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

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/07/2021 in all areas

  1. 14 points
    Vampire: any last words mortal? Cultist: *gak* h...harder Vampire: what? Cultist: what?
  2. 7 points
  3. 6 points
    I’m not sure if this is controversial opinion but I rather preferred the approach taken in the 7th edition VC book, where rather than an all-out ‘X bloodline have these stats and can choose from these powers’, you had a wider set of powers that any vamp could take with notes to the effect that ‘Necrarchs often take this’ or ‘this power is popular among prominent members of the Von Carstein dynasty’. It felt less essentialist and more permissive of variation within the bloodlines, which seemed appropriate for beings as long-lived and inevitably individual as vamps. You could have Necrachs who were more along the spell-casting spectrum or ones who were pretty bestial. It wasn’t perfect in its implementation but the principle of working to broad archetypes was a good one. That was part of the 7th ed. turn to free up the bloodlines to be more than just linear descent (though that was there) but also historical cultural constructs. The Lahmian Sisterhood weren’t just everyone descended from Neferata specifically but in fact her cabal of agents. The Order of the Blood Dragon were Harkon’s knightly order rather than absolutely everyone descended from Abhorash. In both cases it could be that 90% of the organisation was made up of vamps with the same lineage and 90% of vamps with a particular lineage might wind up working for Neferata or joining a particular group of blood knights, but it opened the background up and allowed for more creative freedom and interesting character concepts. Lets you have characters like Mundvard the Cruel: a magically potent descendant of W’Soran but a shadowy and manipulative crime lord instead of a reclusive necromancer, and also enmeshed in the power politics of the Von Carstein dynasty. That breaking of 6th ed’s essentialising (maybe even flanderising?) approach and emphasising that the VC weren’t reducible to five clearcut factions but a host of lineages, traditions, philosophies, political groups was something I really liked, much more than “this blood type = armour, swords, no magic, this specific philosophy and history and character and allegiance”. Feels particularly pertinent for AoS, where emphasis seems to have been placed on the sheer variety of vampiric groups across Shyish and elsewhere. Get three vampires in a room and you’ll have five opinions, and probably some feuds. To my mind bloodlines should not be as particular as e.g. chaos marks or skaven clan allegiance. Rules-wise I'm not quite sure how exactly that approach would or even could mesh with how AoS approaches factions. A list of powers, fine, I can see that working. Maybe an AA/artefacts/command traits system closer to StD's Ravagers/Cabalists/Idolators/etc style where instead of specific in-universe factions you have rules for broad tendencies. But then the previews seem to be highlighting the Vyrgos/Vyrkos dynasty in particular so who knows...
  4. 6 points
    Goodnight, sweet boners. We all knew this day would come.
  5. 5 points
  6. 5 points
    This mechanic emerges naturally from the nitty-gritty of the game mechanics, but it was nonsense to write a warscroll that actually relies on this stupid, obscure interaction. Just a huge design blunder. It's something that should have been "patched out", not put into the spotlight.
  7. 5 points
    Ahhhh, bathing in our past glory just now. https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/gaming_and_diversion/Warhammer Fantasy - Vampire Counts.pdf We don’t ask for much 🙏
  8. 5 points
    Nah GW already said the new zombies, fell bats, and skeletons will replace the old kits.
