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

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/13/2021 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    Nagash, Sigmar and Chaos will do battle for a soul, The Lumineth collect Aetherquartz en mass, The Duardin fight for their various forms of Gold, The Gloomspite Gitz they scavenge for Glass, The Seraphon follow the Stars The Ossiarchs will collect a Loan The Orruks brag about their Scars The Ratmen love their warm Warpstone Yet soon my friend, you shall see... It is a Critter who holds the Key! Beyond that it is simply a hypothetical game we have been discussing in light of the various rumour engines featuring Critters holding Keys. I still hope that GW sees these posts and comes up with some actual rules or a silly Warhammer quest game featuring Critters and Keys.
  2. 6 points
    You already got responses from @Marcvs and @Kramer on this point, but this conflation of competitive play with play in general. and anything that deviates from playing the hardest lists 100% of the time with house ruling is exactly why I think we need more awareness of the social contract of play. It seems to me that the AoS rules care about a certain type of balance, which is balance in the middle of the curve, not primarily at the top end. In general, the rules of AoS allow you to build a lot of different lists, diverse ones as well as spammy ones. And in the mid field, those lists can mostly go up against each other and have a game where anyone has a chance to win. Chances are, the average casual play group plays closer to that level than at the top end of the competitiveness. And I think that being aware of that would make people enjoy the game more. Setting an expectation with your group that you want to play lists at a 7 to 8 out of 10 power level, where you can forgo the occasional synergy and are able to put some pet choices into your list increases the number of viable lists and armies by a lot. You don't need to house rule anything here. Your group just commits to a certain default level, with the expectation that if someone wants to play their tournament list, they at least ask you if you are up for that today. The same expectation exists in very competitive groups, by the way, where you should ask your opponent if they are up for playing against your 10 Steam Tank meme list and not waste their time if they are looking for a hard game. Everyone going for the strongest tournament-level lists need not be the default. With the large component of self-expression that the hobby side of the game brings into the mix, most play groups would probably be better served by dialing back the power level a little. I'm not going to go into whether or not that list you describe can be competitively viable. This is because I don't think that the competitive viability of any one pre-conceived fluffy list idea is pertinent to the discussion. There are plenty of competitively viable lists with a wide variety of units across a number of armies. I'm not going to lend credence to this meme that all AoS armies need to spam to be competitively viable. It's sucks for you that you are playing Gloomspite, which have a badly written book and many bad warscrolls. I hope this and other battletomes with internal balance problems get reworked down the line. But they don't represent the state of the game as a whole. Frankly, I find the idea that playstyles need to be competitively viable to be viable in any sense absurd. Not getting into what "competitively viable" even means (Able to go 3-2? Able to go 5-0? Sometimes? Most of the time? Always?), the requirement this puts on rules design is ludicrous. A playstyle can only be considered supported if it's able to succeed competitively? And presumably, we want every army to be able to support as many playstyles as possible? That's an insane standard for success in rules design. There is literally no game I am aware of where this is the case. Competitively, it does not take much for an option to be outclassed. If you have two identical warscrolls, but warscroll A has 1 more point of bravery than warscroll B, there is literally no point taking warscroll B from a competitive perspective. But this tells us nothing about how much of an advantage the better warscroll provides. The gap between the two might be (and in this example probably is) minute. While warscroll B is not competitively viable, it's very likely still quite viable by a different, less strict standard. Of course what is good in the rules shapes the game. I already expressed my support for increasing the viability of balanced lists. The rules matching the fluff is desirable. But I don't believe that it's at all reasonable to only accept the rules to succeed in this regard if those lists are tournament viable, and for any given army at that (which I take you to want due to your focus on Gloomspite, regardless of the fact that plenty armies can already field balanced lists in tournaments). Currently, most armies can't play monster mash lists competitively, either, but I still consider that playstyle supported.
  3. 5 points
    Yup, I don't know what goes on in GW's head, but it shows that they have a diverse range that people are interested in which also gives them more of an excuse to experiment in terms of model design. I don't want AOS to fall into the xeno's trap where because Space Marines sell the most, they get the most attention, fuelling the cycle.
  4. 5 points
    One of the many advantages of both playing AoS and 40k is to see the complaints on both sides ( a friend and long time hobbyist just recently mused "Warhammer can not exist without whining. Whining is half the hobby!") The 40k crowd is seriously jealous of the interesting and creative new models and (whole new) armies AoS gets. "Everything we get is rules bloat, a few resculpts of old characters and lots of marines". Imho: 40k gets more stuff overall, but the AoS stuff is on average more inspired and fun! So i would say clear advantage AoS.
