Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. That's a perfectly fine statement. I have no issue with GW pruning units to make the job at hand more mangeable. However because of the way the game is played (differently by different people) even with a more limited pool of options some units will be considered non viable. Tournament players (myself included) will still parse the book the for the best RoI units and synergies and dictate those are the best options. And then the cycle begins again - for every unit to be equally viable list building cannot matter.
  3. Just wondering, in modern day AoS art, what living thing has been shown in the foreground of art that doesn't have a model attached to it? There has been some stuff in the background (iirc, FEC had some big thing in the background) but I can't recall anything in the foreground.
  4. I shouldn't've said TO in my example - I meant that to be an organized narrative event. You know, like the NEON. And I'm not suggesting a list of "thrown together models" when I say Empire spearman. Maybe he brings a Celestial Hurricanum to make them +1 to-hit and add flavor and casting, perhaps he throws in an Empire general to keep them steady and be his narrative leader. But none of those rehabilitate the army. Yet it's clear he included those in an effort to create a "Well-built-list" as best he can. I'm not too concerned with what GW can or cannot do it, but if they cannot ensure every unit is viable because there are so many, then perhaps there are too many units? I'm not trying to remove list-building. I'm simply saying there should be no such thing as a non-viable unit. I do believe there is design space between "every unit is viable to play (if you build your list around using it, for example)" and "listbuilding is now irrelevant". Right, you're basically feeding my argument (ignoring the bit at the beginning, because I'm not sure if historical truths are necessarily mandatory truths in a fantasy game). Yes, Player A is self-limiting. But every list is self-limiting. Having a points limit means you must make choices about what your list looks like, and those choices are by definition limited. The fact that Player B's also-limited choices are better than Player A's choices, despite both of them having had the same amount of time to put their lists together, and shooting for the same amount of synergy (hero buffs battleline WHEE), is a bad thing. Empire spearmen, even when given all the buffs available to them, are not competitively viable, and that's a bad thing. There is never a choice to take that unit ever period, over even swordsmen or Dwarf Warriors or handgunners or whatever. The unit is simply bad, and nothing can be done to make it good. So remove it, or make it good. GW are professional game designers, so the onus shouldn't be on me to redesign the spearmen, lol. The problem is the balance, though, because the balance affects the choices. Taking Empire Spearmen should be a valid choice somewhere. The FEC heroes are valid choices in an FEC army, even if they are invalid in the Nighthaunt army. Empire spearmen? Literally useless. The quintessential example of a unit that is non-viable, and exactly the type of problem that should not be allowed to fester. And yes, I am setting aside the GHB/compendium army difference for now because I'm using it more as an illustrative example rather than actually having it be true. I could've gone back to my Alphabet Unit A and Numbers Unit 5 for my examples, but it's easier to do so in the context we're speaking in. The point is that nonviable (in any context ever) options shouldn't exist. It's okay for something to be nonviable if used suboptimally in-game or taken in an inappropriate list, but it's not okay for a unit which exists that is simply never good ever period.
  5. Can't really disagree on anything here. I think that: 1. Warriors in 10 man units are definitely correct precisely because of the fact that you want screen to be as long as possible. 2. Skullreaper unit size mostly depends on 5 being enough or not and it probably is enough. 10 do seem like overkill for anything that's not a maxed out blob itself, 2x10 definitely is an overkill. Probably makes sense to have 1 big unit and 1 small so you have different tools. SCE often use 10 evocators, but evocators have it way easier because of how their ability does not care about positioning. Skullreapers and crushers suffer greatly in this regard. Are wrathmongers worth it so far? Is aspiring worth it? It feels like in mortal army where nobody rerolls charges for free unlike demons he may be too CP hungry.
  6. So I need a little help guys. I haven't had much time lately to dive into the book all I know is that wrathmonger and skull cannons looked like a cool idea so I went and purchased a second skull cannon on the day of the faq. So basically is there any way for me to have any of the fun that I would have had with the wrathmonger or am I sitting on 2 skull cannons now that are pretty pointless. Cheers guys hope it's good news.
  7. Remember its just art - whilst GW has been "better" at only showing art of models don't forget there are still many that depict things we have not had released as a model. Might mean its a "one day" thing and we might see them in a year or more or just that its artistic licence and we'll never see them.