  9. 5 points
    Man, I really hope dynasties and customization comes back. I want vampires to be terrifying. I want them to be specialized. Have additional crazy spells. I want them to mulch through units and be hard to kill. I want Bloodknights to be terrifying. Have skeletons and zombies hit on 6s, I don’t care. As long as people think “oh shoot, he brought 6 vampires, this will be a tough game”
  10. 4 points
    I voted "yes" because I think the threshold for a mechanic being bad in isolation is super high. I don't even think something as powerful as "You win the game" effects are bad in isolation. However, the same could be said for mechanics being good in isolation, so I think going into detail on why I think mortal wounds have a place in AoS is valuabel. Some points have already been mentioned: Mortal wounds are a "good" rule breaking effect that feels powerful without being game breaking Being able to just deal a wound to even high-armour units feels powerful, but is overall pretty managable. Personally, I am of the opinion that if we have a choice between potentially making offense too powerful or making defense too powerful, we should err on the side of offense. Because offense at least causes stuff to happen. Mortal wounds are part of a "damage-armour-armour piercing" rock-paper-scissors mechanic These soft RPS triangles are usually good mechanics to implement, because they give different strengths and weaknesses to units in a fairly natural way. This comes with the caveat that AoS knows another type of armour piercing damage in rend, which should probably be used more than it is. That said, I prefer the simplicity of "mortal wounds on 6s" to "+1 rend on 6s", which is significantly more annoying in terms of bookkeeping. Mortal wounds are good in situations where extra dice rolls (such as save rolls) would be onerous In AoS spell casting, you already get an attack roll (casting) and an active defense roll (unbinding). There is really no need to keep stacking more defense rolls on there by involving saves. Mortal wounds are good in this situation. --- The issues some are currently seeing with mortal wounds are not due to the mechanic itself. The presence of direct damage that does not allow a save is not in itself unbearable for the game. But we should be aware that mortal wounds are very strong. Usually, we see mortal wounds as a tool to deal with high-value targets that are hard to pin down in combat. But once we get into the range of being able to deal ~10 or so mortal wounds reliably, they can be used to deal with basically any unit. Which is not what we want, because in that case mortal wounds don't function to give units unique roles anymore. They instead reduce the natural diversity of roles. Lumineth are the army people currently like to point to when it comes to mortal wounds being bad, because they have the "mortal wounds on 6s (or 5+)" Sunmetal Weapons rule on most of their basic troops. It is worth noting that Lumineth don't necessarily have high damage output because of this, even if you value mortal wounds about twice as highly as regular wounds. If anything, the "problem" is that they have a very consistent damage output. Mortals on 6s certainly removes many instances of dice rolls that could go wrong for the Lumineth player. However, in general I don't think mortals on hit are problematic in melee. Shooting is a different matter, though. But even in the case of shooting such as with Sentinels, the problem is not with the mortal wound's ability to bypass save rolls. It's that the way those mortal wounds are triggered entails auto-hits on 6s to hit. This is a problem specifically because shooting defense in AoS relies so heavily on negative to hit modifiers (both with Look Out, Sir! and cover). If we had the ability to reduce the impact of ranged mortals on hit proportionally by getting cover or Look Out, Sir they would be way more managable. Sentinels hit on 4s normally. Imagine if their damage output actually dropped by 1/3 for each -1 to hit. There is a reason we moved away from "6+ to hit triggers an effect" to "natural 6s trigger an effect". In most cases, it's the better mechanic. But for ranged attacks, this wording just does not play well with the other rules of AoS.
  11. 4 points
    WIP for my new Alumnia-esque scheme!
  12. 3 points
    I think it’s an intentional choice. When you give it some thought, it makes sense. You don’t want to give powerful abilities to something that some will view as extraneous to the core game. The one that stands out to me is Daedalosus from Blackstone Fortress. People are reselling the model for almost as much as the expansion went for originally. And there’s no way to get the model aside from resellers or getting the original expansion. Feels bad. Making boxed models a bit underpowered helps people not feel like they’re being required to buy these limited releases for FOMO. Don’t get me wrong: I’d like if they were a bit more usable, but from a design perspective, it makes sense
  13. 3 points
    You can certainly build a Cities of Sigmar list full of normal dudes and with only a handful of heroes who are also pretty normal dudes. It would definitely not look like a collection of superheroes. I am not sure that is what you want, though.
  14. 3 points
    I genuinely hope (and believe) that Blood Knights should be somewhere between the eliteness of Varanguard and then more standard cavalry like Chaos Knights. So something like a 3+ save, and good attack profile. 3 or maybe 4 wounds per model. However, maybe not as many special abilities as Varanguard. However what I expect is that they will be more closely alignment to Chaos Knights, which is a shame. Not that Chaos Knights are bad or anything, but Vampires should be more elite than your standard Chaos Mortal warrior.
