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

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/29/2019 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    So, I am taking my baby steps into the 21st century and uploading photos (or indeed anything) for the first time. Thought this would be the place to start with some Troggoths and a Giant. Will try and have more lighting next time. Going to climb that learning curve!
  2. 3 points
    Hey guys, thought I'd post my very first 500 pts army of AoS ever. Ironjawz. Still need to base them though. I know the setup isn't totally optimal with new point changes but I really like the Shaman onwards to 1000 pts.
  3. 3 points
    Just check the FAQ Q: Does the Celestant-Prime’s Retribution from On High Ability add 2 to the Attacks characteristic of Ghal Maraz for each turn that the Celestant-Prime remains in reserve? A: Yes.
  4. 3 points
    Hey guys, just updated AoS Reminders with the latest GHB2019 rules for Ironjawz!
  5. 3 points
    I think there is also one thing people are forgetting. The game should be fun for both players, and do Legions players really think that it is fun for there opponent?
  6. 2 points
    Hi, following my first posting of 2 photos in the Troggoth discussion and encouraged by the kind likes given (thankyou), I have decided to post some more photos from the same batch. I enjoy looking at other's hobby so why not offer some of my own. I will try for a better set up with more lighting in the future, but this is my first attempt so I hope you bear with me.
  7. 2 points
    Dunno if this is helpful for others, but my awesome GF did a study of contrast over the two primers. I thought I would share. In each set, Wraithbone primer is the left model.
  8. 2 points
    I played prime for over a year in every Battle for that time. I felt he was very tricky to play which was fun. The most use i got out of him was so depending in what opponent ran and mission. For example, Sometimes I'd deploy him on the board turn one and just throw D3 Mortal wounds on an army that had to be lumped together and then counter charge in turn 3. Other times I put him on the board turn 3 with 7 attacks to take out something that needed to go. I also kept him off the board to make my opponent remain cautious of spreading himself too thin on the board, which made it much easier to have board control with an elite army.
  9. 2 points
    Evening all, It's now time to start discussing and looking forward to the 2019 season of the Dorset Masters. Like the regular Masters (hosted on the Bad Dice Rankings), this will be an 18 month season instead of the regular 12. This means the event will take place in around a years time from now. I will be purely tracking the rankings here based on the current season (from 09/12/18 onwards) as this is what we are working towards for the next Masters event. If you want to see your current position based on all results over the last 12 months at any given time. click on the link above and select 'Past Year'. In terms of the people eligible for the Dorset Masters; this is open to anyone living or playing in the Dorset area, as well as any members of the Dorset Doggers club and affiliated individuals who have since moved afield. Obviously I can only include people I am aware of, so if you think you should be added, drop me a DM and I can get you involved. Remember only the top 4 scores during this season will be counted towards this and anyone playing less than 4 events will have that number next to their name in brackets. So....how do you get into the Dorset Masters 2018? There are 8 spots available and they will be allocated as follows; The winner of the 2018 Dorset Masters - Laurie H-W @Lhw The 6 highest placed individuals in the Bad Dice Rankings as of the season close (date tbc) - If these 6 places include either Laurie or the winner of the Dorset AoS Cup (see below), then invites will be past down to the next highest individual(s). This year I will count myself in the running! The 8th spot will be decided later in the year via a knock out cup competition run over club nights - The Dorset AoS Cup. Further details tbc. I think that is all we need to know for now. Please ask below if there are any questions. This year rather than posting updated rankings in subsequent posts and cluttering the thread, I will just keep them listed in this first post and include the date of the last update; Current standings - Updated 28/06/19 12 - Laurie H-W - Best in Race: Blades of Khorne 14 - Michael Wilson - Best in Race: Hosts of Slaanesh 20 - Paul Buckler - Best in Race: Seraphon & Spiderfang Grots 35 - Matt Lyons 39 - Richard Buckler (3) 47 - Andy Talbot 53 - Chris Tomlin - Best in Race: Phoenix Temple ----------------------------------------- 61 - Steven Phillips 71 - William Philpott 91 - Tom Hewitt 116 - Aaron Bailey (3) - Best in Race: Legion of Night 121 - Ricky Mee (2) 125 - Wayne Rendell (3) 145 - Richard Morley 159 - Dominic Hook (3) 220 - Matt Clarke (2) 240 - Jenny Lyons (3) 281 - James Eveleigh 306 - Ben Diesel (2) 328 - Paul Petford (1) 408 - David Fulbrook (3) 468 - Matthew Arnold (1) 500 - Wayne Holt (1) If I have missed you off the list, please give me a poke. I know at the original time of writing the scores don't mean anything, it's more for me to just do the original bit of admin getting the names listed - all a bit of fun anyway! Cheers guys, Chris
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    I run Fulminators and Concussors regularly and I think they are the best versions. Both should be supported with a Lord Castellant and in the case of Fulminators, you NEED a Herlador. They are excellent tanks with the +1 save buff and deal decent damage. However MW tear right though them because they only have 5 wounds a model for 240 points for two. So they aren't invincible.
  12. 2 points
    Model is great, just it doesn't have a place in competitive game. In semi-competitive game, I think you can still bring it with a decent list, its AOE is pretty good from my opnion. So the question come backs to do you really like the celestant-prime model? If so, get it.
  13. 2 points
    Idk about elven skulls but a simple green ghostly paint scheme ought to work? And yeah on the skeletons I have a very Golgari theme to my Sylvaneth as is so I was considering a nice big block of risen vine wrapped skeletons.
  14. 2 points
    Interesting point. I'll ask some folks and get back to you.
  15. 2 points
    I think you mean that its gonna sour people who bought 90 Grimghasts.