  8. Really looking forward to it if these are actually new Slaaneshi mortals. Was really worried we'd not get anything for the mortal side. They definitely don't look like any other kit due to their weapons and fancy (though sparse) armour.
  9. History itself proves that long range will almost always be better then close range. There are a few exceptions to the rule, especially when you go to the scarcity of ammo in certain historical eras. Melee has always been the go to after either side runs out of ammo, or in use to get close enough to stop them from using their long range weapons. The catch there is that the army has been self limiting by Player A. If he doesn’t want to use all the tools for story reasons it’s kind of on him. They have slightly more reach so you get more attacks on melee, but freeguild is kind of bad positioning for the game overall because of how widely varied, and kind of bad, the units are. I will say that the problem isn’t entirely the balance it’s the choices, it’s like taking a Nighthaunt Army and having a single Nighthaunt Hero, and allying in FEC courtiers to fill out your hero slots. You can but why are you if they do nothing for your army? Thematic reasons are ok but if you ignore more than half of your army’s units because it doesn’t fit what you want as a themed army... maybe you shouldn’t be using matched play rules if the theme is more important that something that might win a competitive rules part of the game. Though another point out here is that Freeguild is still a GHB/compendium army. They haven’t been touched since the game came out so right now they are in a very bad position as far as armies go. So even more of a handicap to work with there.
  10. Narrative armies aren't for tournaments (in the context of expectations, I think any player should bring whatever they want to a tournament), its as simple as that. If Player A chooses to bring something narrative to a tournament he's made a choice already, he should either be prepared to not perform as well as expected or he should take a more well constructed list. If it was a narrative event instead you as an event organizer would have a great deal more lee-way in how to pair players, how to create better match ups, etc. But the simple fact of the matter is Player A doesn't want to take a well constructed list, he wants to take a fluffy list. He has made a choice and has to deal with the consequences of that choice. You're saying you don't think a list of thrown together models should work but then suggesting a list of thrown together models (i.e. simply models you like without any real thought given to list construction) should be on par with a list that is properly built. Again, given the overall complexity of the game it simply is not possible for GW to make every unit in every book viable. Additionally this isn't even their design ethos (based on what we've heard in podcasts and interviews) where designing armies and units is first based on the 'feel' of that army. List building should be an important part of Age of Sigmar - and list building can be a very important part of a well balanced game. There are well balanced games where list building isn't important (see Kings of War) that I find terribly uninteresting (and I know I'm not alone). The reality of the game is that not every unit is going to be on par with every other unit - you have to consider synergies, are you playing with realm spells, what mission pool do you use, and a myriad of other factors that simply aren't the same for every gaming group or tournament.
  11. It's an old artwork from the campaign books. It's not new.
  12. Im more interested in the fat(ish?) crypt ghoul.
  13. Yeah I can see that happening, lines up perfectly for me if that's the case. Working good friday and monday, I want that extra cash! I can't wait!
  14. Look like slaanesh mortals in the same style as the demon prince!
  15. That one already exists. https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/Lord-of-Slaanesh-on-Daemonic-Mount
  16. the picture that is intriguing me is this one: some chaos knights? a mounted chaos knight on a slaneshy fiend? .... love that!
  17. Ball gags are kid friendly now apparently. As are leather daddies.
  18. Yeah the fighter cards are great, I meant the Ploys/Upgrades that they showed off in the previews. Other than Leech Power they're all pretty bad.
  19. I wager this means we'll see Slaanesh pre-orders next week and a release the first week of May. Which means another pre-release infoburst around that time and yet another two (at least) battletomes. If Warcry is July or so that means 3-4 more tomes before then are possible!
  20. Ha! I am definitely on team there should never be units in armies that aren't ever taken. That is the biggest failure in my book. I'd MUCH rather have unbalanced armies game wide than nearly useless units within a specific army.
  21. That artwork is from the god beast campaign book, it's pretty old but I think it's a given that they will keep him who knows we might get another lord who rides a boob snake.
  22. Looks like a ball-gag to me but AOS IS KIDS FRIENDLY GUYS.
  23. @WarbossKurgan Indeed there are some mortals in that picture(mostnotabley there's a woman behind the guy kneeling at the dead KOS(possible new model?)).
  24. Normally AOS art keeps to the units, guys I think we are looking at our mortal troops. Also this art is amazing.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...