  5. 4 points
    I think what animates the other half of the conversation is that a lot of people don’t mind facing 27 eels + volturnus. It’s cool it’s thematic. The only shame is that it’s the only list you see. And almost everyone agrees with that at least. but whatever, in your words, is made the best list by the game; will meet the same resistance. because whatever the options available you’ll get people figuring out what’s the strongest options, and then that becomes the new list to play. That’s what tournaments are. thats why it’s so important to have an idea of what your opponents are looking for and matching that with what you want. The other argument of it being more thematic for lists to be more mixed is subjective. I get it, I personally like things to be a bit specialised. But fair enough. And think of it this way, if the eel warscroll was the worst in the book. The player that brings an all eels list would be an absolute legends. He would get high fives when he rocks up with his army, old bretonnian players would bring him/her tankards of ale for keeping the dream alive, and nobody would never ever complain about it not being thematic. And of course its a good thing when GW updates factions to the current standard. But sadly we are in a game that has a slow turn around I. That respect. It’s a lot faster than it was though.
  6. 4 points
    Off the top of my head: 1- More mixed gender Stormcast units in existing chambers. The cover of AOS 2.0 is a lady liberator, but you can only get one by buying Steelheart's Champions... There's so much lore precedent in the books, artwork, and Soulbound that I'd rather have this than a new chamber in AOS 3.0 2- Mixed race (& possibly gender) units for Cities. Give me a shieldwall of aelf, human, and duardin comrades standing side by side! Let aelves use guns! Move past the elf-dwarf grudging of WHF! Cities could be such an amazing, diverse range without needing to be over the top in design. GW should lean into this hard. 3- Realm specific Cities units, whether full boxed kits or upgrade kits, and especially for the main Cities given rules and/or boxes in the Battletome. The Realms are so unique when compared to one another, GW cannot tell us every Free City would use the same Holy Roman Empire look for its troops that the WHF Empire did.
  7. 4 points
    That is the nature of any game where you select the pieces a player can take. But also, you are wrong about what is winning events. And, you ignore anything not winning events as not competitve. If a list with a decentish player can go 4-1 it's competitive, even 3-2 is a 60% win rate. CoS have at least 3 builds in the 4-1 range; pistoliers, PG and hammerhal combat builds OBR: Basically every warscroll in the faction has shown up in competitive play globally. IDK: turtles and sharks are showing up in lists post Broken Realms, even zero eel lists have been played. I've seen Namarti builds being put into production as well so they will start showing up.
  8. 4 points
    They wrote themselves into a corner with forcing you into buffing your stuff - and those buffs usually target a single keyword. It would be better to make warscrolls better and rely less on stacking buffs onto the units. Cause else you get marauder bombs and the like.
  9. 4 points
    Let me see if I can find the best general with some MathHammer. Problem statement: Assign each combat-focused, non-unique, Living City General with a score from 0-100, reflecting its overall utility when buffed with Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt. Motivation: Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt are arguably the best Living City Command Trait and Artefact pair. As Living City players, we would like to maximize their benefit. Terminology: By 'buffed,' I mean the +1 to wound rolls, and -1 rend from Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt. Note that the +1 to wound from Ironak Artisan is applied to all of the General's melee weapons. The -1 rend from Spear of the Hunt is applied to a single weapon. Neither bonus affects the General's mount (if they have one). By 'average wounds dealt', I mean the average of wounds dealt to enemy units across all save values. Assumptions For monsters, I will use the numbers from the top damage bracket. Since this is Living City, I expect the Attuned to Nature ability and Lifesurge spell will keep your monsters healthy. When calculating damage output, I include all melee and missile attacks for both the rider and the mount. If the model has other damage dealing abilities, I will estimate the average number of wounds. These calculations are only for damage-dealing combat potential. I will not factor in defensive ability. The calculations are normalized and depend on the Generals included in the computation. I will assume the General is charging for weapons that benefit from charging. Methodology: I will normalize (compress to a score between 0 and 1 using the minimum and maximum possible values) and linearly interpolate (assign each factor a weight between 0 and 1 such that all weight sum to 1) the following factors: Average wounds dealt per turn when buffed Calculation: I will enter each General's profile into AoS Statshammer (with the Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt buffs) and take the