PainfullyMediocre
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by PainfullyMediocre
-
-
Thats simply stunning, all the elements work nicely together.
-
Generic monsters would be sweet. While i'd like more Kruleboys stuff for my future army, i'd love to see modern GW sculpting a Dragon type creature.
-
1 hour ago, Erdemo86 said:
what is this cavalaray in the left? With a banner, helebard and Lance?
Demigryphs
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Ragest said:
Do people really think any lumineth player with more than 2 matches played is going to risk his unit of sentinels just to make 2-3 (4-5 with 20) mw to the unit that is charging?
People must stop posting such bs
There isn't risk though, they need to be within 9" of a unit that charged. If they're behind a unit of sentinels that got charged they can shoot.
-
59 minutes ago, Mcthew said:
Awful.
Slain is slain. It's not 'boss, I've sprained my ankle.'
What are GW thinking???
I don't mind this in principle, stuff like Horrors will need an FAQ to address the jank.
AoS has a level of abstraction to it already, when a monster hits a unit it can kill models outside of its melee range, but thats fine, but the idea of heavily wounded soldiers rallying for one last push is a bit too far though? Thats present in a lot of fantasy stories as well as recorded historical battles. Its also on 6s so its not as reliable. If unit sizes get smaller as well, there is less potential to bring back models alongside a higher chance of units getting wiped out in the first place.
-
5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
A simple fix could be that shooting gets negative modifiers for range etc. ^^
The issue is that negative modifiers don't matter when you do mortals on unmodified hit rolls of a 6, that would need to change to really change the issues shooting presents.
-
1
-
-
Back painting the endless tide of Savage Orruks i've had waiting for ages, just getting a bit burned out by them. I might make my third Mega and Kragnos whenever it turns up.
Trying to sell my Stormcast and maybe my Slaves to Darkness as i've not played them for ages. Any money from them will be going straight into Kruleboyz.
I've tried to keep up with the Warhammer Community, leaks, rumours and whatnot but until its all out any conjecture is a bit moot.
-
1 hour ago, Magnus The Blue said:
I must say I'm a bit worried about what 3.0 will mean for my Bonesplitters.
An abundance of +1Sv (charge reactions and their finest hour) which we will struggle to get through without rend.
Also looks like no more stacking save bonuses which given how our shields work make our extra save buffs basically useless.
Losing battalions doesn't help either.
It depends if there is a bonus save reaction and how its worded. If its a +1 to roll or characteristic.
-
19 minutes ago, Frowny said:
Yeah. I kinda dislike the unit leaders giving commands as a possible change, unless it is only certain commands- It removes a whole layer of positioning for heroes and units and might further serve to make small combat heroes weaker, as they are already not that useful but reasonably want to be both near the front lines and are cheap enough to spread around a bit.
It means armies like Gitz aren't tied to heroes or the Loonshrine. Its nice having a unit leader be more than +1 attack to a melee profile.
-
3
-
-
It'll mean units like those LRL Archers will have more threat projection unless terrain somehow changes to mitigate LOS ignoring shooting.
You lose 2" from the width and 12" from the length, so it'll make outflanking a bit trickier as you'll have less room to position. Objectives will be closer together as well for the same reasons.
I'm really intrigued to see how this will change moving forwards, I hope it pushes more combat focussed armies up in viability.
-
2
-
-
Those trees are so grim, where did you get them?
-
On 5/31/2021 at 12:49 AM, PlasticCraic said:
Think you're confusing two things there bud.
GA: Destruction and Big Waaagh are separate allegiances.
He can benefit from the former (for the reasons discussed in the article). He can go into the latter army (due to his Warscroll ability), but not benefit from anything that allegiance provides (since it requires the Orruk keyword, and Kragnos doesn't get keywords).
Ah that was my mistake, I was on about Mighty Destroyers in GA: Destruction.
-
1
-
-
I had a read of Platic Craic's blog on Kragnos, would he even be able to benefit from GA:Destruction's Big Waagh ability?
-
8 minutes ago, Pitloze said:
I'm not 100% sure they did this for the other BR books since as a destro player I skipped all of them. But did they review rules for those leading up to pre-order? I feel it's kinda weird that they released his full warscoll but not a peep about his own faction.
I think they released his rules just to tempt people in. The other BR books were updated characters and warscrolls, so the community had a frame of reference for it, we didn't really have much to go on from Kragnos. Destruction guy with shield and club was about it
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Barkanaut said:
I will be so angry if we get souped in. Fyre have nothing in common with ko look or lorewise. This is like making a sandwhich with peanut butter and dynamite.
Its the same as Savage Orruks and Ironjawz, they need a middle part to branch off of, like in the old world.
-
2 hours ago, Ganigumo said:
Destruction doesn't have any generic boosts that work on him, and even the winterbite rule says "friendly winterbite units" and he wouldn't get the keyword. All of the teleportation in destruction is keyword locked too. The only buff in the entire grand alliance that works on him is gordrakk's command ability for +1 to hit, since it is the only buff that is keyworded Destruction in the entire grand allegiance.