  15. 3 points
    On the other hand, if a mechanic is fine on its own but often ends up abused, it should be brought into the discussion. While I voted for yes, in concept, if a lot of people think they're abused currently then perhaps the concept of them is too easily abusable and so they're not a good concept? Or at least not good without some adjustments
  16. 3 points
    I also prefer the more open, individualistic approach. The bloodline approach had a tendency to make every vampire in a bloodline the same, and in AoS that kind of redundancy is likely to result in discouraging you from taking multiple vampire heroes in your army. I do expect we'll see bloodlines as the new subfactions, but I hope they supplement rather than replace an already broad system of default vampyric powers, and that the extra rules from your bloodline or dynasty aren't so focused or heavy handed as to restrict your vampires to a particular build type or play style. But we'll see. Won't bother me too much either way. I'm a big fan of wights, necromancers, and whatever that cursed city grave digger dude is, so I'm not likely to be fielding more than one or two vampire heroes at a time regardless.
  17. 3 points
    Mortal Wounds as a concept is great IMO and is a way to deal with high re-rollable armor save units. It also seperates how magic and combat/shooting works. It only becomes an issue IMO when it is super easy to apply, ala LRL archers that 1) ignore LOS 2) has immense range and 3) triggers on hit. This leaves a feeling of not being able to counter this in any way at all, meaning it is almost pointless to bring low (5 wound) support heroes to the table because of how easily they can be sniped. Look-out sir is worthless because the MW triggers on unmodified hits anyways, you cant hide the hero due to ignoring LOS and the range means you cant really put them in a safe spot unless they are so far away from the objectives etc. that they are essentially useless and might as well be dead. This is an example when MWs becomes an issue. Skinks is somewhat the same, although they dont have the same range and they dont ignore LOS either, so there is a way to play around them.
  18. 3 points
    Have you read the book? It wasn't easy at all. And Ymetrica Warden#56,893 didn't defeat Nagash that was Teclis. Nor did Ymetrica Warden#56,893 defeat Arkhan, that was Eltharion. And both of them will be back. And if it's only gods and heroes that matter, other people wouldn't like that. I think it's done quite well, "normal people" still mattered in the conflict, even duels among gods, but to a large part these things were decided between the main characters. I think, if there was a problem in this, it would be more on the other side. We sadly didn't get a new ven Brecht. If they'd developed one of the minor characters more (be it our KO captain, or the Deathrider leader, or the Cathallar leader for example), that would have been good. That was one of my favorite parts about BR Morathi. I think the whole thing just doesn't feels epic to you - because you are likely not a big fan of Lumineth/Teclis nor Nagash. The duel between Teclis and Nagash was pretty epic, as well as the attack on Shiysh. Floating rock castles, sky high animated bone structures that smash them. Or people sacrificing their lives just to get to the outer end of Hysh, sacrificing yourself to provide a better afterlife for everyone etc. It doesn't have to feel epic to you of course, but neither does it mean it's inherently badly written just because it doesn't. They used pretty much the same approach as in BR Morathi - serval armies armies attacking/defending while the protagonist/antagonist tries to reach their goal within a time limit - her reaching godhood in BR Morathi, and here it was Nagash destroying Avalenor while everyone struggled to stop them. Ending an arc is often not as satisfying as making something new. Look at how many complaints there are about almost every ending of a popular TV or movie series. I also doubt this will be the best book in the Broken Realms alone because of that. But, I also don't think the quality was worse than BR Morathi.