  16. 2 points
    You're likely someone who'll get more out of the game's Narrative play style! Think of it this way: Matched Play is MMA. Narrative is Pro Wrestling. MMA is two people doing similarly structured, hyper optimised things with a focus on extreme efficiency and making life as not nice for the other person as humanly possible. Pro Wrestling is two dudes putting on a show. It is a social contract to get in a fake fight with someone you've maybe only just met, and to make it as entertaining as you possibly can. Does this mean Narrative play is fake? Heck yeah it does, Narrative Play is putting on a show, telling a story, just for the two of you, and for a show to truly become a Spectacle, it usually has to be worked. Being good at this kind of game is a skill unto itself. It entails pulling each other's punches, giving the other guy breathing room so you don't pull the AoS equivalent of stiffing him in the nose and having him bleed all over everything for the rest of the match. It involves an inherent degree of trust in your 'opponent' to do the same thing. It might also involve not being too obvious about doing these things lest you start making your opponent feel bad because it's obvious you're going easy! It's certainly not for everyone: most competitive minded people simply cannot comprehend the narrative approach when you try and sell it to em. But there's a pretty damn big subsection of the playerbase that can enjoy it, I suggest you go find em.
  17. 1 point
    Hello everybody, Big day for me today because I have decided to post my starting army on this forum after looking all of yours for long time. I hope you will like my work, I saw fantastic miniatures on this forum and I hope mine will be at the level. Please forgive my english, it's not my native language My army took place in the city of Azhya, Realm of Ghyran, the idea was to make some stormcasts mutated by the magic winds of the realm of life after their numerous resurrections, I'm still WIP on some miniatures and this is just the start. Here they are : And a group picture with bases remaded for my branchwych and my champion : Hope you will like them !! Bye for now ! I will be bacq
  18. 1 point
    As many of you are no doubt aware, Games Workshop has been taking player feedback increasingly seriously over the past few years. This seriousness was particularly evident last Autumn when GW began soliciting general feedback from the community on point values and balance in Age of Sigmar. In addition to this general effort, the design team contacted a group of people around the world in order to provide focused feedback that would then be used along with the general community feedback to help guide the team's decisions for GHB2019. I enthusiastically accepted the opportunity. Now that the GHB2019 points changes are generally public, I'd like to take some time to reflect on the experience. This is going to be a bit of a long post, so here is a summary of what I'll cover: My methods of analysis A summary of my recommendations My thoughts on the changes that were actually implemented ___________________ PART 1: Methods For those of you that are not already familiar with my contributions on this forum, I'm something of a numbers guy. While I certainly don't love math, I have found that a basic understanding of the mathematics underlying strategy games like AoS is absolutely fundamental to any kind of cogent analysis. I've done a lot of work trying to understand the nuts and bolts of Age of Sigmar, and I saw this area of expertise as my major opportunity to contribute to the GHB2019 project. There were plenty of seasoned gamers also providing feedback, and I felt confident that they would be able to provide plenty of gameplay-based nuance that I could support with my basic math. With this in mind, I set a very ambitious goal for myself: nothing short of a complete mathematical analysis of every warscroll in Age of Sigmar. I ended up having to pare back a bit on this, but I was proud to compile spreadsheets covering every faction with a "modern" battletome up to that point (so every faction from the first Sylvaneth tome up to that point) as well as every faction that showed up as either significantly over- or under-performing in the Honest Wargamer's faction ranking table. I provided a feedback document to the team with an analysis of each of these factions based on the fundamental math (focused on defensive and offensive efficiency ratings) and a concrete list of recommended points adjustments for each warscroll in these factions. PART 2: Recommendations In general, I recommended relatively conservative nerfs to over-performing warscrolls/factions and relatively aggressive buffs to under-performing warscrolls/factions. My rationale behind this was simple: the overall competitive metagame is actually reasonably healthy with quite a few armies performing well. At the time, DoK did stand out as a big outlier but even with it's gaudy win percentage it wasn't prevalent enough to create a truly toxic dynamic. People generally do not like it when their army gets nerfed, but in some cases nerfs are necessary both for external and internal balance. That said, I strongly believe that these nerfs should likely be modest as I do not think the gap between the top performers and the next tier is all that large, and furthermore the likelihood of the metagame diversifying as new tomes release is significant. In fact, that is exactly what we have seen happen. While DoK was the bogeyman at the time, we have since seen Skaven and FEC rise to the top of the heap. Furthermore, people generally like buffs. For that reason, I took a more buff-focused approach to my recommendations and suggested some pretty dramatic points changes, particularly for factions like Ironjawz, KO, and others with really dismal performance. I'm not going to go into exhaustive detail about exactly what suggestions I made, but suffice to say that when I learned about the team's decisions I found that they generally agreed with most of my nerf suggestions (although there were a couple of things that surprised me a little), but generally implemented much more conservative buffs than what I suggested. PART 3: Reactions At first, I was slightly disappointed by the list of changes. I thought there were a few misses on things that needed a small nerf, but more importantly that the points reductions to struggling factions wouldn't be nearly enough to make them competitive. In general, I stand by these beliefs and I think that the community largely agrees based on the reactions I have been seeing. That said, I have since come around to believe that the changes that were implemented were largely correct given the accelerated pace of new releases and general developments in the game over the past six months or so. I know that sounds like a bit of a contradiction -- that I stand by the belief that a lot of warscrolls were under-buffed, but that I think this decision was likely correct. Hopefully I can explain my reasoning, as I think that it's something that is very important for the community to consider when reacting to the GHB2019. When I was working on my spreadsheets, I spent a lot of time looking at warscrolls. It became immediately apparent to me that there is a pretty wide gulf between old warscrolls from the early stages of AOS and ones that have been updated or written more recently. Not only do more recent warscrolls tend to do more, they also seem to have different baseline expectations about what level of efficiency is expected. I did a lot of number crunching as far back as the original GHB, and while defensive efficiencies have largely stayed similar to what they were back then the same cannot be said for offense. Competitive levels of offensive efficiency are basically 1.5-2 times as high now as they were in 2016. I use a system that I call WDR to compare offensive efficiency regardless of the rend level of the damage that a warscroll does. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of it, a WDR value of .1 was really good in 2016. Only the absolute cream of the crop reached that level. A WDR of .07-.09 was enough to make a warscroll quite efficient on offense, whereas the more "defense only" warscrolls were typically in the .03-.05 range. Nowadays, most battletomes have units that are well above .1 WDR at baseline, and it's not uncommon to see WDRs of .15 to .2 in easily achievable situations. It's not uncommon for relatively defensively efficient warscrolls to have baseline WDRs in that .07-.09 range now. While these offensive changes have stayed relatively consistent for a while now, the last year or so has seen an incredible amount of design space open up. AOS 2.0 battletomes just have so much going on in them compared to even "modern" battletomes like the old Sylvaneth tome, Bonesplitterz and BCR. With new magic options opened up through endless spells, an expanding repertoire of out-of-sequence actions, and an increase in rules and abilities that interact with the table in some way (including both faction scenery and the Gloomspite bad moon mechanic), new battletomes just have an order of magnitude more depth than most of the old ones (not to mention factions that don't have battletomes at all!). It's rapidly becoming apparent that trying to balance old factions through points adjustments alone is just not a viable approach. I suggested some pretty aggressive points changes, and as I was making those suggestions I thought to myself that GW will likely not implement these changes because they simply don't make sense on a basic level even though the underlying math is sound. Even in the second half of 2018 it was apparent to me that some warscrolls were beyond fixing with points adjustments simply because any adjustments to make them competitive on offense would require making them absurdly cheap. Remember, when you change the points value on a warscroll you affect both the defensive and offensive efficiency at the same time. Suffice to say, finding the sweet spot that would allow these warscrolls to be competitive in the environment of late 2018 would be incredibly difficult, and in many cases it would require pointing warscrolls at a level that does not at all make sense for what that warscroll is supposed to represent. You'd see a clear difference where recent models would be pointed at a certain level, and then old models would look like they were pointed on a completely different scale. From a mathematical perspective this makes some sense in that these older warscrolls were designed on something of a different scale. But from the perspective of the game world, it really doesn't make sense. This problem would only be further exacerbated in 2019 where more of the power of top tier armies is coming from their battletome rules rather than the warscrolls themselves. Fortunately, Games Workshop has shown a remarkable dedication to updating old factions as quickly as possible. Some of these tomes are effectively expansions (such as Gloomspite) while others are simply updates (FEC, Skaven). Both strategies have clearly demonstrated viability for bringing an older army back into relevance. If GW keeps up with its current pace, every struggling faction could be updated within a year or two at most. So why not give these factions some aggressive buffs to get them back in the game while they wait for a tome? To me, that was the key question. There is a clear answer though: whiplash. Let's say GW is planning on updating an army within the next year. In order to make that army relevant in 2019, the points on many warscrolls might need to be cut by 25-50%. People will be stoked to play that faction. Now everything is way cheaper and actually decent! Of course, you'll need to buy a lot more models to fill out your army list now. Skip ahead a year, and now the battletome is dropping along with updated warscrolls and a suite of powerful new abilities. Suddenly the whole army needs to be dramatically re-pointed again, only this time the point values are going to be going way, way up. Suddenly all of those models that you just bought can't be put on the table at the same time anymore. Yes, you have access to a lot of new abilities but now your 2k army is a 3k army and you need to make drastic cuts. If that happened, players would be LIVID. And justifiably so. People love to complain about power creep and suggest that GW is intentionally making new things overpowered in order to sell more kits. "Of course they don't buff old things! They want the new things to be great so people will buy them!" It's certainly possible that there is some truth to this, but people forget that GW can just as easily push sales by buffing old kits as they can by making new ones. Every time an update tome comes out, GW has difficulty keeping popular older kits in stock. Clearly buffs drive sales of old kits just as much as they do new ones -- and old kits don't have the same added development costs that new ones do. If GW was just pushing profit, wouldn't they be more incentivized to make existing kits OP to move their already extant inventory without incurring new costs? That's pretty much exactly what would happen if GW made aggressive point changes to old warscrolls in the months preceding a battletome update. They'd sell a bunch of models, but players would rightly be furious at what would amount to a pump-and-dump strategy. So in retrospect, I think GW had two possible strategies for making the old armies viable in the game. They could create a two tiered pointing system with new armies having lots of bells and whistles but a much higher points cost per model and old armies having great efficiency but few interesting abilities, or they could commit to updating the old armies as quickly as possible with new rulesets that would bring them up to speed. I very firmly believe that the second option is a lot more work for GW, but it's a lot better for the game. I am glad that this is the strategy they seem to have chosen, even though it does mean that old factions need to wait a bit longer than the GHB2019 to get up to speed. Hopefully that explains why I ultimately agree with the choices GW made in the GHB2019 point values despite the fact that I still think that the buff recommendations that I initially made are still "correct"! The other major concern that I see a lot is that these yearly points updates are not enough. I do agree with this criticism, which is why I was very pleased to see that GW will be issuing a supplementary points update in July to cover more recent battletomes. I think this sets a very good precedent for the future. Hopefully we will see these supplementary updates once or twice a year in addition to the GHB. Overall, my participation in this process has left me with quite a bit of confidence that GW in on the right track. EDIT: I just want to add a note as I think some people might be getting a slightly incorrect idea: I am not an employee of GW or a member of the development/design team. I was selected to provide focused feedback, and I can only speak to my own thoughts and experiences. What I post does not necessarily reflect the views of the development/design team or GW as a whole. SECOND EDIT: I would really appreciate it if people refrained from using this thread to discuss why this or that unit is pointed incorrectly or why the GHB is terrible etc. etc. There is already a thread for GHB2019 thoughts and feedback. If you'd like to respond to my arguments specifically I'm absolutely happy for that, even if you disagree with me.
