mikethefish
-
Posts
474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by mikethefish
-
-
6 minutes ago, Entombet said:
I cant wait for influx of "i always loved ko" players if the book will be good 😛
I've played KO all through first. The book might not be great, but I am interested to see what they do
-
1 hour ago, Gdead909 said:
I am just speaking about trends we have seen. GW could do “anything” but the trend has been to make warscrolls more streamline and to limit the weapons to just what’s available in one box.
I gotcha - and you very well might be correct. I'm just pointing out that we are talking about two different situations here.
-
On 12/25/2019 at 9:46 AM, Gdead909 said:
But this also means that units will be set with what comes in the box. Look at stormfiends and even ironjawz shields. So max weapons will be what’s in the box
I disagree with this premise. Past products mean nothing. After all, until a few months ago, everyone KNEW that each 2nd Ed army was ABSOLUTELY going to get new Endless Spells, and faction terrain. Then we had Cities, Orruks, Mawtribes, etc.
Games Workshop creates warscroll/dataslate weapon options, based on how many boxes the customer is expected to buy. Thunderers and Storm Fiends were altered because the average player is expected to buy 1-2 boxes or so. This is not the same situation for Arkhanaughts - a battle line box that players are expected to purchase 3 boxes, minimum.
I've said this multiple times - I don't believe that the Arkhanaught's weapons configuration will be changing in the slightest.
-
On 12/25/2019 at 9:46 AM, Gdead909 said:
But this also means that units will be set with what comes in the box. Look at stormfiends and even ironjawz shields. So max weapons will be what’s in the box
I disagree with this premise. Past products mean nothing. After all, until a few months ago, everyone KNEW that each 2nd Ed army was ABSOLUTELY going to get new Endless Spells, and faction terrain. Then we had Cities, Orruks, Mawtribes, etc.
Games Workshop creates warscroll/dataslate weapon options, based on how many boxes the customer is expected to buy. Thunderers and Storm Fiends were altered because the average player is expected to buy 1-2 boxes or so. This is not the same situation for Arkhanaughts - a battle line box that players are expected to purchase 3 boxes, minimum.
I've said this multiple times - I don't believe that the Arkhanaught's weapons configuration will be changing in the slightest.
-
25 minutes ago, alghero81 said:
Oops you are right I was sure was AoS only... now that ticket and the 2h drive assume much less value to me... oh well...
I mean it's still going to be a fun time, right? I don't really play 40k either, but I still like to keep abreast of what's going on.
And the drive? Pshaw - just grab a few podcasts, you'll be fine
-
20 hours ago, MitGas said:
Well, they'll release him in a few months for sure by himself.
They will release him eventually sure, but it will be more like a year, not a few months
-
32 minutes ago, Juicy said:
Looks very decent
Perhaps just as important, it doesn't look as if it will be on the exorbitantly expensive side of GW's pricing scale
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Still-young said:
Looks like it’s on a chest of bullets though. I think 40k Orks.
Good catch on that. Definitely 40k Orks.
-
18 hours ago, Overread said:
Also for AoS there are far fewer unit divisions than 40K so there's less room to squeeze in unit and army concepts without creating too many double units and units that are flat out better than others in all respects.
This is nonsense. What you are saying is that just because the actual category doesn't exist in AoS, that it would be impossible to duplicate a particular unit's battlefield role.
In other words, just because a unit of fast-moving cavalry isn't called "Fast Attack" in AoS, doesn't mean that it doesn't fulfil the same tabletop role that an equivalent unit would do in 40k.
The same amount of unit design space exists in AoS as in 40k, despite AoS's fewer army list construction categories.
-
3
-
-
On 12/20/2019 at 1:56 PM, Forrix said:
To be blunt, I think Iron Hands were only nerfed because the ITC said they were so busted they were banning them from tournaments (ITC being a huge deal in 40k).
It wasn't just an arbitrary decision - no tournament organizer wants to go to the drastic measures to exclude armies (and by extension, the people who play them). The Iron Hands win ratio was VERY skewed, to the point where it was becoming a fairly serious problem.
-
On 12/20/2019 at 3:52 PM, Galas said:
Also, all the comparisons claiming the double turn is what makes AoS special in comparison with the so much boring 40k... please.