  19. 3 points
    Yeah, it's always a tad depressing to see a new player get excited about giving them 5-6 attacks each, because you know how long they take to paint and that they are the most most temporary of all wound markers. On another note, I find the Mortal Slaughterhosts frustrating. They are *almost* there. Almost. But the commands are unnecessarily restrictive. Run+charge: awesome!! On mediocre Battleline? Gah. Full rerolls: awesome!! On monopose monsters? Gah. Meanwhile other armies are alpha-striking in Turn 1 with their hardest-hitting units. I suppose things could be much worse in terms of our sub-factions though, like SCE's ones...
  20. 3 points
    Some armies having no protection at all against MW is certainly a problem. And fully buffed Sentinels with Lambent Light are really scary, and I can see how it can be not fun to be on the receiving end of them - because they reliably are able to delete or at least cripple even bigger threats, which happened in my last game - I one-shot a Sorceress on a Black Dragon. Now the Sorceress isn't the best example because many units likely are able to delete her in one go - and to do that my investment was 280 (20 Sentinels) + 160 (Loreseeker) points, and two spells had to go off (which isn't too difficult because I play Zaitrec and had the Twinstones out - another 30 points). But 13 MW (the 14th wound was a single hit otherwise which went through ...) on whatever from a single unit in the end is pretty rough on the other player. It is a big investment and many armies can do the same thing with units that cost that much points, but as you say it's reliable (once the LRL player gets everything in place), and from afar, which probably feels worse than if a Mawcrusher deleted you, because at least there you might have an opportunity to screen etc. (in reality it might not be that different, it likely does feel different) I'm not opposed to changing the mechanic, but it would mean that they have to totally redesign Lumineth. I'm a bit torn of this - I think it's good for the game that there are armies out that do things differently, like KO and Lumineth. Although, not everyone likes it, and it can pose some problems with certain match-ups. Hopefully they'll have brought most of the other factions up to par once BR is finished. Some of the older factions are definitely missing tools to deal with some of the new stuff newer armies have. I also like that KO and Lumineth are very well done in terms of their lore fitting with how they work in the game. You have the same with certain other armies. On the other hand, relying as much as LRL on MW is also a bit of a trap, if more factions get MW protection (which I'll think is going to happen), there isn't that much left in damage output besides that. Right now it looks great or even OP to some, but this could change fast. Lumineth have strong warscrolls, but you can't really create super units on par with something like Witch Aelves, HGB etc. LRL don't have certain buffs like additional attacks or plus damage, so the overall damage output besides MW is pretty low. But, as a LRL player you have the tools do destroy your opponent's synergies, and if that works out, most of LRL warscrolls are very good for their points. They gave LRL MW as one tool to be able to control your opponent. A fully buffed CoS unit is better than what I can bring, once I manage to kill the synergy parts though (taking out the heroes etc.), and it's just warscroll against warscroll, my units are just plain better overall for their points. But if LRL wouldn't be able to do this from time to time they'd likely would either need more overall damage, even more control options or something else to make them work as GW apparently planned them to. It's would be like taking away most of the mobility from KO. You'd have to seriously re-design the whole army. They still kept the high MW output limited to a few occasions - LRL can only cast one lambent light per turn. LRL don't have many high damage spells, and they are located across three several different lores, etc. I think it'll get better once we have more armies updated, and people get more used to playing against LRL. Ugh that got way too long.
  21. 3 points
    Yes, when they are used to represent magical and extraordinary attacks, sparingly, they are good. However they are used so frequently now that rend and armor are practically useless stats, whoever can output more mortal wounds tend to win the game. It's why magic heavy factions are so dominant right now. They need to reduce the mortal wound bloat in this game, it's getting completely insane. We very quickly went from rend -1 being good, to rend -2, to the previous too becoming irrelevant due to the sheer volume of mortal wounds at play nowadays.
  22. 3 points
    Fish on Friday sounds right.
  23. 3 points
    My Lumineth Scinari scholars have pored over this question; and through deep contemplation, tribulation and eventual enlightenment, they have come to an objective, unbiased, completely reasonable and unquestionable conclusion: Yes.