  19. 1 point
    Thank you everybody for the likes for the photos, I'm glad you enjoyed them. It has encouraged me to post some more in the painting section ( I didn't want to clog up this thread ). I like looking at other's hobby and gaining inspiration from it, and felt it was time I made a contribution.
  20. 1 point
    Great! Thank you for all the advice and tips @Gwendar they made a lot of sense!
  21. 1 point
    Yeah, this is the price range. And most of the time. If you pay at least 180€ you will get one mini for free (this was at least the case in Germany during the last two years)
  22. 1 point
    By GW email: Join us at Warhammer World on the 20th of July! We've got a full day planned, with lots of things to see and do. It will also be the first chance you'll have to try out (and purchase!) Warcry, the fast-paced, skirmish-level game pitting bands of Chaos-worshipping warriors against each other. If they can buy it, I guess everyone will be able to buy in their own shop, or maybe is the first week of two preorders weeks.. So it depends if the preorder will be one or two weeks. If next week are chaos knights (40k) I hope that the 13th (as late) start previews on warhammer community.
  23. 1 point
    Depends on what you want but a 3rd SC box should be a nice starting point. A warghulf also. More ghouls. (1 box). If so, you have 3 TG/ZD, 2*3 knights+ at least one of each courtier and 50 ghouls. Kitbash an archregent with bits. of the unused knight. From there, you can see if you orient your army on Knights /ghouls (horde)/or biggies.
  24. 1 point
    Forget Monstrum Arcanum completly. That doesnt matter. The book where something is published in doesnt matter AT ALL. Only keywords matter. Everything with keyword KHORNE can be part of a Khorne army/allegiance. A Chaos Warrior with the Mark of Khorne, Skarbrand and the FW Blood Thirster are all equaly part of a Khorne force. Same goes for every other Keyword like SKAVENTIDE or GLOOMSPITE GITS. You can find that in every Battletome at the start of the allegiance part where they define what keywords determine your allegiance.
  25. 1 point
    Occasionally, a friend and I play a game where we write each other's lists going for the worst unit options based on models available. It's amazing how quickly you run out of poor units and are forced to give your opponent better and better ones. Have some parameters like, say, a minimum of 2 heroes or maximum of 2 of each warscroll for example and you're good to go. It can make for very interesting and challenging games - Ah, the Day my General was an Orruk Bully .
  26. 1 point
    Interesting. Could you please share with us the list u were using?
  27. 1 point
    Come on I want more warcry! With 3 weeksish until we can play the first games, when do you think we'll get more info? I'm guessing warcry is going to be available for preorder on Saturday 20th. So we will get more info on gameplay in the week starting Monday 15th. But what's gonna happen between now and then? We've got Apocalypse all done right this week? Nothing more to come for that?
  28. 1 point
    Patience is a rather bitter pill to swallow though. So you've got a non-tome army against tome armies. Do you a) keep playing and get stomped regularly b) find other players with non-tome armies (difficult as we're all sick of getting stomped) c) make mix-matched grand alliance armies that have no soul (no) or d) give it up (my free people have been shelved for 6 months collecting dust)? I tried the whole humies + sigmarines combo but it's not fun to play at all. I too wait for a free peoples book, i always wanted tanks and artillery as a teenager but all my mates played 40k so i did too. When i could finally afford it as an adult with a group of friends, i jumped in and bought models for free people not knowing that they were barely supported until i'd made a reasonable investment. A lack of research on my part but i did expect a game that had been re-launched to be somewhat balanced. Making artillery and magic allies is just nonsense and serves absolutely no purpose as both the collegiate arcane and ironwood arsenal can't properly function as stand alone factions. I've never seen a proper reasoning for this decision other than the typical "GW is always right suck it up" you get on this forum. I have moved on from free people to a new army but my investment in the game has been significantly reduced to the point where i only buy recasts/second hand from buy-swap/sell groups until the playing field is levelled. I get you'll never make everyone happy and staggering releases builds hype but when you're at the bottom of the update list it's very frustrating when you've made a significant investment. The OP also makes good points about cheapening point costs for non-tome armies. If you do that and then update people will be annoyed with excess models. In the interim though, uncompetitive armies doesn't help anyone.
