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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Celestant-Prime

About Undeadly

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/24/1997

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Undeadly

    AoS 2 - Legion of Blood Discussion

    I'd maybe recommend Bladegheists, but they are Nighthaunt exclusive unit, so maybe use Grimghasts instead? They seem pretty blendy, have fly, and a unit leader with a special weapon. Why not use them as Vampire Infantry?
  2. Undeadly

    AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion

    Honestly, for what ever reason, most of the Nighthaunt kits have been reasonably, if not pretty nicely priced on when it comes to GW. Its just that the Chainrasp's price was just sooooo overpriced. But 45$ for a box with 2 units worth of minis? And one of them is battleline? And 35$ for named heros? Heck yeah. Compare the Nighthaunt release to Idoneth; its night and day.
  3. Undeadly

    Coven Throne for Nighthaunts

    Ah, still, more artifacts for the rest of the army. And honestly, I still feel like it doesn't need it.
  4. Undeadly

    Coven Throne for Nighthaunts

    Mind posting the page? I haven't seen that posted anywhere. And its a realm artifact, not a allegiance artifact?
  5. Undeadly

    Coven Throne for Nighthaunts

    To me, a Coven Throne works *really* nicely in a Nighthaunt army. Its CA gives some really good buffs to pretty much any unit you slap it on, since its like a supercharged mystic shield. It also still has the unnerfed Frightful Touch on her Ghost Swarm, and guess which Ghostly Bride gives a +1 to hit towards a target unit? She gives another spell, and is absurdly fast at 14". Give her the Ethereal Amulet from Shyish, and for all acounts, shes practically a Nighthaunt.
  6. Well than there's no point to the conditions than, is there? Because if the players know before hand, then they'll just build their lists accordingly. All your doing is just shifting the meta, and making it so that players will just build armies that work around the realm, whether it be spells, features, command abilities or traits. This makes the whole point of "diversifying armies" entirely moot, because you'll just see the same armies, but adapted to the list. You'll see less players bring certain armies, because they know they wont work well with the stipulations, and instead see different armies that work better under the conditions. Honestly, if I can bring this to a point because I don't like arguing on TGA all that much, then its this: I think the idea of randomly picked features per battle COULD work. I think there's some neat ideas you can do. But in its current state, the Realm of Battle rules are not effective at what they are meant to do. Secondly, I feel like this is also a band aid to certain problems within army books that frustrates me; Rather than simply having it be that each unit in the book offers some sort of tactical challenge to the opponent or some benefit to the player, its been boiled down to the fact that certain units will out perform others. If GW wants to see more diversity in the armies played or brought to tournaments, then the first step is to make it so that there is a reason for the army not to just spam the best things available to them. Don't try and retroactively make an army worse through special rules that can shut down a play-style. Make it so that each unit can enable unique and balanced play-styles. Make things better, not arbitrarily worse.
  7. How do you even "adapt" your playstyle, if you have no idea what your going to face? How do you know what to bring, or include, if half your army could become ineffective with the roll of 2 dice? When whats incredibly broken in one game becomes incredibly weak the next, with little to forewarning? And we're not even talking about Endless spells or Realm Spells, both of which I think are perfectly fine. I'm talking about board wide, army crippling effects that players have no counters to, and can't really even predict. Tell me, what do you do when half your army simply cannot run? Or can't shoot more than 6" inches? Or takes d3 MW when they run more than 6"? or when you roll a dice for each model in the unit, and if its under their armor save, they get that many MW if they get lucky and roll a 6+? Or if all of a sudden, none of you or your opponents have ANY rend? Or if every single terrain piece is Sinister? This isn't even counting the ones where if you or your opponent get lucky and roll a 6+ in the hero phase, they get some free MW? How is that tactically engaging in the slightest to you? Theres no strategy, or change to deny it, its just roll a dice, maybe you get to do some damage for free. I'm not even against these sorts of rules, but this is just impractical and silly to pretend that making every game a coin flip will fix the problems with the game, or even fix more problems than it will create.
  8. Well than we'll have to agree to disagree. Because Generalship in a game like of AoS should be based around how well they put the army together, how well they play that army, and how well they can counter their opponent. Even the best player, when given a rule that ACTIVELY hinders and hurts their army, will be at a disadvantage. These rules based entirely on luck; how in the world argue that this is good for a healthy competitive community, when some of these realm rules can just do so much damage against certain armies, but are based entirely on things as simple as single roll of a dice? You might as well be gambling at that point, since no amount of tactics or strategy can save you from some of these effects.