average damage output across all opponent save values. Justification: The whole point of taking Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt is to create a combat-focused General that can punch through units. Interpolation weight: This factor is worth 40% of the total score. Average standard deviation of wounds dealt per turn Calculation: I will enter each General's profile into AoS Statshammer (with the Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt buffs) and take the average standard deviation of damage output across all opponent save values.Then I will take 1 - the normalized value (lower deviation is better). Justification: Some people do not like taking 'swingy' units whose potential depends on how well you are rolling. The average calculations I am using mitigate this somewhat, but units with low attacks and high damage like Durthu will inevitably have 0 damage or 18 damage turns. RNG is part of the fun of Warhammer, but you may want a more reliable general if you're competitively-focused. Interpolation Weight: This factor is worth 10% of the total score. Overall combat benefit of Ironoak Artisan and Spear of the Hunt Calculation: I will subtract the average damage output across all opponents save values for the General when buffed from the same quantity when unbuffed. Justification: As a Living City player, you should choose a general whose combat potential is maximized by these buffs. It doesn't make sense to put the buffs on a unit whose mount does the most damage. Interpolation Weight: This factor is worth 20% of the total score. Mobility Calculation: I will select from one of the following fixed values: If the model has 0-4" movement and cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away, it will receive a mobility score of 0. If the model has 4.01-6" movement and cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away, it will receive a mobility score of 0.1. If the model has 6.01-10" of movement and cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away OR if the model has 0-6" movement and can benefit, it will receive a mobility score of 0.4 If the model has 10.01-12" of movement and cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away, it will receive a mobility score of 0.5 If the model has more than 12" of movement and cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away OR if the model has 6.01-10" movement and can benefit, it will receive a mobility score of 0.6. If the model has 10.01-12" of movement and can benefit from Strike then Melt Away, it will receive a mobility score of 0.8 If the model has 12+" of movement and can benefit from Strike then Melt Away, it will receive a mobility score of 1 Justification: Your General cannot benefit from Strike then Melt Away if it does not have a missile weapon. As such, Generals without missile attacks will probably start on the table where they will need a high movement value to reach the enemy and start dealing damage. On the other hand, a General with a missile weapon but low movement (like Durthu) may have to burn Command Points to move across the board after deepstriking. Therefore, this category's highest score goes to fast Generals with missile weapons. Interpolation Weight: This factor is worth 20% of the total score. Points cost Calculation: 1 - the normalized points cost. E.g., the cheapest possible General will have a score of 1 and the most expensive will have a score of 0. Justification: All things considered, a General needs to be worth its points value. Interpolation Weight: This factor is worth 10% of the total score. Model Specific Notes: Drakesworn Templar: I will estimate the damage of Lord of the Heavens using the Rain of Stars option and assume Cavernous Jaws is used against models with 1 wound. I can't reliably estimate the damage of Sweeping Tail. I have to assume the Stormlance is not used against a monster. Dreadlord on Black Dragon: I can't reliably estimate the damage of Noxious Breath. Flamespyre Phoenix: I am not adding the damage from Wake of Fire Now, the table for all Cities of Sigmar Generals, Durthu, and the Drakesworn Templar: Conclusion: Clearly, Durthu is the best choice for a general. If you are concerned about Durthu's mobility or think it is too swingy, take the Drakesworn Templar. If you are worried about both choices (e.g., you don't want to pay 420 points for the Drakesworn), take the Dreadlord on Black Dragon with Lance and Crossbow. Interestingly, the Warden King and Assassins are the best foot Generals, with the Freeguild General and Nomad Prince close behind. I may add the other Stormcast Eternal choices when the battletome I ordered arrives at the end of this week. What do you think about my approach and choices for each factor's weight?
  10. 4 points
    I'd read that a bit more tempered. The statements about mega Gargants and Lumineth do not contain any qualifiers on success. They are factual statements highlighting the most prominent releases for Age of Sigmar with a bit of narrative flair/marketing. There is a separate, adjacent statement about Age of Sigmar continuing to perform well. "The Lumineth, a new race, kick started the year for Age of Sigmar and the Mega Gargants in October set a new benchmark for monster kits. Our full range of Age of Sigmar continues to perform well."