What's the problem with those claims? They happen to be true.
-
21 minutes ago, cofaxest said:
It looks like our book will be without new models, terrain or "spells" but I hope I'm wrong.
No evidence of that.
-
Wild speculation.
Calling it now - the new book will NOT limit Arkhanaught Companies to only equipping one of each special weapon (to match the box). It will remain the same as it's been so far
-
53 minutes ago, MisterJoshua said:
For contrast, if you check the Skaventide thread on here it’s received strong support. I don’t go anywhere else for AoS discussion
Oh yeah, these forums are definitely better than social media.
In other news, water is wet 😉
-
51 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
yeah that's part of why I feel like Vampirates would be a strange addition; why not make the Deepkin 'deeper'
Indeed, I kinda wish they were similar to Gloomspite, where instead of being combined with Troggs and Spiders, the Deepkin instead have like giant crabs, or Fishmen as allied subfactions
-
2
-
-
So I get that Facebook Groups are toxic sometimes. However...
The whining by Skaven players over the new Plague Monks is so shrill and absurd, that it's driven away any sense of rationality and sympathy I may have had for them. Certainly it's petty of me, but the whining is just that obnoxious.
I officially hope the warscroll is completely unusable, and that the entire lot of them have wasted untold amounts of time and money of a pile of now competitively useless miniatures.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 12/17/2019 at 10:09 AM, sandlemad said:
It's definitely lashed together rather roughly and in a similar manner to that last bit of wreckage. For that one I thought 'grotbag scuttlers' but this visibly has seaweed and barnacles, strongly suggesting a maritime sort of feel. So... sea grots? Zombie pirates? Hard to imagine Idoneth doing anything like this.
You might be right, but to be fair, coral and barnacles do grow in the Chamon sky, according to the KO book. In fact, if you look at the artwork of the sky docks in the KO book, there is a docked Frigate that is in DIRE need of a hull scraping.
-
On 12/6/2019 at 11:11 PM, Grimrock said:
Don't forget the marauders, their buffs are absolutely massive. Double the attacks, guaranteed +1 to hit and -1 rend at 20+ models, minimum 8" charge with a drummer. Toss in a sorcerer lord for full rerolls to hit, wound and save, a chaos lord for double activation... if they stay at 120 points for 20 I think they're in the running for best battleline in the whole game. Chaos sorcerer is amazing too, the change to his spell and oracular vision are ridiculous. I'm waiting to see points, but I'm loving these changes.
It's going to make the Ravagers Merc company way more useful.
-
15 hours ago, Overread said:
Honestly I'm surprised both that GW didn't make the Warcry units battleline and that Marauders are still in the game. Seems that GW wanted to keep both and have them compete even though the former (warcry) are vastly superior sculpts in almost every way. Not being Battleline could hurt them, esp as AoS is generally quite "expensive" point wise for units to get into the table. Even if we ignore super-pricey stuff like Archaon and the Varanguard, there's still a lot of high points stuff in Chaos and most of the other armies.
With the new categories/key words, they could easily be conditional Battle Line. Only if Ravagers, or only if there is a Ravager general - something like that
-
28 minutes ago, Overread said:
Considering they are new this year I'd not expect to see changes. I'd expect to find out what the "cultist" keyword works with and what the allegiance abilities are in the Tome. After that the points I'd also expect to stay the same - the only thing we might see is a point discount for full units, but they are pretty cheap already (esp by AoS unit prices)
On the other hand, Ironjawz were new this year in the GHB, and saw massive changes in the army book. We really have no idea what is coming.
-
One point that the "random turns suck" crowd always seems to ignore is, if the Double Turn is such a godlike effect in AoS, then why do the same people keep winning the big tournaments over and over again?
I mean, if Double Turns always determine the winners and losers of each game, and Double Turns are so utterly random, then why do the same crop of people keep reliably winning the big tournaments? It should just be a random dice-shoot, right?
The top-tier tournament crowd is a pretty small fraternity. You keep seeing the same names year after year (some flux of course, but there are definite repeat winners). Could it possibly be that the Double Turn, while very strong, isn't THAT god-tier powerful, and people are resorting to hyperbole just because they don't like a particular game mechanic? Surely not (insert sarcasm here)
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Overread said:
Meh. Not worth it. Please delete.
