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

HollowHills

Members
  • Content Count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

HollowHills last won the day on October 25

HollowHills had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

182 Celestant-Prime

About HollowHills

  • Rank
    Protector

Recent Profile Visitors

193 profile views
  1. HollowHills

    GW is asking for advice on GHB 2019

    Interesting a lot of IDK players seem to be giving the same feedback; that it's a shame to have so many possible options but eels outshine them all. My big feedback: 1) Lotann, what is the point of this guy? Fantastic model, totally useless rules. All he does is give a small bravery buff with an extreme range restriction and a way for Nemarti to reroll hits of 1 with an extreme range restriction. He's even worse because there are so many other ways to reroll hit rolls of 1 in the army. I think 3 enclaves give hit rerolls? Nautilar reroll all failed if they were charged, Fuethan reroll 1s on turn 2 and 4 and Briomdar (?) reroll if they charged. He can't cast spells, use artefacts and doesn't have a command ability. He is literally pointless. Which I could understand for a really old model in a huge range, but for a brand new kit and a named character it's criminal. He needs a rework and I doubt we'll get that, but I asked for him to reduced to 50 points. 2) Both types of eels are too good, we all know this. At the same time their warscrolls are pretty cool rule wise and we need to be careful not to put them at the point where they drop out of usage. They should fill the elites slot. 20 Point rise for both. 3) Reavers and Thralls are both basically unplayable at a decent level currently. I actually believe that thralls are fairly good if you could get them to the point where they suit the role of cheap glass cannon horde infantry, once they get into combat you can put some really great damage output. This is slightly hampered by their base size, I think they are very similar to Bloodletters in terms of damage output and survivability. As such I suggest 120 points with a 30 unit costing 300 points. This would reward those who go for the horde approach with a point reduction that makes up for the fact they are likely to struggle to get all into combat + suffer bravery losses. Reavers are fine warscroll wise, but even at their best range they are only putting out around 3.5 wounds through a 4+ save. If you want a ranged unit you're much better bringing in a variety of allied units. 100 points / 270 points for a discount. 4) Allopex are just lackluster for their points cost. It upsets me that their only rule is a reroll to charges. I personally believe they are similar to Khorgorath's which are much cheaper. 120 points. 5) Eidolons are both over costed. They are similar to greater daemons who are significantly cheaper across the board. AotSea suffers especially from not having any innate bonuses to casting coupled with a short range on spells. Very easy to shut down a 440 point model with one much cheaper than might have access to a 1+ or 2+ to unbind. 380 for Storm 400 for Sea. 6) Soulscryer is probably too cheap because of the power of Deepstrike. Allows you to keep your best guys off the board, drop them down with a charge bonus and then go to town with the eel spam. 140 points for deepstrike tax. 7) Battlions the deepkin battlions are all bad. Royal council is hypothetically cool, but requires such a degree of set up to make it undesirable. I.e having to take the soulscryer but not being able to use him for the reason you would take a soulscryer. I suggested 100 point reduction to all battlions.
  2. HollowHills

    Organised play - bans and restrictions

    The only one that annoys me is Time Trap. Not because I disagree, but because it was only at the launch of Nightvault that an FAQ made it into such a good card. To explain, the faq made it so any card that lets you "take an action" trumps charge tokens which in the new core rules prevent "actions" from being taken by that fighter. As such the old interpretation of Time Trap was that you could for instance charge with one fighter, then charge with another. Or move and attack. For the cost of two activations. The new faq version meant you could double charge the same fighter, or charge and then attack with the same fighter. Or charge and move back etc. As such you could move halfway across the board and kill two fighters on the way, all the while only gaining a single charge token for it. Basically it annoys me because an faq made it really good and then they banned it because they made it good.
  3. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    I've amended the original post to be fairer and more respectful in tone. I was frustrated that in trying to share a rumour, something a lot of people have been clamouring for (re: discussions about too much speculation, not enough rumours),, there seemed to be some negative backlash.
  4. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    When discussing anonymous leaks it's hard to be clear about the source, to be clear I have heard reliable information about a new Primaris release which I believe to be factual.
  5. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    An individual who claims to be in the know told me that we will see Abaddon return in a new sculpt and a release of new Primaris models. So, hearsay. But I believe it. That's about as close to any genuine rumour that will see the light on this forum tbh.
  6. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    I know for a fact there is a new Primaris release, other stuff is speculation.
  7. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    People speculate on releases like 40k doesn't exist. What about primaris wave 2? What about CSM? What about GSC and Ynnari? Book releases without big model support are quite a realistic prospect. I don't see four new armies a year for AoS as likely.
  8. HollowHills