  9. And if we assume that both players are playing to the best of their ability and playing with lists that both made without any prior knowledge of the enemy lists, than I would presume that the Kharadron player would loose in a competitive setting, provided that dice rolls are some what average. This is all fine and good in a narrative game, or a game that was prior agreed upon between the two players, but it is entirely unfair to the Kharadron player in a tournament setting. Keep in mind, I don't have a problem with this. Infact, that sounds like a really fun scenario to play out, and could lead to a entertaining game. But in a tournament scenario, where both players expect to fight one another on fair and even playing field, this is entirely unjustified. The Kharadron player is, without question, in a worse position than the Khorne. That is inarguable. Now the Kharadron player may still win, given he gets lucky, or is simply superior to his opponent as a player, but if we presume that they are even remotely in the same level of competency, I would never bet on the Kharadron to win. What interesting options does this bring up? How DO they adjust tactics? Because as far as I am aware, the Khorne player may continue exactly as he planned to: Charge up the field, engage in melee. But now he doesn't even have to worry about being shot half the time, since all he needs to do is stay out of LoS thanks to the ruins. Your hypothetical could happen; but its much more likely that the Khorne players will move out of the ruins, charge in, and wipe out the Kharadron player before he even gets the chance to shoot. That isn't a fair fight. And that's okay in a Narrative or Open play game. Or heck, even in Matched play. But this is not the kind of game I want to play in a Tournament.
  10. Honestly, if I may put my own ideas and thoughts out there, I think its quite unlikely that GW actually factored in any of the Realms of Battle effects into the balancing and creation of Battletomes. Now, is it still their intention that Realms of Battle would help? Well, yes, I do. But since so many of these rules hinder armies, rather than help open new tactical or interesting choices, it just doesn't seem that GW took the actual rules into account. Like I said before, having players deal with the Flames and Smoke and Burning Missiles rule at the same time makes for a really interesting game in my opinion. Meanwhile, if you rolled the 12 range and had the command ability in Ulgu, you could also have a neat game of teleporting around, trying to get into range so you can effectively engage the enemy. When both armies GAIN something, instead of LOSING something, It makes the game more interesting. That's why I'm not all that against the spells of the realms, since both armies have SOMETHING they can gain from it, rather than simply losing out.
  11. Because that is how the armies are balanced and played. Why can Stormcast deep strike and get minus -1 to hit when they do so? Why do Idoneth get different buffs every round? Why do Daughters of Khaine get stacking buffs every round? Why do Dispossessed get such good bravery mitigation? Thats because armies are made with specific abilities in the mind, and how they function with those abilities. Nighthaunt pay for that Flying, Unrendable save and Double strike ability by: Having less wounds on their units and heros than other armies Having no better save than a +4 re-rolling 1's Having very few weapons with anything better than rend -1 Having very few weapons which are multi-damage Low access to MW saves outside of their Deathless Minions 6++ and a few specific abilities And thats just to name a few. I mean, why does any army have allegiance abilities, or special rules at all?
  12. On the topic of list designing, I'll say this: When ever I usually design a list, I don't exactly plan on countering everything. Rather, I think of what the army can do, what challenges the army provides to the enemy, and what challenges can the army effectively answer. These three components, in my opinion, are what can make a list great, or in other cases, terrible. The problems that arise when including Realms of Battle is that unless the organizer is already picking what realms and rules that will be used (Which creates its own kinds of problems, where players build lists that maximize using that realm therefore negating the whole point of diversifying lists), then it simply becomes too many variables to really work with. I mean, how can you really plan around around 7 realms, with at least one spell and command ability each, and 6 random traits? Armies that rely on good armor saves and high rend can be absolutely crushed on Chamon? Or say your in Ghur, and your opponent has gotten you into a bad position on his charge; And then he rolls a 6+ and gets to whomp you again. And with Ulgu, half of its traits are just limiting range of attacks for ranged and spells, but at least that has the benefit of having a Command Ability that lets you re-position your units, so your only helpless if your get a 2 on the features roll. Still, how do any of these help armies diversify lists? You cannot predict how the realms will affect your army, so its almost always a better idea to simply just build a list as your normally would, and hope that you don't get one of the ones that ruin how your army plays, and pray that you either get one that actively helps, or at the very least, doesn't hinder your army. If the actual rules for these realms were different, or only offered bonuses to both armies, than there would not be a problem. But when the very fundamental concepts of a faction are removed or hindered, like Kharadrons shooting , Nurgle relying on running, Slyvanneth using terrain, death making use of hordes, Nighthaunt having flying, Wanderers using Board edges, than it boils down to luck favoring one army over another.
  13. No, my point is, is it fair for armies to just straight up get penalities that actively hinder the majority of the army? Like I said before, EVERY single Nighthaunt unit is flying, and the only allie they can bring that ISN'T flying are Bloodknights from Soulblight. And one of their key abilities relies on them getting a 9+ to charge. How is it fair for a Nighthaunt army to get the possibility of MW when ever they move their full move distance or charge? In a Maggotkin of Nurgle army, Gnarlmaws allow Nurgle armies to actually move where they need to. And even without that, they need to be able to run to effectively get to places. When their army has only 3 units that FLY, how is it fair that every other unit gets left at speeds as slow as 4"?
