Gitzdee Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Starfyre said: Why even bother wasting the space on the sprue for the paired hammers. Cause it looks great and not because they have to make them a certain way. It is also creative freedom. Edited April 6 by Gitzdee 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 It’s probably been mentioned before. But there is a strange twist of Fate in seeing First Generation Stormcast disappear whilst having Bretonnia and Tomb Kings available on the Online store after 10 years. This hobby really is a rollercoaster of Emotions. You’ve got Seraphon hanging out in AoS and Orcs and Goblins kicking it in Old World and AoS. I’ve tried to make sense in my head of the development of the recent days, I still don’t know how I feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomkingWortwazi Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 People are definitely of two camps on the WYSIWYG combined arms profile thing. It's only natural. I for one welcome the opportunity to arm my models with what I think looks best and not worry about liking swords better for looks but gimping myself severely for not building spears. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 8 minutes ago, Garrac said: So, It wont matter if clanrats have spears or swords, theyll have the same profile? Very likely. Yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 6 minutes ago, Marcvs said: Tbf, you could already do that unless you played into (a subset of) tournaments -WYSIWYG is not really a thing in casual play. What this does is to take away some depth for the players who enjoyed that part without actually giving anything for casual play You see a lot of new players asking about optimal weapons for models and worrying about "would you have a problem if I build x but use y rules?" online, though. Perhaps irrationally, since weapon options very rarely did anything significant or when they did the optimal choice was obvious. Plus, as you said, the WYSIWYG police won't come to your house and confiscate your models, anyway. But it is a thing I have seen casual players struggle with in the wild, nonetheless. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasshpit Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 3 minutes ago, Gitzdee said: Cause it looks great and not because they have to make them a certain way. It is also creative freedom. I do love the creative freedom. 🤘 I just was hoping for more utility options. A the end of the day it's not a make or break thing for me but can't say I'm not a little disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kromek Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 I'm just hoping they keep separate profiles for Warcry. I'm optimistic given they separated cryptguard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitzdee Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, Vasshpit said: I do love the creative freedom. 🤘 I just was hoping for more utility options. A the end of the day it's not a make or break thing for me but can't say I'm not a little disappointed. I think it also works in favour of the 3D printing business. Allowing more kinds of minis to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomkingWortwazi Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Kromek said: I'm just hoping they keep separate profiles for Warcry. I'm optimistic given they separated cryptguard. I don't see it changing for skirmish games personally. Fingers crossed. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 3 minutes ago, Vasshpit said: I do love the creative freedom. 🤘 I just was hoping for more utility options. A the end of the day it's not a make or break thing for me but can't say I'm not a little disappointed. A good example of this, IMO, is CoS. Steelhelms and Cavaliers have a mix of weapons. I think GW wants something like this, that you can have a mix of stuff but don't be tied to having 1 warscroll for each weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitzdee Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, GloomkingWortwazi said: I don't see it changing for skirmish games personally. Fingers crossed. Different weapon types is kind of what Warcry is all about. Hope it doesnt change that much in that game. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, Gitzdee said: Different weapon types is kind of what Warcry is all about. Hope it doesnt change that much in that game. Warcry is still 1 year away from its new edition, right? Maybe how it is accepted in AoS could influence what happens in its new edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth 🍄 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 I think a greater mix of weapons in my Brute units looks cool at least. Happy to stick with hackas for my Gore-Gruntas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcvs Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 3 minutes ago, Gitzdee said: I think it also works in favour of the 3D printing business. Allowing more kinds of minis to be used. Yes in general it's a big plus for using 3d prints/alternative ranges/proxies. Most of my tournament community allows for this as long as you respect WYSIWYG and this is certainly making it easier. I still find it a bit sad and it gives a "wrong kind of simplification" feeling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfyre Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 4 minutes ago, Gitzdee said: Cause it looks great and not because they have to make them a certain way. It is also creative freedom. Yeah, which is great for the modelling perspective and I think not so great from the gaming perspective. It's taken away a player choice and a level of customisation, and a visual aid on the tabletop. Could have had something cooler on the sprue instead of 5 left arms that'll not get used half the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasshpit Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Starfyre said: Could have had something cooler on the sprue instead of 5 left arms that'll not get used half the time. This is a whole other topic unto itself. Plenty of kits have giant rocks, or designed ground, etc that jack up the price or could have definitely been used for other options. The example I'll use is the beast skewer kill bow. A huge chunk of the sprue is a piece of land. This could have definitely been a plethora of other options as not to have exact copies of kits if running multiples. Hell, it could even been a second weapon type like a giant net launcher or something but nope, ground. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragest Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 The player choice was to statcheck every weapon a forget the worse one. I can't see the freedon there. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Taylor Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 2 hours ago, RetconnedLegion said: FOMO-ing an arbitrarily removed range leaves a sour taste. Just to note but most GW stores do this when they have to send stock back either because it’s going to be repackaged, web store only or in this case discontinued. I do see why you can think about it leaving a sour taste but this is something that happens regularly. My local GW would update its Facebook to let people know you have a last chance to get it in store. I’ve found it’s a good way to get some limited edition stuff if you’re after it 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nezzhil Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 40 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said: That's a huge step backwards and a big numbing down at depth and customisation. They can add more different units without the problem of the "is the same unit but with an useless ability" 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScionOfOssia Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, Ragest said: The player choice was to statcheck every weapon a forget the worse one. I can't see the freedon there. Yeah, for OBR there was legitimately no reason to choose Spears over Swords, or the Swords over the Halberd for the Morghast. Spears only saw use with double reinforced Mortek Guard (A rarity) since their base size allowed them to fight in 2 ranks with swords, and because the Deathriders wanted to be run MSU and the reach doesn’t benefit them (Plus they’re already pillowfisted with swords. Spears would be worse.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth 🍄 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 6 minutes ago, Vasshpit said: This is a whole other topic unto itself. Plenty of kits have giant rocks, or designed ground, etc that jack up the price or could have definitely been used for other options. The example I'll use is the beast skewer kill bow. A huge chunk of the sprue is a piece of land. This could have definitely been a plethora of other options as not to have exact copies of kits if running multiples. Hell, it could even been a second weapon type like a giant net launcher or something but nope, ground. Alternative heads would've been nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 50 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said: That's a huge step backwards and a big numbing down at depth and customisation. Yes! I am all in for AoS to have i.e as StD warriors murderous weapon which can be represented with swords, axes, hammers and maces. All perfect. But giving a unit with big shields the same stats as the same unit but than without big shields but two hammers is a huge immersion breaker for me. Absurd choice. I find flavour, immersion more important than balance. This is to simplified for me and I am saying this while I am more a hobbyist than a player. Absurd direction. 5 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetconnedLegion Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Vasshpit said: Elaborate, please. 40K army building rules. You can only have 3 of any datasheet, or 6 if it has the Battleline keyword. Something that has done a lot of harm to narrative focused collection. Want a Catachan Jungle Fighters army? Tough because you can only take six squads, which limits the army size considerably. Edited April 6 by RetconnedLegion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon-knight77 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 10 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said: Alternative heads would've been nice! Looking at nu-Liberator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitzdee Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 9 minutes ago, Tonhel said: Yes! I am all in for AoS to have i.e as StD warriors murderous weapon which can be represented with swords, axes, hammers and maces. All perfect. But giving a unit with big shields the same stats as the same unit but than without big shields but two hammers is a huge immersion breaker for me. Absurd choice. I find flavour, immersion more important than balance. This is to simplified for me and I am saying this while I am more a hobbyist than a player. Absurd direction. U can still choose to build them how u want. Unless u care about how other people build their armies it isnt really a problem. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.