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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Overread last won the day on September 20

Overread had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,603 Celestant-Prime

About Overread

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Ebay will likely have loads of split up sets, many on preorder already and others when the kits go on sale next week. You can also likely read someone elses rules at the club to get a general idea of them.
  2. Those gosh darn Northen Folk and their Northmarket!
  3. I fully expect to see GW flesh out the rest of Warcry with rules for the other full armies in the game like skaven and the like. I'm a bit surprised we've not got this already to be honest, but at the same time I get a niggling feeling that Bonereapers might be part of that launch and that the Syvlaneth delay might have pushed Reapers on a month. If that's the case than the Warcry slot that likely was going to be the next expansion of rules might have been fast swapped with the mercenaries expansion (even though the book doesn't actually suggest it - so this might be how they always envisioned it or they made some fast changes to it). Otherwise after the two further Chaos Warbands its really hard to say what GW will do with Warcry. On the one hand they consider that its the Killteam of AoS; however Killteam didn't get whole unit blocks released for it. Furthermore thus far all the warbands are going into Slaves to Darkness - a single army. That's 8 fully diverse unit groups and whilst they share similar stats that's a huge number of unique sculpts and models for one army; esp one segment of the army (the 80 point or so 9 or so troops). I can't really tell at all if we will see many more unique chaos sculpts for Warcry; if GW will add more beasts or simply use it to deliver more expansions for other armies that were coming anyway but which will get a warcry sticker to make them appear cross-game and give a chance for more warcry marketing.
  4. I think the lack of locations and dates makes it harder to relate to some of the other faction characters. Because you're not quite sure how they relate to each other, even without considering that a human might have a very short lifespan compared to an aelf who in turn might be short compared to an ancient tree. I think once we can start to see the connecting links on the spiderweb that is the lore things will start to settle down. Though we might well go for a while before we get dates and maps. So the opening of AoS might well be a selection of stories all in a chaotic period where things aren't easily related before order and structure appears.
  5. The two big gaps with the lore are time and space. What we really need is not just a map of many regions to give us the most important/core regions and how they relate to each other; but also a sense of time. It's actually hard to work out what is happening when in the lore, esp when the Age of Sigmar appears to be roughly several generations old already. In Heart of Winter novella there's a city rebuilt and at least several generations who grew up within the city after the Age of Chaos. That suggests its at least 200ish years since the Age of Sigmar began. Those are big skips in time.
  6. Aye that's a given, a new battletome is just the time to do that. They might also revamp them not with new stats alone but also with army wide abilities and such.
  7. I can't see GW replacing knights with Varanguard considering the price difference and mechanics and size difference. Also Daughters of Khaine still have horses! As do the Free Cities. Meanwhile there's still ghost and undead horses in Death.
  8. I think that's an almost insane way of thinking considering that Slaves to Darkness and Chaos Warriors are the biggest enemy of the whole Realm setting prior to Nagash causing a bit of an upcry about soul allocations. Especially considering that GW fleshed out Chaos with full armies for each Chaos God (as opposed to a combined book which we had before for demons). Slaves to Darkness are just supremely unlucky in being the last army to get a Batteltome for the game (note they still might come before Seraphon and KO tomes are updated, but it would still be Slaves first Tome). It's somewhat odd considering how Slaves and chaos Warriors are supposed to be the biggest enemy of Stormcast, but I think armies like Khorne sort of got in the way as it were with popularity and getting updates first. I fully expect Everchosen and Slaves to be combined into a single chaos force. I expect to see the finecast exalted heroes vanish; but also the marauders plastic infantry kit; being replaced with the 8 Warbands from Warcry which are ideally suited to replace the mortal element of a chaos army; whilst at the same time giving Slaves 8 very differently themed infantry choices. Indeed through Warcry Slaves will have possibly the largest and most diverse range of basic infantry models. The Slaves book would likely have options to run an Everchosen army; a Slaves army and perhaps another type. I'd also expect the new "cultist" keyword on the warcry warbands AoS profiles to replace the Mark of Chaos rule so that warscrolls don't have to reprint it out every single time.
  9. Honestly I don't think people should pin hopes on GW using Warbands from Underworld to test armies for full releases. I think if such things happen they are a VERY long way of. Underworld lets GW play around with the realm system and the fact that many core factions will have amny subfactions in different realms that are quite unique. Dwarves from the realm of metal will behave and look very different to those from shadow or beast lands. Meanwhile the realms are big enough that there will be a myriad of smaller factions around. Some might even have very large kingdoms and territories, but might never make it into the full game as a major army.
  10. I don't think we'll see new chambers released. Stormcast as a range are already very full and adding yet more would run a very high risk of them tripping over each other even more. A new hero or such maybe but I don't imagine seeing big Stormcast releases for a long long time. The only way they could do it would be to make Stormcast identical to Space Marines and release a new Chamber as its own entire army, much like how there's Ultramarines, Blood Angels etc.... Thing is we don't know the rate of Stormcast selling and Marines only got to that position by being an insane seller for 40K. I just don't think stormcast, for all GW's pushing, are in the same boat. A strong seller yes, but not anywhere near "as big" as the marines are. At least I would hope so - I'd hate to see the mistake (and yes it is somewhat a mistake) of having AoS weighted toward one faction over the others. It's far healthier to have more factions at the top; it spreads the load and it means that the game environment remains diverse in terms of what armies players get to see.