  11. 4 points
    Spam is definitely a subjective topic. Most spam people (and by people I refer to people with a similar mindset to me) find bothersome is less when it fits a narrative and more when its just blatantly the best unit in an army repeated X times and it seems to bother people a bit further when it also pushes the narrative out the window. Yes a horde of trolls may be a tons of units of trolls. But are you using JUST rockguts? or are there bog trolls and dankholds mixed in there? Even if you are not most people would be fine with the spam (even the lore purists would be satisfied with a flimsy but plausible reason for it all) as it isn't spam for the sake of putting power on the table. Then look at eels. Put down as many as you possibly can fit. Yes it can be cool and the reason people got into the faction (casualties of their interest in specific units in a faction) however we know for the most part its to put the most powerful unit down as many times as possible as the rest of the book "sucks". Same with various other units people complain about (Hearthguards, Witches, thunderers, Terrorgheists, Keepers/morteks at one point etc. whatever flavor people are up in arms about these days) Yea they're cool. But seeing an army composed of ONLY keepers, ONLY hearthguards ONLY witch elves, ONLY mortek with not just one opponent but over multiple opponents in those factions ad nauseum sure does take away from the narrative angle which I think gets to people over time especially those who play against a wide variety of opponents and can see the common trend among most of them. It definitely makes it harder to take your flimsy narrative wrapper seriously when you face the third or fourth guy in a row who "had a larger than usual gathering of keepers all playing nice together for realsies" back at the height of their power and if you google "tournament hedonites list" its the first one there. yea it definitely sucks to be lumped in with the power gamers who are into winning but that's a risk most people take when they really really enjoy one specific thing. I can't imagine anyone complaining of someones obsession with something like trolls or Steam tanks or Cygors in fact I really love to hear peoples homebrew lore for why/how their specific faction came about particularly when its using something oddball or unique. Really spices up he experience and sometimes it can be very surprisingly adequate on the field. Don't take this as an attack on people who are in it to win it. Its not what I try to get out of the game and I actively avoid it when I can but its not inherently wrong or abhorrent style of play just not for everyone. Which is why you should always have a chat with opponents before you start to make sure you're on the level.
  12. 3 points
  13. 3 points
    Worked well for Brets and Tomb Kings 😜
  14. 3 points
    I think what animates a lot of people is they don't like facing a list of 27 eels + volturnos, to take an obvious example. If someone really *wants* to bring that list fine...but the game shouldn't make it the best IDK list you can bring. Even if someone should be allowed by the rules of the game to take that kind of list (a debatable proposition), it should absolutely not be the optimal choice for winning the game. When it is, there's a big design problem. Now generalize that out: people don't want gimmick lists to be the strongest competitively. They want a game system where the strongest lists are balanced lists that take a reasonably wide variety of different units that perform different rules. That's really all it boils down to. By and large, AOS is not that game right now. Part of this is because of the stat homogenization in AOS that removed toughness and allowed wound carry-over and thus compressed unit roles; part of it is from the low number of units available to many AOS armies; lots of it is from the typically overly restrictive buff interactions in many AOS battletoms that sub-divide the books into mini-factions that don't work well with one another. One ray of hope is that what Morathi did to IDK is exactly what GW needs to do to all the battle tomes. IDK went from 27 eels + volty to a much more complete and well-rounded faction. It's still an incomplete faction and it's still out of date in a lot of its design parameters, but Morathi successfully addresses the internal balance and makes more diverse lists at least somewhat more competitively viable compared to eel spam. That's what I imagine most people would like to see happen for all factions.
  15. 3 points
    this for sure, when i checked the 40k "new releases" about 2 weeks ago 19 out of the 25 items were Space Marine or Imperium related--that's absurd for a game which supposedly spans the entire Milky Way galaxy. If GW wants to keep AOS as the game that pushes boundaries on design and style, I'm all here for it, but I hope they realize 40k needs it too. The SM favoritism is why I won't be going back to 40k outside of painting some Tau.
  16. 3 points
    To add to this, remember your support heroes and what they do. A guardian of souls and a spirit torment together supporting your main units is big. Rerolling hits of 1 and +1 to wound from these heroes can really be useful. Nighthaunt in general lacks rending weapons so maximising wounds going through is big. Always remember to protect the heroes. Like in any death faction, heroes hold the army together.