  24. 2 points
    Kharadron overlords, they don't really have many buff abilities outside of the admiral and those are all aimed at the ships, although they have a fair number of circumstantial buffs like their footnotes and aether gold (although the book is a bit frustrating in general, like how their only "melee" unit needs to jump through hoops to get aether gold, but the arkanauts always get one). Beasts of chaos probably fit what you want at the moment (although they're a bit weak). They don't have a lot of strong synergies or command abilities (the beastlord needs to slay a model to even activate his) and they can throw tons of bodies and monsters on the table. Beastclaw raiders as well, although its an all monster list, not really a horde of soldiers
  25. 2 points
    I'm not sure, but I believe the Sons of Behemat mega gargants aren doing much buffing.
  26. 2 points
    How about the Legion of Azgorh? Fireglaives for battleline and shooting, K'daai Fireborn for the shock assault tarpit, Magma Cannons for sniping and MW dealing, and Skullcrackers (towing the Magma Cannons) for horde mowing. Daemonsmith general; and their heroes pretty much suck anyways! Or OR Ogor Mawtribes: 4 Frostlords on Stonehorns, 2x2 Mournfangs, 3 Gluttons. The Frostlords don't buff anything, Boulderhead buffs all of them. EEEEEEZY PEEEEEZY. But not a horde.
  27. 2 points
    Again, a yes from me. But like so many others, it isn't the MW tool that is the problem, but how the writers are using it. Magic MWs are pretty acceptable, as are some MWs from weapons and abilities. It's the sloppy writing that tries to compensate for poor rules insight that causes the problems. Such as 'this model can clear its nose and inflict D3 mortal wounds on any unit within 3"' and only because the model's melee weapon is hitting on 4 and wounding on 3 with no rend, but GW has to sell these models so there needs to be something that's attractive about them in the warscroll. MWs have become the goldrush of AoS mechanics and no one is saying it needs to stop or the writers need to do their jobs better. Otherwise we might as well resort to 'rock, paper, scissors, stone' contests. (So yeah, I like mortal wounds, it just needs to be reined in).
  28. 2 points
    Idoneth cavalry lists require minimal character support (and you need a general anyway - Volturnos could reasonably be the only character you use.). Apart from that, just mass akhelians, sharks and turtles. Not really a horde army as every thing is pretty elite, but you really won't overinvest in characters. CoS Tempest's Eye two-drop cavalry list - you need exactly two characters: a griffon general and a mage on hurricanum. Everything else is just all the pistoliers, outriders and gunhaulers you can get. Gloomspite Troggoth list: All troggoths, all the time. You will need a trogboss, of course, maybe a hag, but everything else can be unit based. It's not the strongest thing to play but it's fun. And, as above, OBR can do quite fine as well, they have extremely solid unit core. I would really advise against using a non-buffing character only. Command points are a resource you're expected to use. By simply letting them accumulate you gain nothing, basically handicapping your army. It's not as extreme as saying 'i want to play without using my movement phase' but it's up there. Keeping it minimal? Cool. Not using it at all? Don't expect to win much.
  29. 2 points
    The only armies that could potentially do what you want that I can do is lumineth with a vanari focus and a Loreseeker as general, maybe in syar or zaitrec, idoneth if you are good with using the turtle and just don't use the akhelian kings command ability, or kharadron overlords
  30. 2 points
    Can’t wait to see the zombie pups.
  31. 2 points
    I‘d go with the rest here and say MWs in general are fine, but rend is underused imo. +damage/rend/MWs on hit should go away as they slow down the game by seperate rolling, but everything dealing MWs on 6s should instead increase the wound roll/rend/damage. You would have so many variations. example given: „6s to wound have a rend of -3“ to represent precision strikes “6s to wound deal double damage“ your generic critical hit - imagine that on sth like retributors “6s to wound have -1 rend and deal 1 additional damage“ beheading strike of executioners 3+/3+/- blade for example Giving LRL weapons an additional rend or even -2 would be enough for sunmetal weapons, especially on 5+ to wound (buffed) - would also fix the frustration problem as archers would now have to deal with -hit (eg look out sir).