    The Rumour Thread

    Yes, yes you can. Given actual leaks aren't allowed to be posted (as per general rules) this thread is mostly 1) reposts of rumours being reported elsewhere 2) unsubstantiated claims based on hearsay. The actual substance of the thread is mostly people responding to the above with their own feelings, hopes and judgments. Which is totally fine. It reflects exactly how most hobbyists might speculate about news and rumours down at a local club. The vast majority of posters seem quite happy to chat with one another about topics, by and large, related to rumours. Though I may disagree with the mods in some areas, they do an excellent job in gently nudging if things go too far off topic. Some users seem to want a drip feed of 100% verified GW leaks, which is never going to happen.
  9. Old models are really cool, most people love seeing them out even if they are a bit funny looking from an objective standpoint. I sold an Orcs and Goblins army that had a lot of 1980s metal sculpts, made of lead even, earlier this year. I regret it but I needed the money at the time. I also have a friend who I play with regularly who is an expert in retro style paint jobs and often has models to match. I always have a soft spot for how he manages to get the classic style looks. Games Workshop have absurdly extreme rules in terms of what is and isn't allowed, a point in case being that they now object to sculpted bases sold by other companies being used at tournaments. Of course, this is understandable from a business point given that official models are literally their means of survival as a company. However, unless we are restricted to playing at official shops I don't think there is any reason to oppose model rules on our fellow hobbyists. There are plenty of reasons people would want to use third party sculpts, price in some cases, in others that GW sculpts are just worse than third party counterparts (i.e. zombies, marauders). In fact I would actively encourage, in some cases, buying third party models from talented independent sculptors and companies to help support innovation and diversity. In that sense it's like the choice to buy a coffee from the local barista rather than feed the behemoth that is Starbucks. If you look at other hobby areas outside of the GW sphere, rules on specific models are much more flexible. For instance historical games usually agree a scale, but don't impose any specifics with regard to manufacturer. D&D supply models, but you're free to use whatever you like to represent your character. Our wayward cousin of a game, Ninth Age, also is very flexible. This can encourage some really cool conversation work from players looking to get a model that accurately represents their vision. Of course recasting is another thing entirely. That said, if GW decide to stop producing a range like Tomb Kings or Brettonians I can understand why some would want to seek ways to keep those models alive. My view would be TLDR: Just because GW encourage the mantra of "official only" doesn't mean we have to buy into that as hobbyists, play the models you enjoy regardless of age, manufacturer or status.
  10. HollowHills

    A Real Concern re: Black Library

    I suspect putting together an audio drama is a lot quicker than writing a novel. You also have the opportunity to reach out to a broader audience than otherwise. For example, the number of people who just don't read / don't feel they have time to read might well be more open to an audio drama. If you think about it an audio drama works quite well with the hobby because you can listen while you paint. If they hire well known names like David Tenant or Brian Blessed again they are bringing in a wider audience. Personally I'm in favour of any lore stuff that doesn't require me to wade through the writing of many of the BL novels. A lot of the prose is truly dreadful. +++MOD EDIT+++ Piracy is not condoned here in any format.
  11. HollowHills

    Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

    Here is a specific example, Spikey Bits, Chapter Master Valrak and KirothTv all responded with criticism to GW's decision to raise Forge World prices in the US. Other groups did not comment on this. I would state (to be clear this is not a statement of preference or agreement with the names just mentioned) these sources tend to be more critical of GW than others, for example miniwargaming, guerilla miniatures or (in the past) The Bad Dice podcast. It also seems like some sources who are more critical at times tend to have less of a relationship with GW, with regard to new releases etc, than others who are less critical. To be clear I'm not saying that one group are representative of free, unbiased press and the others are GW proxies.
  12. HollowHills

    Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

    Another insightful post, I think you make some good points here. Regarding the amount of effort required to accurately review a product like Soul Wars, you're right. It clearly is a large undertaking and I'm not saying those who do so shouldn't have access to free items for doing so. I've picked out a particular quotation because it's something I want to respond to. When it comes to mainstream journalism you can often find official policy on receiving goods or services from a company. For example The Guardian has a specific sub section in this code of conduct that discusses freebies, one paragraph states; GNM will not allow any payment, gift or other advantage to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. Any attempts to induce favourable editorial treatment through the offer of gifts or favours should be reported to the editor. Where relevant, payments, gifts or other advantages will be disclosed. Now I know you can say that most of these bloggers and channels are small and fan operated while The Guardian is a major international newspaper. That's true, but I don't think it would be hard for content creators to have a short policy in video descriptions or on their websites that states something similar.
  13. HollowHills

    Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

    @CaptainSoup Regarding the subject of the thread, it is a question. I want people to express their opinions on the subject and explain their reasons for doing so. At the same time I'm not going to pretend that I don't have my own stance on the subject. I'm not someone who leans on feelings rather than logic, I think the tone of my posts and attempt to engage with objections flin a fair and even way demonstrates that. Here are some facts; 1) We know GW provides certain bloggers, Youtubers and so on with free product. 2) We know some of them, not all, tend to give very favourable opinions on GW products without much significant criticism. 3) We know a relationship of sorts exists between these content creators and GW that contains at least one formal element, an NDA relating to when they can release their content. 4) We know these content creators are not professional journalists and not bound by any official code of conduct etc. I have also had some sources state to me personally that certain named individuals in the warhammer community receive favourable treatment included free product from GW. However, this is anecdotal and as such it cannot be relied upon. Even if there are no formal agreements but GW constantly give free product while nurturing a positive relationship with certain amateur creators, I believe this could foster a bias without the content creators necessarily being aware of it. As such my personal opinion on the subject, as actively stated prior, is that there is nothing wrong with receiving free product or making agreements with GW that are designed to provide material for content. However, this is something that should be declared by those that do so.
  14. HollowHills

    Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

    A few points of response, Firstly your argument seems to hold the implicit premise that if something is legal then it's moral, or at least fair game. I think that's a demonstrably untenable position to hold. For example, a corporation registering an office in the cayman Islands and paying no tax revenue might well be legal but as consumers and citizens we abhor such behaviour. It's also an unfortunate fact that regulators tend to work slowly and are reactive bodies. Payday loans are a good example, or fixed odds betting machines. Law and regulation recognised these practices as harmful, but it took quite a long time for that to happen and for the practices to become wide spread. In the real world I work in risk, in financial services. I know too well how some companies attempt to circumvent, outwit and evolve past barriers. When those changes do come its often a result of consumer pressure and complaint. My personal view is that the current situation with influencers and companies is so new we don't know how to regulate areas like gifts. All I'm ultimately arguing for when it comes to content creators and warhammer is... If content creators have an agreement with GW, or receive free product from them, this should be declared. Especially if they are given anything which is outside the direct purview of their content. For example, if they were given models, paints or event tickets that did not relate to the content they are creating but are for their own personal enjoyment. On your final point, about it not being fair to judge first impression videos on in depth variables, I already conceded that in my earlier comment. But when you're creating an hour or longer video discussing a rule book I think it's fair to expect some insight into positives or negatives of the rules. I applaud those content creators, some of whom are posting in this very thread, who do not receive free product from GW and affirm their desire to be independent. They are proof that there is an alternative way to do things.
  15. HollowHills

    Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

    The thing is we all know there are negatives with new products that come out. We hear our friends and community members mention them in real life and feel them ourselves. Yet, I very rarely see that criticism reflected in "first impressions" or reviews. As LLV said, Soul Wars had some real issues. Models were tricky to put together and sometimes the easy to fit required green stuff filler. Some of the models, like your executioner, break very easily or are difficult to transport. You don't get a legal amount of evocators in the box. The sequitors all come with the worse of two main weapon options. EDIT; it's fine if some of this is a sacrifice to experienced hobbyists in order to support new players, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'd want a reviewer to say. END I love my Deepkin and I've spent over £250 on my army so far, but there are problems with them too. The whole range frustrates me with how hard they are to transport and protect. The lack of parity between nemarti lists and eel lists is so extreme its hard to see how it wasn't picked up by play testers. Lotann, great as he is, costs more than all the regular heroes without any explanation. Of course some of these things are difficult for early impressions to pick up, they only become apparent as time goes on. Others could definitely be picked up, such as the issues with the fragility of models or the moulding of soul wars. If I watch two or three review / first impression videos and they are all saying how great something while omitting the flaws, to me that is problematic. It does seem that there are some content creators out there who are praising GW products, receiving freebies or benefits for doing it and never seem to have any actual criticism.
×