  14. Well, Its not that one army is getting buffed, though. Its that multiple armies can either get lucky and get a massive boost or get unlucky and loose a lot of strength all because of simply two dice rolls, and with no way of predicting or countering it. You could get a boost to shooting, or you could loose out on half your range. Is that fair to armies like Kharadron, unless you bring a lot of Close Combat units? And is loosing the ability to run fair to Maggotkin armies, unless you bring Gargoyles and Drones? These aren't things that can change playstyles, these are things that can actively weaken or entirely ruin what would otherwise be good and fun lists to play for as arbitrary a reason as being unlucky.
  15. Just to throw my two cents in, I honestly don't think that is entirely wise to use the Realms of Battle or Malign Realm Sorcery Ruleset in a "competitive" sort of setting. Although I do admit I like the idea that GW is trying to push, which is that these rules help diversify and round army lists. That is a good intention to have, because it helps deal with things like monobuilds, or very specific army lists, and helps make tournaments more interesting in general. Infact, I do think these rules make battles far more interesting, at least in a friendly, mildly competitive match. But the main problems with the Realms of Battle rules isn't that they force players to change their lists; Its that it can actively benefit one army far, far more than another, or possibly even ruin a players army entirely. These rules can have such drastic effects that go far beyond being simply tactical challenges, to the point where some armies basically break down. Now, since the RoB are all random to a certain degree, I think its fair to say that the possibility of something occurring that helps you, or hinders you are both equally likely. But the problem isn't luck, or possibility of getting these bonuses: Its the fact that these bonuses can actively cripple, or massively help particular armies, with nothing more than a roll of a single dice, and this can quickly lead to frustration and anger on both sides of the table over relatively nothing. I mean, we all know about Aqshy's Flaming Missiles; This is by far one of the biggest overwhelming advantages, simply because of what shooting is like in AoS. Order armies, like Freeguild, Wanderers, Dispossessed, and Stormcast instantly get a great bonus that can make certain units incredibly deadly. Thunderers, Iron drakes, Sisters of the Watch, Glade Guard all instantly become better. But on the flipside, all of those units and armies can get instantly worse if you roll one higher, and get Clouds of Smoke and Steam, which makes it so that you cannot draw LoS through any sort of terrain, effectively stifling the range of their weapons, but with no benefit in return. I will admit that the Set Alight Command Ability you get in Aqshy helps mitigate Flaming Missiles, but does nothing to help Long Ranged armies in return. How is that fun for a player using a shooty army? On the other side of the coin, if you roll a 4 in Aqshy as a Nighthaunt player, suddenly one of your biggest advantages, Tides of Death, which allows you to have a unit attack instantly if you roll a 9+ to charge, becomes incredibly weak. Due to Every Step a League, any unit that rolls a 10+ to charge or advances 6+, gets d3 mortal wounds. And in a army with mostly low wound count models, this can be honestly devastating. Now, you can decide not to move, but that actively makes it harder for your units to get into combat, and degrades their best Allegiance Ability. Not to mention Burning Skies (Not the Chaos Dwarf one) ALSO makes Nighthaunt much harder to play, since every Nighthaunt unit is flying, and alot of them have a base 8" to move. If we try to use our full move value, there is chance that a Nighthaunt player will just combust. Either one of these would actively be awful for a Nighthaunt player, and certainly hurt his ability to win. And these are just from ONE realm. Each one has abilities that will just devastate certain armies. Brittle Isles from Chamon makes rend utterly useless. Winds of Death in Shyish can effectively destroy hordes if it can go off. Ghur has the obvious problem of possibly having up to 4 monsters just roaming about, or giving Close Combat armies another go in the combat phase. Feccund Quagmires can cripple slower armies by robbing them of their ability to run. All of these are just innate, random penalties to certain armies, with no way you can really change or counter it. But even worse, is that a good majority of these abilities are all usually activated on a 6+ to begin with. This makes it nearly impossible to tell how often they will come into play, and how much they will affect the battle at large, making strategies that counter or use them utterly pointless. Now that I think I've illustrated my points, I will say this: I think when used in the right combinations, or if multiple rules were put into effect at the same time, I think you could have some interesting battles, and help spice up game play. In Aqshy, say you used both the Steam and Smoke rule AND the Flaming Missiles Rule. Suddenly, players would have to make far more tactical movements, and play a game of cat mouse through the terrain. Shooting is far stronger now, but also limited in how far you can use it. This would make a battle using those rules far more challenging, but also fair, as the shooting player lines up avenues of fire, while the close combat army tries to maneuver through the LoS blocking terrain. This is just one example, but overall, I think a really fun and neat one that makes players think more about what they do. And that is what I think that GW is trying to say about the rules, and what they hope they function as. But at this state in time, the only thing they do is just make people angry and frustrated.