  32. 2 points
    Given that the position so frequently being replied to is 'Nagash/Death never wins' and/or 'Teclis undid all of Nagash's achievements by himself, easy and with no cost' pointing out that hey, that is objectively untrue seems a reasonable response.
  33. 2 points
    Yes. They're a useful element of the abstraction, a mechanic for saying "armour and resilience offer no defence against this attack", which is entirely appropriate for things like hearing the scream of a Terrorgheist, being zapped by an Arcane Bolt, or being trampled to death by a Mawkrusha. That said, I don't think they should ever have been used as an abstraction for "this mundane attack is extra deadly". Anything that uses the Attack Sequence should use it consistently, and vary the To Wound and AP values for special effects, rather than short-circuiting to Mortal Wounds on certain rolls.
  34. 2 points
    Personally, I think this is a scope problem, and I'm not sure why GW's writers keep painting themselves into that corner. When the objectives of Chaos or Death (or Destruction, if they ever got any attention) are "break into a Stormvault" or "sack a city" or "bring down a hero" or even just "capture some more territory", then they can be allowed to win, as we've seen many times. "End the game" just isn't a good objective for a villain to have, because there's never any tension or doubt about what the outcome has to be. Just give them smaller, more achievable goals! It doesn't always have to be the end of the world at stake. Because Sigmar sits on his throne and twiddles his thumbs, while Teclis gets off his butt and makes things happen? I dunno.
  35. 2 points
    mortal wounds on 6+ to hit on a unit that just has high attack output (like the old bloodletter bombs from when bloodsecrator portals stacked) is bad but mortals on 6+ to wound seems alright for elite units. flavorful mortal wounds like the nurgling disease if the wounded model survives also seem fitting. I think they should be a bonus rather than something you fish for
  36. 2 points
    @Charleston @Battlefury Biggest change I want to see is being able to bank unspent bloodtithe. No other summoning army's resource is used up in that way. No other army uses the same resource to choose between summoning and allegiance abilities. In addition, I would like to see a little more bloodtithe generated so it feels like we have allegiance abilities available all game, instead of at 2 or 3 key moments. Something like; enemy heroes and monsters generate 2 bloodtithe when slain, signifying the additional worthiness of their skulls to Khorne. I agree that Khorne should have some more inbuilt battleshock protection, if not outright ignore OBR style, and our heroes could do with some melee buffs/reliable damage. Skullreapers and Bloodwarriors to have rend -1 (happy for Bloodreavers to lose that option), Bloodwarriors to wound on 3+, Bloodthirsters to have a 5+ FNP. I would not support our Priests being limited to one prayer per turn like DOK, unless their points go down and/or our prayers became easier to cast. You make those minor changes and you have gone a long way to fixing Khorne. As for the "dont pick them" units; those need a warscroll re-write to be saved.
  37. 2 points
    This is probably very silly. but that non existent miniature in the display cabinet is not only huge by comparison but also has a very distinctive shape. My heart says this is gw trolling us about Kragnos. My head says it’s just GW trolling us about nothing.
  38. 2 points
    Also first time here, but I want to paint the whole kill team set of Elucidian Starstriders. Here's the first guy I started a couple of days ago.
  39. 2 points
    I voted no. Im fine with mortal wounds from spells, monster breath attacks and ‘impact hits’ from charging. Every other form of mortal wound needs to go away. AoS 1 mortal wounds were very rare (except for Stormcast), however mortal wounds became a necessary evil to counter the 2+ rerolling save Liberators, and then next thing you know almost everyone has mortal wounds but not everyone has defence against them
  40. 2 points
    I voted no for one reason: I want MWs in melee & shooting to trigger on the wound roll, not the hit roll. That makes more logical sense to me, and would draw down a lot of the spam we see for melee/shooting MWs. For certain things like magic and MawKrusha charges and stuff: lots of MW makes sense as a mechanic. I think the occasional shrug is appropriate. But both are spammed now to a point of passivity.