-
5 hours ago, Overread said:
We've had this chat before and your conclusion is basically the issue.
There are some who say you can "plan" for the double turn however they never really show how you can plan for it. They might suggest that you build a list that allows you to make a very fast first turn attack on the enemy so that you're already in close combat (since combat always alternates the person who's turn it is has less effect on already active combats - of course if it is their turn they can start more). However that is hardly a unique strategy and its not one open to all armies.
Another option is to turtle and basically hold back in the early turns so that if your opponent gets a double turn they can't as easily maximise as they've got to "waste" a turn getting in range. However in a game of only 6 turns (at most) and where many victories are won based on objectives which are often at least in the mid-table; then holding back just does not work.
The core issues of the double turn are:
1) It's boring. One person has to spend a whole two turns of the game where all they can do is resolve combats and remove their models. They can't start new combats; they can't move around or react to the enemy. They can't even deny the enemy their movement and such. Sure they might get to control one or two endless predatory spells if they are lucky; but they can't do much else.
2) It's boring. If you get the double turn it makes victory for you a LOT easier. You get two turns impunity to act upon your plan. For a close combat army you get to pick the fights; for a magic or ranged heavy army you get to deal out damage without risk of reprisal. However in turn it makes the victory feel very hollow after a while. Sure hte first time it happens it might be cool and heck you might get a double turn after the enemy really hammered you so it "feels" nice. But in the end it makes victory a hollow affair.
3) It's terribly swingy. When you start to read battle reports you start to realise that in a significant number, whoever gets a double turn first tends to win the game. It's not an abnormality, its an almost fact that getting a double turn first - generally means you can maximise your chance of winning the game.
Honestly its a mechanic I wish was moved to open play. For competitive games its just far too powerful. It would be fine if the game was unit "I go you go" (ergo you move and shoot a unit then your opponent does etc....). However for a game where your whole army activates at once its just broken. Whole army activation has often had the issue taht a really good turn can swing the game; giving a player two attempts at that is just broken.
It's honestly something that I still can't work out why GW hasn't moved it to open play or removed it entirely. I can only assume that its one of those "Oh its unique" features. Furthermore it tends to favour small unit count armies that take the second turn and armies like Slaanesh which can force the opponent to fight last in combat rounds (which means even when they get assaulted they can still deal out damage first).
Well... basically everything you stated is wrong.
Ok ok, it's not "wrong" per se' since we are all talking opinions here (just kidding a bit) but certainly I disagree with everything you have stated in the above post. Here is my alternate take...
I've played GW games since 40k Rogue Trader, and in all those years, there has been a common denominator - their games tend to slog, and are very predictable. By that, I mean most competent players can predict the outcome of, let's say a game of 40k (we'll pick on this one, since it uses a traditional turn sequence) by turn two at the latest - and frequently after deployment (or even army list creation). I can do this pretty easily, and I admit I am not exactly 40k's version of Sun Tsu here. Most competent players have this ability, if they are being honest with themselves. Their games are just designed to be this way
The usual dynamic is that two players will start a game. Player A starts to lose. He then loses a bit more, and then continues to lose until finally...he loses. Not much chance of stopping it. The game state of 40k is very resistant to change. It's not impossible, of course (dice exist, after all), but the rigid, linear nature of the game play is WILDLY resistant to losing players altering their fate.
Other games solve this problem in different ways. Warmachine, for example, solves this issue with it's "caster kill" mechanic. So that no matter how far behind a player gets, he's still in the game, since he always has the option of assassinating the enemy commander, and winning the game. For Age of Sigmar, GW solved the problem with the Double Turn mechanic. This gives losing players at least a shot at coming from behind and pulling out a win.
At the end of the day, if a winni g AoS player gets the double turn, he just wins that much faster and maybe both folks can get another game in. If a losing player gets a double turn, it gives him a chance to pull things around and make a decent game of things. It's an elegant mechanic, and works well for AoS.
Random turns are the single greatest rule that GW has added to this game, and quite frankly, they'd be fools to change it.
-
17
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'd probably be rather play War Cry, to be honest - barring some cool narrative event/scenario that someone is running Skirmish with.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Who are you trying to convince - us or yourself? 😉