The bloodgullets pile in command trait (not ability) affects friendly units. Having Kragnos, Gordrakk and a handful of Ogors probably won't be the best army
-
36 Mortals on the charge is going to absolutely devastate those 10 Skinks!
Bloodgullet's command trait works on friendly models that start a pile in move within 12", so thats a small bit of synergy. Charge and delete a screen, pile in 6" to the tastier stuff behind.
1 hour ago, SunStorm said:So excited for this guy.
How are people planning on painting him up?
Which forces are people adding him to?
How closely tied to the new destruction army from the box set will he be?
I'm really looking forwards to getting him, but it might be a while as i've spent so much on toy soldiers recently. My ogors have grey skin and red hair/red fur on the beasts and really rusted weapons to match my Orruks,which have an olive skin tone. The plan is red fur horse part, body will be the same grey as the Ogors, belly and face will be the same green as the Orruks but faded in with washes and stippling so its a gentler gradient. I'll do tattoos to match my Ogors and Savage Orruks, but make them look more refined. The metals will be grimy, but not as much as the lesser chumps. Basically a mix of both of these pictures. I did a test on a crypt horror, it needs a bit of work :D.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Iksdee said:
I could be overthinking this but is the animosity rule comming back to give us the old O&G feels? This rule and random movement made the old army feel really alive and fun.
Or it could be generic Orruks? Ironjawz are might makes right, they even look down at the Ardboyz. It will be nice having something in the middle again, the old world Orcs worked so well as you could see where they branched off from, Big Waagh always felt a bit disjointed when i've seen it played as its just two very distinct styles of models with no real overlap.
-
2
-
-
What exactly wiped you out? I've got a game against them next Tuesday. I've done alright against them with my BCR and Savage Orruks, but i've not played with my Ironjawz yet so it would be nice to think about plays and counter plays.
-
The model is stunning, the different aesthetic makes sense as he is a literal ancient demigod that Orruks and Ogors follow around for a good scrap, not a continuation of any of the existing races, something else that is currently alone. I was a bit worried they'd end up going with a Father of Beasts trope where he is tied to everything primal, instead it looks like he is a primal wrecking force that Destruction looks at as a good example to emulate/one up. Hopefully they do something with Gordrakk and Kragnos, either infighting or trying to outdo each other and leading great forces to try to one up the devastation.
Its going to be interesting painting him up so he matches my Orruks and Ogors though, that'll be fun.
Ruleswise, short answer is dunno lol. With no points and melee profiles to look at all we can say is it could be amazing, could be ******. With 18 wounds and a 2+, he can tank a FLOSH with Brand of the Svard and Metalcruncher on the charge, so he can take a hit. If he is just a straight up ally then his warscroll has to offer more than a Mawkrusha/third Mega/FLOSH etc. If he has more buffs than +1 bravery we've got some combos, if he can benefit from faction buffs, keywords and alleigance abilities then that'll be awesome as it would open some weird build options, like imagine him with a warpaint save and ignoring ethereal and aftersaves in Bonesplitters, or benefitting from the moon if it bothers to show up.
If we get a Legion of Kragnos/different GA:Destruction which ties the armies together.
Whatever happens, i'll be getting the awesome model and bunging it into all my armies to see what sticks. Bring it on!
-
4
-
-
On 4/20/2021 at 12:32 PM, Overread said:
It's important to realise that after the Chapterhouse Court Case GW adopted the "no models no rules" policy in their battletomes and codex as a general policy. This means if GW isn't going to sell a model within a short span of time after the book goes on sale, then the models rules won't go in the book. This prevents 3rd parties providing alternative models and "stealing" the market from GW before GW can release the model.
This isn't strictly true, Space Marines had a glut of new kits delayed after their codex dropped, with rules and pictures in the codex.
Its a bit poor form for GW to do this as soon as they have. I don't mind the idea of supplements and out of codex model and rule releases, but they work better later on in a game's life as a way to pick up flagging factions as an edition creeps on.
-
11 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:
I'm not sure about the traitor bit. But could the threat Tyrion is fighting be Be'lakor? He is the known as the "Shadow Master." Sure he may not be as "strong" as Nagash. However if he is scheming and pulling strings behind the scenes he could pose an ultimately larger threat. Was he the winged beast that freed Ven Brecht? I first through it was a Vampire but maybe Be'lakor? I suppose we will know very soon if it has something to do with Be'lakor since preorder is happening Saturday.
Tyrion and Malerion are both listed as Dramatis Personae despite not appearing in the book, so that could be a whole conflict in and of itself.
I was really disappointed by this book, Morathi was so much better as it had a few layers, this felt more like an A plot warporn B plot "oh this will have vague consequences maybe"
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, Talas said:
As an addition to the 3.0 rumors, Rob from The Honest Wargamer just said in their podcast that the new Stormcasts will be "Bretonnia" themed.
I'm pretty sure he was just repeating rumours he has heard. He did say this wasn't confirmed, just a rumour.
-
WIP of the first 3 Gruntas, the other 3 aren't too far behind.
-
5
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
It looks like a Kurnoth hunter head.