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

mikethefish

Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

132 Celestant-Prime

About mikethefish

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. mikethefish

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    I still think Mhornar would be a good option for this, since they are giving out Battleshock debuffs
  2. mikethefish

    The Scattering of AoS's Ruleset

    I don't mean to keep harping on your point - not meaning this as a personal attack or anything - but what you are saying, I am just not convinced. I think your issue is that you are confusing the attitudes of players (local or otherwise), and what you THINK that GW is planning to do (maybe sorta someday), with the way the game actually is. Is the Index going away? At some point, hopefully. Will it be this edition? Maybe? They have said absolutely nothing on the subject, aside from reinforcing (multiple times) that Index stuff is allowed, even in Matched Play. Personally I don't think the Index will go away in 8th Edition. But what I believe doesn't really matter. The state of the game, currently, is that we have Codexes that do not reflect the army options available to players, new or old. We have Codex entries that do not show everything a specific unit can do (not going to lie - I have a massive problem with this). And we have a company who is unwilling to take a stand, and make a ruling about things like Index entries, base sizes, and unit options, essentially letting 40k 8th resemble the wild west of miniature gaming. I MUCH prefer the AoS situation right now. Sure there are old PDF armies still floating around, and the GHB is really necessary for some of the older Battletomes. I play Ironjawz myself (what can I say, I am an Orruk/Ork fan), and am very used to relying on the GHB for a bunch of my personal army's special rules. But at least I can look at a Warscroll, and find out the actual rules of a particular unit. At least there is a base size guide, and rules for using it in Matched Play. So yeah, I am not particularly swayed by your point that 40k is more clear and concise, with their army rules.
  3. mikethefish

    The Scattering of AoS's Ruleset

    It is really, and I will tell you why. I get what you are saying about the Codexes and that is great. But here are a few additional points that you overlooked about the Index entries. I, an Ork player, will use the new Ork codex as an example, but these issues span the entire game... Firstly, I have my shiny new Codex in hand. It's great. But there are several units that did not make it into the actual Codex. Does that mean that the options for those models are illegal to play? Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable to use older Index entries. So essentially, I am looking at my brand new Ork Codex and not seeing all the options I can take. Let's move on... If I take a look at the brand new entry for Ork Kommandos, I notice a few things are different. In previous editions, I used to be able to take heavy weapons for the unit (Burnas, Big Shootaz, etc). These have been eliminated from the modern Dataslate (basically Warscroll, for those readers who don't speak 40k). Presumably this was done because models for those options don't exist. So, ok - that's fine. Does that mean I can't take those options anymore? No it does not. GW has stated that players are allowed to use the wargear and weapon options from the Index/older editions. You are able to take the rules and points cost from the Codex entry, and use the weapon options (and appropriate points cost) from the Index to flesh them out. So basically when looking at an actual modern Codex entry, I am not looking at all the options available. I have to use multiple books just to get the rules and points costs for one single unit. Add that to my prior point about using Index options not printed in the Ork codex, and you have one very convoluted set of rules. And again, this problem is not limited to Orks, but applies to the whole game. So, tell me again about how great a place 40k is for being clear and concise?
  4. mikethefish

    The Scattering of AoS's Ruleset

    It could always be worse - we could be playing 40k. You think AoS has scattered rules? 40k is a ****ing nightmare.
  5. mikethefish

    AoS 2 - Moonclan Discussion

    Unfortunately, that's pretty clearly a mistake
  6. mikethefish

    AoS 2 - Moonclan Discussion

    I don't really expect a lot of previews at all. As an army release they (as much as we like them) aren't really a big deal, in the grand scheme of things. I'd love to see lots and lots of articles happen, but I am sure we will simply get a trailer on Warhammer TV, a few painting videos by Duncan, and a Community blog post. Cool stuff, but nothing out of GW's way - especially since it is competing with all the end of the year shenanigans
  7. mikethefish

    The Rumour Thread

    I mean...no? Like absolutely, in no way are those statements accurate - at least not from my POV. The Chaos warriors and knights are made from the era where models needed to rank up with each other, and so were sculpted with the most static and boring poses imaginable. They are among the worst models GW currently produces, second only to zombies and Marauders. As a core antagonist to GWs storyline, being saddled with such uninspiring models is an absolute crime
  8. Totally not needed. Foot bosses work great. I frequently leave my Krusha at home. If you really need a big behemoth, the Rogue Idol is a good substitute, and is physically a durable model
  9. mikethefish

    The Rumour Thread

    Yes, while I liked the look of the Empire in fantasy, they absolutely need a more wierd and over-the-top look for AoS
  10. Yeah I'm having a hard time with sympathy on this issue as well.
  11. mikethefish

    AoS 2 - Moonclan Discussion

    It's wildly unlikely that the basic Moonclan kit will be replaced. It fits the aesthetic just fine, and certainly GW is going to want to spend it's resources building other new kits that are more exciting.
  12. They are old WW1 helmets - always liked the way they looked. I could easily see gas masks as a requirement for Ghyran, since I bet there's a ton of spores, pollen, pheremones and lord knows what else floating in the air. It doesn't even have to be because of the Nurgle influence.
  13. See it's amusing because the behavior that you are lauding as "good", is behavior that I have something of a pet peeve about. If someone insisted on rolling a fistfull of 72 or more dice, I would have a problem. Is it really 72? With an amount of dice that huge, it's hard to tell. Maybe you counted them all at the beginning of the game, but what if one of the dice bounced under some terrain and you didn't notice? Or what if you accidentally scooped up an extra die or two when you grabbed your massive fistful. And if you laboriously counted out the dice (even if you quickly made groups of 5 or 6 to save time) to make sure the roll is accurate, it's going to take so long that you would probably be better off just rolling 2 or 3 batches of a smaller dice total. So to be clear - I'm not going to say you are "wrong" or whatever. It's just amusing the different issues that we gamers chose to focus on.
  14. You are right - I can't imagine how many times your opponent would ask you, because I can't imagine it would be that much. Certainly not enough to become a problem, at any rate. Your opponent is going to quiz you about lots of stuff - armor saves, damage output, etc. Exactly how much time do you think you are saving counting damage down? I don't regard so-called "constant questions" from my opponents as being a legitimate reason Damage is tracked up in AoS, as far as I'm concerned. The least amount of steps taken will reduce the amount of potential errors. Counting up damage eliminates a step, and so is the superior method, IMO.
  15. It, in fact, makes a lot of sense. I frequently play with 2-3 behemoths that have stats that degrade on a damage chart. If you look at the chart, you will see that the damage counts up (0-2 damage, 3-4 damage, etc). It's very frustrating to have to do a minor math formula every time I want to see how fast my Rogue Idol (or whatever) gets to move this turn. I would rather just be able to look at my wounds marker and then know exactly what's going on. Other models in the army don't use a damage chart, of course, but I still count up just to keep things consistent, and it decreases the chance of a mistake happening. Damage should always be counted up in AoS, in my opinion. Personally, that's how I do it, and I have a very solid reason for doing so. I don't mean to sound callous, but if others get irritated by that, then so be it. I'll he happy to keep my opponent appraised about the "damage remaining" situation on my models at any time he or she wants to know, but counting up on wounds is something I pretty much insist on.
×