  29. 1 point
    The mauseloum is ”treat as a gravesite for the Unquiet dead battletrait” per it's warscroll. The ability to resurrect a unit is the ”Endless legion" abilty a completely separate ability from the Unquiet dead battletrait @Mirage8112 not what @Ryan Taylor said I didn't mean garrisoning was related to summoning, garrisoning is just super useful and an extremely double edged sword for the player that sets up a Garrison before sides
  30. 1 point
    The car example is totally unrelated to how ‘power budgets’ in games are developed, because people aren’t buying the cars and then going home, they are buying the cars (units) in a combination that either increases or decreases their chance to win versus their opponent with the same budget but worse choices. It’s easiest to compare it to character classes in a video game with a competitive scene like League of Legends or World of Warcraft. Let’s say there are 10 playable in a made-up fighting game, and one is called a Rogue. Let’s say the Rogue has one of the highest win-rates in the game. Rogue players win 60% of their games while most characters hover around 50%. However, everyone else has a 2 second stun attack, and he has a 0.5 second stun attack. When you compare the Rogue’s stun to everyone else’s, you might say how come all of the other 9 characters have a proper 2 second stun attack, but the Rogue can only stun for 0.5 seconds? The Rogue has a worse stun than everyone else, therefore let’s increase his stun to 1.5 seconds. If your objective is better game balance – do you think increasing the stun duration of the rogue to 1.5 seconds is the right move or not? Will it help bring the Rogue’s win rate in line with the mean, or not? Clearly it won’t. When people are designing any kind of game like this, Characters or armies in AoS case have a power budget. The Rogue’s stun is worse than the other Characters’, but he also does way more damage, or whatever other tools you want to pick. Secondly, I’m sorry but you are totally wrong about list diversity. Skaven have the most diverse ‘top lists’ out of any of the most competitive armies. Yes there are auto includes (WLV), but come on. Gristlegore lists are almost exactly the same (corpse cart/no corpse cart), DoK lists again are almost exactly the same (Hag’Narr, sometimes snakes), top Nagash lists varied a few characters and spells and that’s about it. All top Idoneth lists have at least 18 eels. Skaven have multiple Verminlord lists, shooting lists, plague monk lists and I suspect a few more hidden up our sleeves. We’ve seen triple Bell lists, Jezzails/Acolytes and even a few Doomwheels/HPAs that have won major tournaments. In an ideal world should this diversity also encompass Verminus and Eshin? Of course! There’s nothing I’d love more, personally speaking, than to play Gutter Runners and Night Runners and have a chance of going 5-0. Stormvermin are my all-time favourite models and a big part of what got me into the hobby, let’s get those guys involved! As I stated earlier, I’d love to see them come down as the rest of our points go up. I simply don’t think you can do like for like comparisons in a game like this, because the game is army vs army not unit vs unit. I just suspect that GW will be conservative about giving us buffs until they’ve seen the effects of the nerfs – but I would love to be wrong ❤️
  31. 1 point
    Something like this? Allegiance: Kharadron OverlordsSkyport: Barak-Thryng- Additional Footnote: There's No Trading With Some PeopleLeadersAether-Khemist (140)- General- Trait: Fleetmaster - Artefact: Aethershock Earbuster Battleline10 x Arkanaut Company (120)- 3x Light Skyhooks10 x Arkanaut Company (120)- 3x Light Skyhooks10 x Arkanaut Company (120)- 3x Light SkyhooksUnits5 x Grundstok Thunderers (90)- 5x Aethershot Rifles3 x Skywardens (100)War MachinesArkanaut Ironclad (380)- Main Gun: Aethermatic Volley Cannon- Great Endrinworks: The Last WordArkanaut Frigate (200)- Main Gun: Heavy Sky Cannon- Great Endrinworks: Malefic SkyminesArkanaut Frigate (200)- Main Gun: Heavy Sky CannonGrundstok Gunhauler (130)- Main Gun: Sky CannonGrundstok Gunhauler (130)- Main Gun: Sky CannonGrundstok Gunhauler (130)- Main Gun: Sky CannonBattalionsGrundstok Escort Wing (130)Total: 1990 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 122 On the paper it has over 9000 sex appeal. On the table, who knows.
  32. 1 point
    30 namartii or 6-8 eels > Leviadon/Eidolons they deal more damage, can tank longer and are more/ equally fast with more bodies to take objectives. 🤷🏼‍♂️ It really feels (to me at least) like you seal your fate by taking one of them IF you do not go eel-heavy
  33. 1 point
    even though the amulet is quite awesome i would argue that in this precise situation, the artifact ghyrstrike could be almost as good. I would not take Neferata since she is still pretty overcosted and squishy. A coven throne would be a nice buffing piece, expecially if you take (and i suggest you do) a squad of 10 blood knights
  34. 1 point
    Id be inclined to run 30 if you run any at all, probably with cogs and careful gravesite use to try and get some surprise charges in, but they still compare poorly to any other elite infantry in the game at the same points cost, and skeletons are still a lot cheaper for pretty much everything grave guard are minus the rend. Grimghasts even at 2 points more per model still look better with reach and fly 8 and ethereal 4+, and grimgjasts don't even look very good to begin with right now. I'll still run them myself. Partially because I love the models, and because I'm not convinced that the legions even have a top tier competitive list under ghb19. Maybe not even a mid tier one. If I'm going to lose anyway, I might as well lose with what I like. Though by that logic maybe it's time to pull out the chariots and run some tomb kings...
  35. 1 point
    I don't agree about Grimghast. They are still better than Grave Guard because of the 4++ save and movility (8 Vs 4). Greetings
  36. 1 point
    Pretty much a dead faction now imho (lol puns). Top tier players crushing new/casual players at warhammer world or elsewhere will always throw up skewed results, but if you want to go to an event and be able to beat anybody in your way, LoN are not “it” anymore. They just have nothing going for them in the current metagame. Nagash changes were bad, but bearable - just play something else. Grimghast points change was ham fisted and shows a lack of understanding of why they were good. 10 points - maybe. 20 is a joke. Arkhan, Dire Wolf and Necromancer points changes were highly unnecessary. CP buying changes hit us very hard especially since the Nagash/Arkhan/Necro changes also hit our only playable battalions. I dont see a real competitive list out of LoN anymore. Grave Guard change is a joke (still the same points as hearthguard berserkers? Ok), Blood Knight change is still not enough especially considering their lack of supporting models. We’re tier 2, maybe. Probably more like tier 3 now.