  17. 3 points
    This is, surprisingly, far more difficult than you'd expect (limited collections and such). It also makes one wonder: if it is so "easy" to spot the outliers, why do they exist in the game anyway? We have discussed this in other threads, better balance is not so hard to get, if one actually designs for it. 9th age is far more balanced than AoS (if we are to believe their tourney stats), and that, IMO, benefits both casual players and competitive ones. This is, precisely, my main point. People read AoS lore, fantasy lore, see the models and then mush all that into some "vision" of what the armies ought to be like. But that doesn't truly carry out on the table, for many armies. It is easy to dismiss the list I presented (or any other) as "it is just you", but I don't think it is. There is a general issue with armies being overly focused around specific gimmicks (others call it synergies). In some armies this is worse, in others not as much, but there is something there. They represent significant sections of the game. Gitz are not a minor faction, they are a very popular one. And, over the history of AoS, there seem to have been plenty of other factions that suffered from the "curse of few". If we start dismissing those experiences as "it is just gitz", "it is just FS", "it is just old sea elves", and so on... There you have it. Such things should be fixed before they make it to the books, not just accept them like quirks. It simply reflects bad quality control, at best, or other worse schemes, being less generous (gotta sell them indomitus boxes, eradicators and BGs go brrrrrrr and whatever other meme you want to insert here). Let me put it this way: IMHO, the extreme outliers in tournaments are no less than big ugly proof of failed balance. There should not be factions that beat others 10 to 1 and other things we see. It should not be clear that to win LVO or what not you gotta buy into whatever top meta broken thing is out there. Those things are, I insist, a big red bright pimple in the face of the game. Frankly, as someone more hobby oriented, seeing some of the tourney lists just puts me off the game. I imagine lots of people want to "play to win" but do not want to play some of the broken stuff out there, simply because it does not align with their "one pre-conceived fluffy list idea". I thought this was what the game was about, to simulate battles we read in the fluff; there rules are there to guarantee that it actually reflects the "life or death" challenge presented to the combatants, and everyone can attempt to win without ruining the other person's fun.
  18. 3 points
    Buddy, i’ve been a fan of fantasy in general since I was a toddler, before warhammer minis were even a thing. Going strictly by definition, low fantasy is fantasy taking place in our world, not a similar world, not a parallel world, our world, for example, harry potter is low fantasy , however, a series like howls moving castle is high fantasy due to the fact it is not our world and has illogical aspects regardless of the addition of magic. Warhammer fantasy (which includes both whfb and aos)is all high fantasy by this exact same definition, because while there are similarities between our world and the old world, there are entire continents that exist there that dont exist in our world, illogical species and places that do not fit in a rational world even accounting the inclusion of magic. This isnt a debatable point its actually the specific definition of high vs low fantasy. And I hate to break it to you but all high fantasy is inspired by low fantasy. So please try not to act as though you are more knowledgeable about a subject than someone you have never met, they might be much more informed than you know.
  19. 3 points
    While charlemagne is a person of historical fact, the multiple hippogryphs that appear in the stories involving him are obvious fantasy added to the story, making them fiction, as for king arthur, it is unknown whether he was a real person or an amalgamation of several britainic leaders, but he is still a work of fiction in that there is absolutely no evidence of his actual existence. You might as well try claiming that Atlantis is a historical fact, rather than historical third party mythical hearsay(and sidenote, ulthuan is based on Atlantis, so yeah there are ties to real world mythology in whfb and aos, as Malerion Tyrion Teclis and Morathi still exist and remember, further tying to a real world myth with the attempts of Teclis to recreate elves resulting in the idoneth and making them elves for after their Atlantis sunk. Throw in the whole dragon story of how arthur got his surname and its even more high fantasy. as for why gw didn’t continue with those lines, it didnt have to do with profits or aesthetics. It was because gw wanted exclusive trademarks on all their terminology, and the terms used for all those knights, skeletons, mummies, kosaks, and even the term elves, are not able to be exclusively trademarked. Thats why lizardmen became Seraphon, dwarves became duardin, elves became aelves, etc. because them if anyone makes similar miniatures and uses any of those terms gw has proprietary rights and can sue. this has backfired on them several times, many of those terms also cannot be trademarked, and they faced cultural lawsuits for them trying to steal copyrights to those terms(for example duardin and aelves are Northern European words from Norse mythology to describe dwarves and elves, so they are just as much open to public use, as for the word Seraphon, its actually a first name, and several people filed lawsuits against gw for that too. The loss of these suits are half of the inspiration to have forgeworld redo the old world. The other half being player demand. as for original poster, yes he whined about the fact his army has not been updated in a while, how is that different from the multitudes that whined for vc updates during 6th- 8th edition, and because they whined, they got them. Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all.