  11. It's more likely that Kurnothi might just be replacing what the old wood elves used to be. Ergo instead of being a full army they'll be the elf half of the tree/woods army. Curious if GW takes that direction when they've already split wanderers off and could have lore brought them back into the fold having had the Everqueen awaken from the hiding etc...
  12. Terrain rules I very much agree could do with fleshing out. I think that in the drive to the the nubmer of pages of rules down the terrain area suffered quite badly. I think its also not helped that GW is currently trying to push their own terrain more so. Now that isn't bad, but we've seen them focus more on the idea of each terrain item having "its own warscroll" at a cost of things like rivers, swamps and more generic terrain features that GW isn't really making but which can still be amazing parts of the battle experience. I also think that tables look better than they have with the new terrain featuers GW makes; but at the same time sometimes you've just got to have more generic stuff. Otherwise they are just swapping a few pages of rules for a few pages of warscroll cards
  13. Personally I'd like to see GW retire double turn to an openplay rule and not have it for the matched play. It's just far too swingy in terms of the game state. Esp when you start to watch videos and battle reports and the like and start to notice the pattern that very few people lose the game when they opt to take a double turn. It turns from "I'll damage that monster for a turn and weaken it" into "ok now I can till that monster". I think the only reason there isn't more shouting about it is that AoS is currently very ranged light (compared to 40K) and much more close combat heavy where at least the combat "who goes first" alternates between players. However any ranged or magic heavy army really shines with getting a double turn.
  14. The biggest improvement over the past editions of the game is that GW has released all the armies at the same time and worked on updating their rules within a roughly 1.5 year period (since 2.0). That in itself is a huge difference over hte past editions where armies could wait years for a rules update and some wouldn't even get a new set of rules before the rule edition itself would end and there'd be a whole new phase of rules released. So that plus the GHB and the fast and updated FAQ and Errata have made huge gains. In the past some armies could go so many years without an update that (in rarer cases) they could miss out two whole editions. Back then new models and rules were at the same time with a new codex/battletome so that could mean years upon years of not just no rules but no (or very few) new toys as well. Seriously hammering the popularity of an army. GW has made huge changes there both in terms of splitting rules nad model releases; but also in having both big launches of armies and drip fed models; the latter of which means that they are far more open to updating armies without needing a big bulk release. I think that 2.0 won't be the edition we see massive flattening of the curve, but at least establishing a system that will allow for it. 3.0 I think will be the one where we will hopefully see the curve flatten out some more; where the game iwll start out from a very strong position. Heck 3.0 might not even be the old time "here's an entirely new set of rules" but more a "here we've collected and tided up the last 5 years of GHB additions and FAQ/Errata changes and new model additions.
  15. I don't think Competitive people at large find it fun to unbalance the game so much as they seek out the greatest gain for their army or for the whole game and play with that. However in general (esp once you remove vast cash prizes and sponsorship deals) many competitive people want to win because THEY are better not because their tools are. Because the skill is in them, that it is something they have achieved. In wargames I think there's a portion of the playerbase who have grown up with online and in shop discussions that have focused far too much on the list building to the point where many see it as the only place where they can "solve the puzzle". Thus they mistake and think that its the only place that there is a puzzle; they then downplay heavily on the concepts of tactics on the table. This is oftne reinforced with things like not using enough terrain and limits to no objectives etc.... Basically they don't quite realise that the real puzzle is on the table and that the list building is one one part of the whole puzzle that is the game. Furthermore having a balanced system so that the gains in a good list are not insanely above the powercurve of the rest of the factions in the game; means that the puzzle balances out far better. You get MORE enjoyment from the game and more competitive situations because now its not just how you build its how you play. Furthermore how you build loses its impact when there's so much information exchange online. If someone spots a "power combo" its known about a week later by everyone. Even if you don't tell anyone the first time you run it it will be noticed and copied. So there's hardly any unique flare opportunities and variations (esp since Warhammer games have far fewer options on that line than, say, a magic the gathering game). If you find that the power build is a Flesheater army with a lot of ghouls, 3 regents and a dragon then - well -that's it you're done. If, however, the power gain with a good list is far more muted then there's far more room for experimentation where the tactical gain and loss of varying the models is less dramatic. It produces a system where you really have to hunt for the small variations in power; where power varies on situation a bit more and where you've got more open variety within the game. Also its important to remember that hte vast majority of people (Even in teh competitive end) are not army flipping every new Battletome/Codex/Rule update. If the rules are heavily unbalanced and an army is left behind then those players stay behind and might be more likely to leave than to build a new army. A smoother balance curve, a more even game in numbers produces far more tactical awareness and a far better environment. I think GW sort of knows this now, but at the same time their rules writers are still the same people and they seem to be very casual minded in how they approach writing and constructing rules. It's improved a lot ,but I still get the feeling that a technical writer and a few more beta tests would improve things no end. It liekly doesn't help that the way GW often beta tests (from what I've heard) is to send out pre-written lists for the beta testers to try out. This inherently removes the army building phase and means that the results are flawed because the builds sent out are all that can be tested - they can't be easily "abused" to show up issues.
  • Create New...