  37. 1 point
    Hello all ! Today I would like to show you a conversion I have achieved. It is an avatar of the hunt homemade : "The Courtisans of Azhya would usually denigrate the "forest people", considered primitive and inferior : hermit stormcasts, revenants, spirits and other dryads, though the City never hesitated to call it to swell the ranks of stormbushes when needed. However, it was a spirit that had been able to impose itself and to be admitted to the heart of this whimsical and proud Court, its best asset, it is true, having been the fear it inspired. Kurnarhous had a shady and willingly warlike character and declared himself a representative of the so-called "forest people" and no one had dared to question the title for fear of his wrath. Strangely similar to the Kurnoth Hunters, his humanoid body, however, harbored the wildest rumors about his origins, willingly linking it to a resurrection Orion, a true deity who crisscrossed the forest of Athel Loren in the old world. His pride, like his peers, also led him to wrap himself in draperies designed in the finest Elven fabrics, jewelry forged in the most precious metals, while his perfectly shining armor shone constantly as if to dazzle soul that would lay eyes on him. Kurnarhous is particularly quick to go to battle with his enchanted weapon, which he handles with unsuspected dexterity at the sight of his physical build. He remains today still one of the most assiduous defenders of Azhya and allows the City to be able to raise significant osts of spirits and other creatures of the undergrowth to guarantee its relative tranquility." Based on Syll Esske, I made kitbashing with some Kurnoth parts. Please telle me what do you think about it Cheers !
  38. 1 point
    Heres the difference. I dont know if you play Magic the Gathering at all, but i have. A lot. I am completely fine with armies and units having powerful new rules that change the meta game. We get cards like that all the time. However, we have bans in magic, for cards that allow for no interaction against them and end up being too efficient and broken. In a recent set, KLD, energy was a resource mechanic that didnt drain and no one could interact with. It ended up breaking the meta for being too efficient and had cards banned to compensate and make the comp better since its all that saw play. Allowing for powerful rules within the parameters of the game is one thing and completely fine. ,Having powerful rules that most armies therefore players cannot interact with or negate with anything is bad design. Hearthguard are strong, but very hero dependant for their 4+ FNP toughness. Interaction is possible for melee, magic and shooting armies. Incredibly powerful but fine. "fight first" - negates the importance of the movement phase. Outside of maybe LoN magic and SCE shooting, most armies cannot interact with it in anyway considering the powerful combat profile of FEC. Making it bad design.
  39. 1 point
    I would not recommend going and buying that list if you don't have the models thou. No way it will be around in the next tome which I hear will be between now and next spring. In the mean time if you want to play BS competitively start with this core and fill out the rest with whatever models you like. Allegiance: BonesplitterzMortal Realm: HyshLeadersSavage Big Boss (120)Maniak Weirdnob (120)- Artefact: Aetherquartz Brooch - Lore of the Savage Waaagh: Hand of Gork or MorkManiak Weirdnob (120)- Lore of the Savage Waaagh: Brutal Beast SpiritsBattleline30 x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (420)10 x Savage Orruks (120)- StikkasBattalionsKunnin' Rukk (200)Total: 1100 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 98
  40. 1 point
    A little off topic, but long ago a shipment of lego was washed overboard, and to this day bricks still wash ashore on certain cornish beaches. The best thing is that the lego bricks in question were largely from the Aquaraiders theme, so what you find on the beach are frequently lego octopuses! so if endless spells start washing up somewhere we'll have evidence for this hypothesis! I'm still kind of hoping it was very confused pirates, but a customs issue seems much more likely....
  41. 1 point
    As a counterpoint to the many comments telling people to wait and be patient for an update. Let's not forget what waiting and being patient has done for Destruction players so far. Moonclan, Gutbusters, Greenskinz and Gitmob all frozen out of GH Allegiance Abilities for year after year after year. The whole point of GH Allegiance Abilities was to act as a band aid for armies until they got a book - GW put in place a fantastic system to patch up armies in the interim, and then failed to use it for (and only for) the one GA that needed support the most and which was also getting the fewest book releases. Being patient has worked for Moonclan. It may yet pay off for Gutbusters, although that still doesn't really explain why they have had to labour without any rules for an extra 2+ years and counting. It doesn't look like paying off for Greenskinz players and it emphatically has not paid off at all for Gitmob players or Mixed Destruction players, who have a tiny and dwindling range of Battleline options. Some of us are now looking quite nervously at our beautiful and expensive Forgeworld monsters, whose only purpose in Matched Play is being part of a GA army for example. So no, based on my experience, I don't think it's fair to extol patience. If you don't get good rules today, don't just sit their waiting patiently for years on end, otherwise GW may end up just deleting your army entirely as a reward for your patience. You might get lucky and you might not. Advice to just sit tight and be patient isn't always terribly fair or helpful in that context.
  42. 1 point
    Just realised I never got round to posting these when I took them back in April, sadly it’s been a busy two months of no Hobby related stufff. That going to have to change this Month. I’m also very tempted by the contrasts as the way forward with the army. Update on the Troll Ettin . Raaknar Throggson, an Ogor Huntress, and more on the Chaos Firebelly (Cindergut). And one of the Chas Ogor Brutes, with victim.
  43. 1 point
    That's so true. I may have my moments of bitterness over this or that from GW, but that's the exception rather than the rule for me. Over the span you mention, however, I've watched folks who claimed to be GW fans - and many haters - await the next GW-killer with glee. In the end, they are always disappointed, which makes me happy. When I worked at my local game store back in NY (decades ago ... hmm), some customers and staff would claim that the next one was The One. I would always reply with something like "Oh, you mean like the last one? Who plays that one, now? Hey, did you see the slate of new releases coming from GW this month?" Warmed my blackened evil heart, it did. Still does.