  20. 3 points
    As someone who did quit over a few reasons, balance among them, I thought I might chime in, but those who do not return, obviously, won't have a voice. I think GW's rulebooks are just bad. And they are priced as if they are printing gold. I was back on the forums for a while because I still like some models, but I have purchased a 3d resin printer, and will be moving to STL designers from now on, where I can just fix any scale issues. It isn't just balance, but balance is a large part of the problem. Say the spell in a bottle. When I first read it, I thought "This would be a nightmare to balance". And they didn't. When I read Petrifex, I thought "That doesn't look like it's equal to other subfactions". And it wasn't. I have opinions about a few of Lumineth's abilities, but honestly haven't bothered with the game enough to watch battlereports. There hasn't been much thought about balancing subfactions, and these often can't be fixed by changing points. I have lots of rulebooks, most are better. All are priced better. GW constantly feels like late-edition d&d, where power creep runs rampant to keep selling books. Now points creep isn't that bad, but it's also what ultimately killed fantasy, as the barrier of entry is nudged up each time with it. Then, of course, we have dumping armies/units entirely. No sense in starting if you don't know something will stay. Models-wise, there are still lots of problems, but GW is at least good at designing those.
  21. 3 points
    It doesn't really matter how good or bad you think the Liberator build is, the point is that you said Stormcast die easier than Cities. That's just not correct. That's the thing though, it did help. Stormcast have repeatedly proven themselves capable of achieving podiums and even winning events, specifically thanks to the points reductions they got. They've got an event winning army. It helped. If Gloomspite's WD rules prove have a build that takes out multiple podiums and event wins, remind me to come back on here and say that it doesn't count because I can't make an effective Arachnarok gunline. Again to reiterate - Stormcast are due a new book. But let's not overplay our hand here.
  22. 3 points
    Not quite a rumor but interesting news from the GW half year report: https://investor.games-workshop.com/2021/01/12/half-year-report/ The GW Finance Report specifically calls out the Indomitus Box, Mega-Gargant and Lumineth Realmlords for selling really well!
  23. 3 points
    Someone posted this in the aos discord I'm in and I can't stop laughing at it.
  24. 3 points
    Could be the long awaited catachan/seraphon crossover? 
  25. 3 points
    Rumour has it the Old World has been delayed due to hype for Critters and Keys.
  26. 3 points
    on the one hand I'm glad AOS doesn't have the Marines/Imperium problem 40k has, on the other Stormcast really...really... have not been able to keep up with 2.0's power creep. While the aesthetic, lore, and models are why I settled on Stormcast, a little rules favoritism would be nice 😅
  27. 3 points
  28. 3 points
    From rumours and fears of squatting to getting some of the best lore and model range, it is a good time for Slaanesh!
  29. 3 points
  30. 2 points
    Cities would work perfectly for a Dogs of War army.
  31. 2 points
    Dogs of War have entered the chat! Although, I sometimes feel as though Cities of Sigmar is their spiritual successor
  32. 2 points
    I'm sorry but I must object to braking the 9" deepstrike limit. Being able to place a unit and reliably charge any where on the board edge would be incredibly unfun to play against. Not to mention you would essentially be letting the genie out of the bottle, this would not stop at beast of chaos. That's not to say Ambush couldn't use some improvements. You shouldn't have to take a command trait or darkwalkers in order to hold units in reserves past the first turn. You also shouldn't have to take the horn artifact to get the small attack bonus on arriving from Ambush. Also so Darkwalkers aren't left in the wayside, perhaps they get an automatic re-roll to charge when coming out of ambush and an artifact that can grant +1 to charge to a unit that came out of Ambush that turn.
  33. 2 points
    KHOLEK SUNEATER!!!!!!!! BoC players want a giant plastic kit and to make him a force of nature near god-beast level. ALL THE DESTRUCTION (Trogdor-style).
  34. 2 points
    Tabletop games historically and generally struggle to maintain a balance across the board. GW suffers from having more options. TBH being that units or heroes or monsters claim objectives GW has been moving in a good direction. I actually find it hard to play people who've been in this game for 10-15 years to do more than "let's just put our models down and kill each other". 40k make Ob Sec pretty mandatory and I'm suspecting we'll see a shift that AoS BL troops hold objectives over non BL (or something similar). Making a core built army more important than min 3-BL. People take Battlalions for low-drop, CP and the artifact usually. Often they are good enough value that this helps the overall army. They are most certainly not mandatory or build the army the only way. Who won with BoC Tzeentch years ago. Dan something? He made a comment he never takes battalions as they generally aren't good points per value. I see his point and it makes sense; he plays the reactive game and his opponent not the units (like poker, play your opponent not your cards). The Sylvaneth book has some battalions and glades and yet I still see people say "you can build a decent list without either, there are good options." Also people come onto these forums to win 5-0 in a tournament and often drive the thread to top tier choices. It is up to the individual to play this game they way they want. What I thing you should really be looking at is what is causing you to feel this way is stifling you. Are you coming away from games feeling your opponent only won from spamming and using a battalion? Are you facing people spamming things more effectively than you can counter them with what you have in your lists?