  41. 2 points
    Last Friday would have been better.
  42. 2 points
    Gday staff I'm the new Lead designer, right first and foremost we must expand Destruction and by that I mean Sons of Behemat need at least 10 new kits.
  43. 2 points
    Mortal wounds create an interesting rock-paper-scissors mechanic. Some units have a high number of models with many weak attacks that don't do much against good armor saves. Good armor saves aren't very good against mortal wounds. Mortal wounds aren't efficient against high wound targets. Hordes < Elites < Mortal Wounds < Hordes Current game has too many mortal wound abilities and spells. There was massive power creep in AOS 2.
  44. 2 points
    Couple of things here: 1) GW games have never been balanced, and usually are some of the most unbalanced games on the market. Its always been hotly debated if it's intentional or just poor work but at this point I have to think it's intentional, especially for AOS, given that the AOS design team is newer and seem to have a more of a competitive bent than the 40k team who always seemed to act like the competitive aspect of the game was a degenerate outlier (the whole "forge the narrative" meme from 6th/7th edition). I cannot believe that the way some battletome's are crazy OP and some are middling is anything short of intentional with how intelligent and "in touch" with the tournament crowd the AOS team seems to be; someone like Ben Johnson doesn't seem like he would write something and not know just how OP it will be. 2) People just don't care enough, either because they don't see it as a problem, they don't encounter it, or whatever reason. 7th edition 40k plummeted to the point where they needed to almost totally redo it for 8th (and IMHO quickly went back down the same path but that's a topic for another place) but AOS has never seemed to have that, at least not to the point where people aren't eating up everything GW puts out irrespective of the quality, or lack thereof, of the rules. So if it's not enough of a problem, there's no incentive to care about it or treat it as something important. 3) There has always seemed to be this random at best attempt to fix things that, more often than not, seems to indicate not understanding the problem in the first place. You see this more in 40k where units really need a stat revamp but instead get some seemingly random point tweaks to make them played more (or, more likely, a nerf/points increase to the units that are played more) that totally misses why they aren't used at all. I am not sure if AOS suffers from the same but I'd imagine it does, which goes back to the whole "is this intentional or not" discussion in my first point because it has to be clear that a unit is bad for other reasons than its points, yet points are what tends to be focused on. 4) There seems to be the idea that a meta is "healthy" if you see half a dozen different factions in them when all of those factions ignore 2/3 of their books to focus on a tiny minority of options that are deemed "competitive" and get pushed as the only way to play unless you want to get your teeth kicked in. This to me shows there is not a healthy meta or health balance because in an idea situation each faction should have multiple "builds" (and I hate using that word in regards to wargames) not a single one that shows up everywhere to give that faction a fighting chance. When you have a few outliers at the top and everything else at the bottom it shows that the outliers are clearly the issue, if the rest are "balanced" being low tier. It's not at all unexpected that a 100% optimized ("cheese") list designed for LVO or SCGT or whatever is considered the "grand championship" of tournaments will crush a non-optimized list, but there seems to be too much of a gulf between things again where picking what you like will just result in you losing most of your games because you were unfortunate enough to like Army X and not Army Y or Units A, B, and C in Army Y and not units K, L, and M which are the "competitive" options. 5) As other people have said, you can't view tournaments in isolation despite that being the best way given how much of an outlier competitive play tends to be with its design compared to anything else, even if using the same Matched Play rules. There are plenty of areas where everything is, in effect, a mini-tournament due to how competitive people are and anything less than your uber-cheese lists will be destroyed, and there are areas where people see the cheese lists and it trickles down to the casual gamers as well. In addition, all it takes is one person to start bringing a super competitive list to a casual game night and things can become an escalating series of killing off everything non-competitive as people see someone playing a casual list be absolutely crushed to the point of having no fun at all by the uber cheese list and soon everyone is scrambling to avoid that by going more competitive. That absolutely happens, and not only that but it skews new people's perspectives because they are told, specifically by GW, that you can and should pick models you like and a faction which appeals to you only to be told that: a) The faction you like is weak because of whatever reason GW deemed it should be and sucks to be you if you really like that faction b) The faction you like is good but the units you like are bad and sucks to be you if the units that are good don't appeal to you If either one of those happen there's a good chance a new player is going to feel "duped" if they buy into the game and lose 90% of their games without even feeling like they have a chance just because they liked a certain faction and/or units and everyone else around them is playing comp lists that will steamroll anything non-comp.