  44. 1 point
    This is an error on my part. I'll get this resolved as quickly as possible.
  45. 1 point
    Depends on your definition of a nerf. if your definition of a nerf is many of our units getting cheaper, battalions getting cheaper, mega battalions getting cheaper and stronger, additional very useful command abilities and a new and extremely useful spell lore a nerf... then I suppose it’s a nerf...
  46. 1 point
    @Doom & Darkness thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it! I have no idea how many people write rules for Age of Sigmar, but I have a feeling that they could use more (GW, you have my email address XD). I appreciate your perspective, but I think we fundamentally disagree on a pretty basic point. I think that overall the rules writing has been improving dramatically over time. Overall, my impression of the old warscrolls is that very few of them are interesting. There are so many abilities that are incredibly low impact and effectively just wasted space. As a Gutbusters player I'd imagine you'd feel this quite keenly -- so many of those warscrolls have abilities that are super narrow and don't really do anything. Down to the Ironguts is a fantastic example. It's a once per battle ability that can only be triggered if you've had an Ogor flee from your army... and all it does is give you rr1s. I mean, rr1s to hit and wound and save are nice and all but that ability by itself is in no way shape or form adequate to make the Ironguts an interesting unit at all. I love that GW is being brave with their rules writing. I disagree that there are loads of abilities that are unique or extreme enough that pointing them is "seemingly impossible." Right now abilities that break combat sequencing are taking a very strong place in the meta but even the much maligned FEC are only winning like 65% of their games. Skaven is only winning 58.4%. A 65% game win rate is too high, clearly, but it's not like this army is impossible to beat. Bumping up the points on a few key things could easily bring it down to a reasonable level. I'd argue that FEC would barely be a problem if there was a bit more shooting in the meta. If GW wants to maintain the longevity of the game, then they really do need to be brave like this in their rules writing. They need to open up new design space and innovate even if it means that there are some mistakes along the way. The problem right now, in my view, is that there are still these old armies out there that just aren't on that level at all -- and the way to address that is to update them, not to reign things in and keep pumping out boring warscrolls that ask you to jump through some hoops so that they can reroll 1's. Again, I think your frustration as a Gutbusters player is absolutely justified. But I think the way Gutbusters are designed is the mistake far more than any of the new tomes. That line from warhammer-community was a slap in the face though, I'll give you that. When I read that "Gutbusters are just as deadly as they have always been!" my immediate thought was, "Wow, that is going to make some people really mad." Clearly whomever was writing that was taking a marketing perspective, but I think it would have been much better to be honest and say that balance changes were focused on modern factions and the few overpowered old faction builds that still remain, and that the relatively untouched factions will get more attention when they get updated. Also, please do be careful about assuming that the subset of people that interact with your videos is representative of the "majority of the people in the community." The people who take the time to watch an AOS rant on youtube and then comment on it are a very specific subset of the overall playerbase. I don't know your work well enough to know who your viewers are, but I do know that there are still a lot of very vocal people out there who still aren't over the End Times and absolutely hate AOS. There's also a smaller but still vocal community of people who loved early AOS and hate anything with even a whiff of competitiveness to it and won't forgive GW for even introducing Matched Play at all. Neither of these groups is representative of the community as a whole. If anything, the market seems to be suggesting that GW is moving in a popular direction. GW as a company is doing extremely well of late, and AOS is a part of that. I can't ever remember a time when I had to worry about limited releases selling out on the first day of preorders, which is now a regular thing (and it sucks, I hope GW corrects it -- but still, it does show that the demand is there). GW has had difficulty keeping many kits in stock. GW has provided us with a bunch of different ways to enjoy Age of Sigmar. I know that the matched play content is getting like 90% of the focus online, but there is a ton of great content there for Open and Narrative play. One of the things that frustrates me about the community is the number of people who are dissatisfied with matched play and yet refuse to consider playing the game any other way. There is simply no substitute for talking to your opponents and finding people who want to enjoy the game the way you do.