  35. 2 points
    Yep. A year ago, GW stock was $40. Today it's $160. Pretty good to quadruple shareholder value in roughly a year. I'm happy, anyway. Just wish it would drop back to $90 on a dip so I could feel good about dumping a pile o' cash back in. But yeah, GW is doing great.
  36. 2 points
    Here you are changing the definition of the problem. If the problem is "all the same unit", defensive and offensive eels by definition do not fit into it, just as a list with both pistoliers and outriders, or a list of horrors and flamers (exceedingly rare to see only horrors) The fact that some units emerge as the best in their role is intrinsic in list/deck building games. You can try as much as you want to balance them but if two units end up (to simplify) costing 100 pts, the one with a 101% return will always be taken over the one with 100% return in the high competitive end of the game. To counter this you can try to have ALL units perfectly balanced, which of course risks eliminating rules diversity and is likely doomed to fail because there are a lot of moving parts in AoS with allegiances/sub-allegiances/buffs/battleplans. Or, you can try and force players to include more roles in the army, which is arguably done better by 40k at this time (both because of army building restrictions and secondary objectives). This IMHO would require greatly expanding (or merging) quite a lot of armies so it's not a viable short term solution.
  37. 2 points
    I think this is a good point, but no need to divide between WAAC and narrative; I think many of us are somewhere in between, and just would like to see rules such that viable competitive compositions included wide ranges of units, even if one made exceptions for some fluffy focused lists (the horde of trolls). But not, as you say, making the horde of trolls the to go, rather an option as good as any. There is also the camp of people who think it is OK for some lists to be uber competitive and weird in composition, as long as more varied compositions are "more or less OK" in a competitive sense. Which I do not like, personally. The designers do decide, with their rules, what armies are good. Their design chooses the viable and the top compositions. I'd very much prefer to have compositions with a solid variety to be the preferred mode, or at least at an equal standing as all HB spam.
  38. 2 points
    Totally agree with this. There are always people demanding more new releases for their armies, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'd be much happier to have only 8 warscrolls available that were all excellent, than to have 30 warscrolls available where all but 3 of them suck.
  39. 2 points
    You really think that Bretonnians dont fit high fantasy? They are a fusion of Arthurian legend and the saga of Charlemagne, two of the primary inspiration points of western civilization based high fantasy novels. Even lord of the rings takes quite a bit of inspiration from both of them. Just because it doesn’t match your personal aesthetic, it doesn’t render them less fitting in high fantasy. also, i wasn’t referring to strictly Bretonnian minis, though I suspect you checked my post history to figure which army I post about most. And while Bretonnians are one of my favorites, they are far from my only army, they are just the army that needs the most rebalancing to make worth anything for AoS competition. I also have a waaagh army(Mork>Gork, fight me), a seraphon army, a kislev army(doesnt even have legends warscrolls) and a vc army (Vlad>Mannfred, fight me). and as for the whining about faction updates, someone else in here stated the solution in here, never have just 1 army, because it can be years between updates for a single army, by doing several, the feeling of being left out is reduced.
  40. 2 points
    OLD SALT! The big heel of my gargant stomp is a kraken eater known to his underlings as Old salt. To all races too little to realise, he is the answer to the mystery of the strange soft thunder entwined in the winds of Grumblers cove. For Old salt mumbles seemingly to himself, oft unaware even of his mancrusher cohort, of deeds long in the past. Tales of monsters and fleets crushed by his might, yet seemingly without recognition, In much the same way an old, underappreciated soldier might begrudge his past over another tankard of ale for none and all to hear. My gargants have no names as such, they are all simply known by the names given to them by those who encounter them. This idea sprang to mind whilst staring at the sprues and turned out far simpler then first thought. Little green stuff and all will be good.
  41. 2 points
    A lot of this is the hype for Critters & Keys.
