expansion in the near future!

Its possible that it had a model, but I've never seen one. It was represented by a stormvermin banner. A Chielftan is a standard part of the lore. There is no reason to make it compendium. The sensible reason for discontinuing it would be if they plan to replace it, but I would prefer if they matched up their discontinue dates and their replacement dates better.  TK was discontinued almost two years ago, and there is still not even a whisper of a replacement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Keldaur said:

About 40k hordes and age of sigmar. It is not the same. Movement, attack density, damage, range and character rules make both playsets very different to how they handle their hordes. You can say unbreakable hordes exist in Age of Sigmar, or that you don't want unbreakable hordes in AoS, but the game is different enough to allow some unbreakable hordes no probem. 40k hordes are completely silly.

Yeah, it is different, as the shooting works differently and has bigger impact on 40k, but still the game is usually about controlling objectives and with a network of hordes it's possible to effectively control where the opponent can move. But I agree that it's much less of a problem here fortunately. Also big reason is because those key characters giving the buffs are possible to be killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Its possible that it had a model, but I've never seen one. It was represented by a stormvermin banner. A Chielftan is a standard part of the lore. There is no reason to make it compendium. The SENSIBLE reason for discontinuing it would be if they plan to replace it, but I would prefer if they matched up their discontinue dates and their replacement dates better.  TK was discontinued almost two years ago, and there is still not even a whisper of a replacement. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Although i think they are trying to be increasingly sympathetic to the impact of discontinuing models (and rules), i would never accuse GW of being sensible!

I agree with the concept of rationalising the rules for their ranges down to only what they sell, i think that is sensible. But how they have gone about it has not been ideal, and here we are STILL with a bunch of compendium units hanging around doing little more than causing confusion as to why they arent folded in with their appropriate factions, when really theyd be better off just being deleted.

Im all for updating the legacy factions alongside new ranges though - in fact its driving me nuts that thereve been no new army books for 6 months (while theyve been being released so fast in 40k ive already given up and gone back to AoS full time!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as since page 1, Games Workshop has many more games as Age of Sigmar, so personally I understand as to why 40K is getting it's attention.
Where I completely agree with is that standardisation of rules and design is the only thing Age of Sigmar needs. Which includes merging several sub-Factions that logically could be turned into one. Despite the backlash I recieved on this idea back with GH2016 I still believe the tournament results of Matched Play prove that more is better and splinter factions have a really rough time competing.

1. In GH2017 I think it's also fair to say that we've seen this work out allready. So far, with the handful of Tournaments, we've seen Order and Chaos preform really well with several combinations of indeed larger factions. 
2. Firestorm is a great supplement for Grand Allegiance Order (as it recieved 3 new bonusses to choose from) and this in turn makes mixed Order another very viable Allegiance. All the while both Death and to a slightly lesser extend Destruction need this "more".
3. Current Allegiances that preform  well have a large selection of Units and Battalions to choose from, ergo the "Warscroll quantity required to compete".

All in all I think what we see in GH2017 is that the competative build options for Order and Chaos specifically have certainly increased. Destruction on the other hand has recieved a sideways design meaning that they can indeed compete but not with more as they used to, just different Factions and Death has actually been reduced in builds. As before based on quantity of options I do have some hope for Flesh Eater Courts and mixed Death with Firestorm supplement but as for now there is still a distinct lack in synergistic choices. If anything Allied rules specifically tied Death down. 

In my opinion the grand solution to this remains relatively simple though. Stop splitting things up in sub-sub-Factions.  Brayherds is an example in Chaos that used to be Beasts of Chaos, now as Brayherds, Warherds and Monsters of Chaos they are simply unable to compete despite there being little to no narrative reason to have them be split up in the first place. The same is true for Everchosen and Slaves to Darkness aswell. Everchosen from a narrative standpoint lead Slaves to Darkness however with the way the rules work out now that is litterly impossible unless we use Tzeentch or Khorne as Allegiance, which defeats the point of Archaon working for all the gods? 

Ultimately though, the thing remains, if your good, your good. There are a lot of Factions who are "good".
- (Blades of) Khorne
- (Desciples of) Tzeentch
- Slaves to Darkness (which is a gateway to all kinds of eventual awesome god armies) or should we call it Mixed/Legacy Chaos ;) 
- Bonesplitterz and Ironjawz (keep it Greenskin)
- Mixed/Legacy Order (in large thanks to Firestorm)
- Seraphon
- Stormcast Eteranals
...More names will likely eventually be added, I see hope for larger Allegiances that came with GH2017, such as Hosts of Slaanesh, Flesh Eater Courts, Kharadron, Fyreslayers and the like, but you really have to work for it. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2017 at 6:48 AM, Killax said:

I think the essence also is that AoS isnt completely made for competative play to begin with, which in turn means expecting it to fully work out that way remains a moot point.

40K on the other hand, especially 8th edition, seems much more competatively focused. As costs and designs are replicated througout multiple factions. Creating a balance based more on cost, where in AoS I feel its based more on ability. AoS units are typically less akin as 40k units. 

GH2017 in the end brought us a step closer towards balance but balance and competative play are not the same. In fact competative play usually tries to obtain advantages out of unbalanced pieces. Sometimes this means they are too cheap, sometimes this means abilities need to be rewritten altogether.

To me the 'new game' is also not just Gh2017 for the Erratas and Warscroll redesigns actually have the bigger impact. I think this is a great improvement overall. Really there are but a few things I dissagree with in terms of design:

1. I feel Magic spells are still too restricted in the game for a Fantasy game. Summonning is part of this aswell.

2. I feel Battleline is a redundant rule altogether and dont understand why Leader and Behemoth references arnt simply Hero and Monster Keyword related.

3. I feel Allies in this design is a nice concept but not fleshed out well enough (clear enough).

4. I think Battalions are great but ideally not costed but an option to thake once per 2k. Indeed all Factions should then have at least one Battalion.

However those 4 points do not mean I enjoy the game less. In fact I think Gh2017 is a certain upgrade over Gh2016. Because what has been fixed globally is:

1. Clearity on abilities, including stacking and piling in.

2. Cost increase on Battalion means less influence of Battalions altogether which actually improves the game experience.

3. More Allegiances mean more functional armies that feel good to play albeit often with Monster General.

4. Big units promote 'real armies' which again improves how armies look and thus feel to play against.

5. Epic (Monster) Generals feel incredibly awesome and good generally. The small improvements f Artefacts and cost decreases give competative reasons to run great centerpieces. 

I agree with most, if not all of what you say here. I'm still a bit disappointed that shooting rules weren't adjusted [ala 40k, at least] as well as that I feel the magic phase should be just that.... a separate phase that comes after movement. It seems restrictive to keep it in the hero phase when heavy shooting armies have the luxury of being able to move and then shoot. Maximizing the effectiveness of those units. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tasman said:

I agree with most, if not all of what you say here. I'm still a bit disappointed that shooting rules weren't adjusted [ala 40k, at least] as well as that I feel the magic phase should be just that.... a separate phase that comes after movement. It seems restrictive to keep it in the hero phase when heavy shooting armies have the luxury of being able to move and then shoot. Maximizing the effectiveness of those units. 

I think its too much to ask of them to change the core rules for a game that is only 2 years old.  Give it a few more GHB and then we will get AoS2.0 I think.

 

Quote

2. I feel Battleline is a redundant rule altogether and dont understand why Leader and Behemoth references arnt simply Hero and Monster Keyword related.

Totems as well, another Keyword that, for the most part, has no purpose .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...