  45. 2 points
    I like them in concept but not in all implementations. For spells in AoS 0 they were fine - you might get hit by an arcane bolt but it was 18" away, had a chance to fail, and also a chance to be dispelled. There were also some 6+ to hit MWs, but again they could be turned off by a -1 to hit (or made stronger with a +1). MWs felt rate and powerful, whereas now in some armies they feel too liberally integrated. I think the main potential issue with MWs is that, asides from ward saves, there's no interaction with the wounds. If it's caused by a spell that's fine because dispelling was (or at least should be) a potential here. If it's an automatic ability or at least an ability that has little to no counterplay, then I think MWs are boring. I like MWs to feel like a small reward - you manage to cast a spell so you are rewarded with unsavable wounds, or you lined up a charge and so do some unavoidable chip damage. Basically they're good in small numbers when a condition has to be met that the opponent can stop (e.g. dispelling or charging first), but I think they're poor when they're en masse and without much counterplay.
  46. 2 points
    Got Teclis nearly finished! Just some highlights and touch ups. Very fun model to paint!
  47. 2 points
    Yeah, honestly, I have no idea why anyone would think that this book is bringing an end to the Soul Wars once and for all.
  48. 2 points
    God I love Khorne. I would give my worldly possessions for them to be at the standard their lore implies they should be. We have all these 80pt heroes who, in the lore should be absolute animals on the table. Most of them don't even have rend. Perhaps the most disappointing is the mighty lord of khorne though. This is how the battletome describes him; Clad in iron and brass, and commanding countless savage warriors, the Lords of Khorne are the Blood God’s greatest mortal champions. The deep scars that criss-cross their bulging muscles tell of lifetimes spent waging wars and committing atrocities. When a Lord of Khorne espies a worthy enemy, he falls upon them like the blade of a guillotine, bringing swift and inescapable death. He wades through ranks of soldiers with the full fury of his god, severing heads with every swing of his axe and roaring challenges for any brave or foolish enough to answer. Under showers of arterial blood he butchers champions and monsters, kings and beasts. All are but skulls to be piled high in honour of Khorne. How is this represented on the table? 3 attacks, 3s and 3s, -1, d3 damage. This dude should be an expensive eltharion level foot hero. make me sad
  49. 1 point
    Not sure yet as it’ll depend on COVID restrictions and when I can link it to a competitive one day event. I will keep folk updated for sure 👍🏻
  50. 1 point
    My hope is, yes there is still a bit to come and that GW just confirmed the existence of Gravelords by showing updated sculpts of existing models and then when it gets a lot closer to release they come out with the brand new stuff, be it a single model/unit or a handful of models/units. I wouldn't be completely shocked if we didn't get BOTH a terrain piece and endless spells, but it would surprise me if we got neither. Maybe there is a center piece model but maybe not. We already have the VLoZD, Coven Throne and Mannfred & Neferata as "center pieces." However, I would love a new model similar to Katakros or Glutos. My fear is, we might get the Cities of Sigmar or Warclans treatment, in that we are getting a new book with update warscrolls, abilities, etc. It wouldn't be the end of the world though because the new Blood Knight, Skeleton & Zombie sculpts are all amazing as is the Crimson Court which make for great Vampire Lords. In addition, if the warscrolls for the Vargheists and a few other LoN things are decent then we really don't NEED more models. However, I do genuinely hope we get some cool new things that we haven't seen before.
This leaderboard is set to London/GMT+01:00
×
×
  • Create New...