  42. 2 points
    I think the newer battleplans have done a lot to increase diversity in lists. You can't minimum battleline and expect to win if you roll a mission that requires you to have it. Sure there are annoying lists to play against like hearthgaurd and various behemoth spam and the like but they are not actually great if you play the objectives and not to table your opponent. It might not be as fun to kill only 2 of your opponents models each round but if you have the numbers and play tactically that does not mean you will lose. There is nothing wrong with focusing a portion of your army and I feel each army list should have a focus, otherwise it's just a random amalgamation of units. I have been following a lot of the TTS tourneys recently and I do see certain combos pop up in a lot of lists, but the armies are rarely spamming just one or two units. I guess it comes down to what you feel is spam.
  43. 2 points
    I don't think that is a valid point, honestly. While of course I support not beign a ******, the game should not rely on people "house ruling" armies out to deliver a fun experience, that is the point of balance and the rules! I agree with @Neil Arthur Hotep. Because it isn’t as black as white as you present it. There is vast space between being an a-hole and house ruling your army. If we’re playing a game and I know you’re a new player that has just started collecting stormcast, I’m not bringing my KO lightning vortex in a bottle ziflin list. The game would be over turn 1. Then I would try a ground troop focussed morhnar list that has me intrigued but I don’t know how to play. that’s the social contract. I know of your situation and I make sure we both have a fun game. Not an a-hole, not houseruling. mand the other way around as well. If I know your aiming to win next months big tourney and you see our game as a practice match I’m not bringing my har kuron ‘dark elf nostalgia’ list. I’m dropping all my old metal corsairs and going full hag narr. again knowing the situation of the opponent and making sure we both have fun. Not an a-hole, not houseruling. But this absolutely. It isn’t easy, and everybody occasionally misjudges it. Especially due to all the synergies. That killer unit suddenly becomes weak sauce without the buff. But no middle ground there. also with the time and money invested in the armies. It’s not like TTS where you can keep switching things around. I remember my first club game as a kid. Knew the player, used to be my old hockey coach, he brought orcs and goblins me my dwarfs. he cast foot of gork turn one, irritable force and destroyed a over half my army. he felt worse about it than me 😅 But I rather have that grey area for us all to play around in, rather than (close to) pre-built armies that guarantee balance and
  44. 2 points
    The Champions Of X book are 99.9% going to be additional supplements/sourcebooks/splats - Champions of Order certainly is and there's nothing to suggest Death/Destruction will be any different. The Bestiary supplement meanwhile is just going to be a standalone book with new creatures, an expansion of the limit selection in the Corebook. I'd put money on you being safe to buy the Corebook now and not have it replaced by those.
  45. 2 points
    One great thing about how the AoS lore has been handled and written so far is that GW clearly intends to leave room to introduce new units in the future. Aside from the aforementioned factions with new units mentioned, there's also the Daughters of Khaine, where it's heavily hinted there's more Melusai that isn't just the types we have right now. There's also the Skaven where a whole Great Clan went through a gnawhole in Aqshy, and has been missing since then. This way if GW ever wants to make a new Great Clan along the five we already have, they could simply reappear with a new theme (though I presume we'll get updates to our current great clans first before that).
  46. 2 points
    Oh and another thing: DRAGONS. ****** being trademarkable, that only Stormcast got a dragon (with a slightly dumb looking pose and cumbersome armor) is a gigantic miss on GW's behalf. I can't sugarcoat that cause we all know how awesome dragons are. Hell, might be an idea to get Archaon and a Stardrake kit and mash em together to get a proper chaos dragon...
  47. 2 points
    A few things I’d love to see... A new set of Warcry warbands representing the non-chaos humans for each realm. Each of which can either be folded into a future Cities of Sigmar book like they did with StD, or have them as allies for certain factions like the Underworlds warbands are used. Actual Darkoath units (like the War Queen, Chieftan and Godsworn Hunt) to replace the maruaders and horsemen. Spites! We’ve only seen a handful of them and I love the Guillermo Del Toro vibe as weird insect-like fairies. More of that dark fairy tale side to the Sylvaneth is something I would love to see, and perhaps let the Kurnothi be their own faction instead.
  48. 1 point
    Snufflers ability happens at the start of the movement phase, so the idea is to use it then fire off the buffed unti into the enemy, which with something like Squig Riders of Boingrots is possible! Especially with the +3" move CA from the Giant Squig Boss etc.
  49. 1 point
    Happy new Year, fellow gitz! Recently i finally finished a long project making an allied mega-gargant proxy for a Gloomspite army and decided to share with yall. Here is a Giant Throgg Fanatic. He`s 9 inches tall, stands on a 130mm base) Designed, printed and painted all by meself. Hope you enjoy, cheers! Other images
  50. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...