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

exliontamer

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Liberator

About exliontamer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah true. I mean basically it's not going to catch the same (savvy) opponent twice. But it will make them have to do a bit more thinking than usual, which is USUALLY an advantage.
  2. I think they were referencing that the enemy hero must be within 1" of the unit they are going to do MW to...which is true, but it certainly will make your opponent agonize a bit over positioning...because for a hero to be effective they often have to be quite close to the combat.
  3. I mean I would say yes. It says equal to the attacks characteristic. To determine that characteristic for some weapons you must roll. This artefect is crazy strong...free mortal wounds that don't require a roll and lots of mind games for your opponents punishing their bad positioning. I like it. Very Slaanesh.
  4. Man...so much here to wade through. And everything looks baseline "good." Special mention of the Whip of Subversion which gives the opponent the unenviable choice of breaking up that one unit and the hero they need for support or just handing you like 4 free mortal wounds average (I can't think of many heroes who don't have at least a 4 attack weapon on their profile). Or even better, since both its ability and Locus of Diversion happen at the "end of combat"...and based on that in-depth article they published several weeks ago that means that on your turn you get to choose the order things happen at the "end of combat"...so if they have two heroes next to each other you can Locus one of the heroes (the most dangerous one) and likely have the other hero kill it with mortal wounds before it can attack. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/
  5. We discussed it a bit above, seems there is another piece in the video that is obvious scenery. I honestly feel like the little snakey tentacle things on this one make it seem like it might even be mobile. I am excited to find out!
  6. It wouldn't be that much of a rework really. And it would make sense to do such a reorganization when dropping a battletome. I guess we'll see.
  7. I certainly hope we get at least one more battle trait as you are correct, the two we have feel a little anemic. And I also certainly hope they rework or fix the host abilities (and it seems they will), I mean if only because one of them is currently actually useless. But these types of changes have been par for the course with other armies that finally received a battletome, so I assume we will get approximately the same treatment.
  8. Yeah, I thought the double herald piece was terrain at first too until I saw the above piece in the video. Unless we are getting two terrain pieces? That could be kinda cool I guess... Also based on the design I hope that piece from the video's sole job is to summon KoSs!
  9. I was going to say...as if we needed more mobility...but it would be kind of cool to have yet another way to vomit highly mobile daemons at people. Also, I am excited to see the rules differences between AoS and 40k. They only really mentioned the AoS battletome in the article, but I imagine many of these models will get 40k rules as well.
  10. Any speculation about what the two heralds on the portal is?
  11. Honestly I love bits and pieces of these models, but I hate almost all of them in totality. I just do not like the "new" GW aesthetic. The poses are so weak. That being said I am stoked to harvest the bits to make my own Slaaneshi goodies. That daemon price is a GREAT base for conversion. And the KoS is good for size and bulk, but will need to be heavily worked on. All in all exciting.
  12. Oh I am not saying that the rules aren't tight for Underworlds, that was pretty much implied in my "board game" comment. That's just not a paramount thing for me. For my money Underworlds kind of pulls on the tedious bits of games like Magic and Malifaux, without really coming through on the flavor (or narrative, but I admit that's not the point of Underworlds). Underworlds and Kill Team both make me feel like I am playing on rails, not something I am very interested in as a gamer. Warcry feels (obviously we don't yet know) like it will be in that same vein. So again, I just don't understand why we need 3 games with that similar structure/style. I was hoping for a more Necromunda/narrative style game and didn't get it. That's my disappointment, but not necessarily everybody's.
  13. Necromunda is a good skirmish wargame, though not my cup of tea. Underworlds is a board game. Kill Team is boring, watered-down 40k with unappealing add-on rules. Won't even mention AOS Skirmish, because it is literally AOS with less models. I was also sorta including Shadow War in there, which was fun but the rules throwback was too much for some people. I enjoyed it though. Said with the experience of having played all of the above many times. These are my opinions, feel free to attack them I guess, but I don't see why you would need to do so.
  14. Yeah, this is undoubtedly more of the same watered-down/dumbed-down skirmish stuff we've seen from them in recent years...with monopose boring models to boot. Oh yeah, and it's Chaos-only. I'm not saying they should reprint Mordheim exactly word for word, but it's something people have been asking for for years now. New rules and new plastic modular kits. Nobody asked for this. If you want to play a boring boxed-in game you already have 3-4 options. This is a real disappointment. EDIT: That sounded real pessimistic, and it was, but if I had to give a "neat" thing about this I guess it was those fury/gargoyle looking models. There will no doubt be great pieces for kitbashing out of this line...but GW seems to have committed themselves down the road of releasing a metric tonne of mediocre board games they can't possibly support long term instead of a couple of solid but expandable properties. And that is a development I do not like.
×
×
  • Create New...