  47. 1 point
    I think there are two issues at play with this kind of unit. One is an easy fix (at least in theory), while the other is not so easy. Dual melee/shooting units are generally in a difficult place right now, but I think that is mostly due to shooting in general being in a difficult place. Shooting units tend to be expensive, so it stands to reason that the shooting part of these dual purpose warscrolls is expensive. If shooting in general were more aggressively costed, then these warscrolls would likely look better. Shooting definitely has place waiting for it in the meta, but usually you need to hit a critical mass for it to work. You either need enough shooting to clear screens or pick off support units, or you need enough shooting to deal most of your damage that way. These hybrid units aren't going to hit either threshold by themselves very easily. That said, they can help push other units over the top while still providing useful abilities in other parts of the game. If that's viable, then these kinds of units can be viable if they are pointed at the right level. The other problem goes way beyond these kinds of units, affecting basically any small combat unit that isn't chaff. So things like combat heroes on foot, smaller monsters, etc. The problem is activation+drop economy. If you have ever played a game like Magic: The Gathering, you are probably familiar with this basic idea. In Magic, the idea of card economy is fundamental to the game, but players didn't really "discover" this for quite a while after the game began. Without getting into too much detail, cards have to have at least a certain amount of impact in order to be worth playing unless they somehow replace themselves. For example, a card that says "deal one damage to target player" is almost never going to be playable, but "deal one damage to target player, draw a card" actually has a chance. The same thing is true in Age of Sigmar, albeit for slightly different reasons. In Magic, cards are a limited resource. In AoS, drops/activations are not a limited resource, but each one that you add carries a significant penalty. Choosing the first turn order is very important, so every drop you add to your list better do something worthwhile. This is why certain battalions can be great even if their actual abilities are terrible. In melee combat, the IGOUGO system means that it's almost always better to have your power concentrated in fewer activations. I'll illustrate this with a simple example. Imagine two sides each with 10 "power" worth of combatants. When a unit attacks, it reduces the target's power by an amount equal to its power. One side has a single unit of 10 power. The other side has three units of 3 power and one unit of 1 power. The latter side goes first. It picks one of its 3's to fight, reducing the 10 to a 7. The 7 then fights and kills the other two 3's and the 1. That ends the combat. Now one side has 7 left and the other has only 3 remaining, despite the fact that the 7 went second. This is a simplification of AoS combat, but it's not all that far off from the way things work. So a unit like a medium sized non-hero monster or a combat hero on foot can be perfectly competitively costed but still not be worth taking simply because its only ever going to be a 3. This is doubly true with a big part of the game being command abilities and other targeted buffs. You want to use your force multiplier on the biggest force you can exert. Using it on a small thing is just inefficient. This problem is definitely solvable but will require some rules changes. Just like in Magic "deal one damage to target player" can be fixed by adding "draw a card" (a gross oversimplification, I know), these cheap combat units can be fixed in AoS by adding something like this: SUPPORT: Certain units excel at fighting alongside other units in close combat. Whenever you select a unit with this ability to fight in the combat phase, after you resolve all of its attacks you may immediately pick another unit that doesn't have this ability from your army within 3" and activate that unit as well. The chosen unit cannot be activated again in the combat phase unless an ability allows you to. Furthermore, during deployment whenever you set up a unit with this ability that is not part of a battalion, you may immediately set up one unit from your army that does not have this ability within 1" of this unit. I'm sure the templating is off, but you get the idea. Basically, you can activate the unit for free in the combat phase and drop it for free in the deployment phase. Adding this ability would instantly make a bunch of warscrolls viable that aren't currently very useful. I don't really have enough time to go into full detail, but I largely compared expected damage dealt and expected damage that the unit can take. I calculated this for every permutation of abilities and equipment on a given warscroll. Other abilities, speed etc. were obviously factored in, but separately from the offense and defense efficiency. I can't speak to the Skaven or Gloomspite tomes because I didn't work on them at all -- I only provided feedback for the GHB2019. An example of something that could be reduced in half in order to make it efficient enough to use is the Ironblaster or Scraplauncher. They currently cost 120 points each and have a ranged WDR of .02-.03 and .006-.0194 respectively, a melee WDR of .025-.0289 and .0139-.0176 respectively, and a defensive efficiency of .15. So halving the points cost would raise the ranged WDR to .04-.06 and .012-.0388 respectively, melee WDR to .05-.0578 and .0278-.0352 respectively and defensive efficiency to .3. Defensive efficiency of .3 is really good. It's about as good as things get for unbuffed units. Ranged WDR of .04-.06 would be good enough to see play at least in theory, although .012-.0388 would not. The melee WDRs are still both bad, but these are primarily ranged units, and their score would be fine in that context. So the Ironblaster is an example of a warscroll that could be made efficient enough by halving the cost (albeit it still might not be worth a "drop"), whereas the Scraplauncher is an example of a warscroll where improving it enough to make it offensively viable would also make it too good defensively -- it would likely need to be somewhere around 40 points to work offensively. Now do 40-60 points make "sense" for these warscrolls? Absolutely not. Its a single model kit of a big beast pulling an artillery piece. That doesn't fit with a 40-60 point tag. I really don't mean to be rude or combative, but I don't think you read my post very carefully as I spend a huge part of it addressing this exact point.
  48. 1 point
    Thanks very much! Here’s the recipe for the skin: (this is over a chaos black spray undercoat) - Dryad Bark all over  - Druchii Violet Wash all over - Dryad Bark again all over, except the recesses - Mix Gorthor Brown and Dryad Bark (30:70 ratio), and apply over muscles on raised areas. - Mix Gorthor Brown and Dryad Bark (50:50), again apply to raised areas but only on the very tops of the muscles and the most prominent areas (e.g knees, shoulders, tops of heads), leaving some of the previous mix showing. Think about where the light would hit if shining from above - e.g if a daemonette has a bent leg with a calf muscle facing towards the sky, use this mix on the calf muscle.  - Apply a final thin line highlight of Gorthor Brown around the very edges (e.g brow-line, along the bridge of the nose, ankle bones etc.). - if the contrast is too high, blend it out with a final glaze of 50:50 Druchii Violet and Lahmian Medium. - Use a final spot-highlight of Cadian Fleshtone very sparingly on any really sharp or prominant edges, or any nipples. For the characters I probably included a couple more stages with different ratios of Gorthor Brown and Dryad Bark in the middle. Just play it by ear. Here’s a close-up so you can see how much of each highlight layer I’ve used: 
  49. 1 point
    Free Guild Captain completed and assembled. Went with a bright colour scheme for the classic fantasy look, complete with green wheel on base (a nod to the dwarf war machines in 5th/6th edition FB, when I first discovered Warhammer). Learning alot, namely that NMM is really hard! Need to work on faces, and may repaint sword to regular metallics as it looks off next to the armour.
  50. 1 point
    Hi all, Here some uptdates of my wip champion (the base is still missing). I hope you will like it ! I will make the base and some family pictures in the scenery ^^ Have a nice day all ! Cheers.
This leaderboard is set to London/GMT+01:00
×
×
  • Create New...