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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Skabnoze

  1. I agree, but at least Spiderfang is in a better place with this book than before. Simply rolling them into a real Battletome was a fantastic first step. My hope is that in the future when Gloomspite is rewritten (it will happen eventually) that they choose to concentrate on expanding Spiderfang.
  2. A lot do, but not every player is like this. There is variance even within competitive players. There are people that will try to squeeze every drop of gas from the tank of something that they really like rather than going for another army. And all it will take is a couple of trail-blazers to put on a good showing and there will be other people who will take a look that otherwise might not have. This trend is easier to spot in games that play faster - like skirmish games. AoS games are long endeavors and doing a whole lot of trail-blazing practice games can take a lot of effort. But take a look at games such as Malifaux. When that game first came out players immediately jumped onto the Guild faction because their synergies are obvious, strong, and they have high combat stats. However, much like AoS, that game is purely objective based and so pure killing power does not necessarily win outright. It was also a common trend for newer players to cry foul for the Guild faction and demand nerfs - even though the faction was fine. It was simply easier to play with. Once people got used to the game and became more expert at it you saw a lot of the competitive crowd move into the really weird crews that have very high skill-ceilings such as many Neverborn crews. Those types of crews are very tough to use, hard to initially understand, but extremely potent once people unlocked how to use them and were experienced at the game. This same thing will happen over the course of AoS, but I expect at a bit of a slower pace simply because a standard 2000pt game takes a lot longer to play (and is more expensive to purchase) than a skirmish game that experienced players can play in less than an hour.
  3. Has there really been a lot of people heavily putting the book through it's paces though? I'm not sure there is. I also feel that there is a huge amount of group-think going on and not a lot of people really pushing the envelope for what the various units can do. The build where you take lots of bodies, stack debuffs, and then just camp objectives is probably the most obvious build from the book so it was natural that it would probably be the first one to do well. I don't think the competitive pool of destruction players is that large and so it seems natural that it will take people a while to explore different facets of the book. Goblins have historically been an army for those people who love the theme. Lots of people had a small goblin army in the old WFB days (Battle for Skulls Pass box set helped out there), but not a lot of people played them primarily. Gloomspite still feels too new to me to really pull in a dedicated competitive following. We have a massive page count in this thread, but I chalk that up to our army being far cooler than anyone else's rather than necessarily being stronger competitively.
  4. I honestly can't tell you that. In the end this is your decision to make based upon the type of army you want to play. I am not sure anyone has really unlocked Squig Hoppers on the table yet. Just looking at the warscrolls this is a unit whose primary phase of the game is the movement phase. For some units (like Boingrots) the movement phase is primarily there to get them into charge range. For other units the movement phase is there to get them onto an objective that they can hold. My reading of Hoppers is that they fall firmly into the fast cavalry harasser unit role - although they lean a bit more to being more offensive in combat than most cavalry. But they are a strange unit because they can inflict damage through movement - which is pretty rare in this game. The only other units that I can think of with this ability are Hexwraiths (exact same ability but less reliable) and Terradon Riders (once per game). This is potentially a very useful ability - but it is janky and is going to require people to really play with and unlock. I have not personally played enough games with them to really claim much more than theory-crafting the tactics. That said, my hunch is that over time I think people are going to come around to Hoppers more than you currently see (especially if there is a cost reduction for them). Boingrots are a fantastic unit - but they are heavy cavalry to the core and so their abilities and use are much more straight forward. I have noticed a tendency in competitive games for models or factions that have powerful but straight-forward stats or abilities to be the early stand-outs and favorites for most people, but over time many competitive players begin to gravitate towards the more esoteric units that are harder to use but have a higher skill-ceiling. I don't for a second think that Hoppers will ever replace Bounders but I think people will begin to lean towards using each for different roles depending upon how their list is constructed rather than the default position of "just take all Boingrots". I could be wrong, but that is my hunch. Anyways, I recommend that if you are on the fence about which to build that you proxy using both of them and then use that information to figure out what to build. The only real difference in the kit is the heads & weapon arm of the riders - so you should be able to assemble them and leave those parts off and then play some games to figure out how to finish building them.
  5. Hoppers - sure. Yes, the Boingrots could potentially get a large movement in the case you described, but we need to reiterate just how much resources and luck that requires. And aside from the command ability for the Loonboss most of that is available to just about any unit in the game (charge + command reroll, command ability 6” run). I don’t think I would ever say that Boingrots have insane speed - they top out at the standard speed of fast cav (12”). Most of the time they are going to be moving 6”-8” (without the boss speed increase) and that is solidly slower than the average speed of heavy cavalry (10”). Boingrots are a great unit. There is no argument there. But we should be realistic about what they do well and what they don’t. They are above average speed for infantry and generally slow for cavalry although they can speed up to fast cavalry levels through a combination of buffs and some luck. Hoppers on the other hand are fairly fast. They will average out to somewhere between heavy cavalry and fast cavalry and when they roll high they can become absurdly fast. They have access to all the same buffs as Boingrots to make them even faster. Despite looking similar on the surface the two units are quite different and fill different roles. That was simply my point earlier. When evaluating these units I don’t think it is good to mix up the advantages of the units as it will lead to some disappointment. Hoppers are not a devastating charge unit and lack the armor for protracted combat. Boingrots lack the high speed of hoppers and the ability to inflict damage outside of the combat phase.
  6. Bounders are many things - insane speed is not one of those things. Hoppers are the fast unit, and Bounders are the slow one. Bounders are knights - armored and highly damaging on the charge. Hoppers are fast and janky.
  7. No, they are not bad. I am of the opinion that they are very overlooked. If we take the opinion that Boingrots are not overcosted (by merit of GW saying they feel the need to adjust the army in the next GHB) then Hoppers are probably a bit overpriced, but they are not a bad unit by any means. However, they serve a different role and I think they tend to suffer in most people’s opinions due to comparing them straight up to Boingrots. Basically the hoppers are a fast janky unit and Boingrots are a straight-forward combat unit. In effect, hoppers are light cavalry and Bounders are heavy cavalry. Which one works for you will depend on how you plan to use them within the broader context of your army. Both of these units do something that the other cannot do as well. With the GHB on the horizon soon and points cost potentially moving all over the place I would consider building 10 of each and then build the spare 5 into whichever one you prefer more.
  8. I would say that the Scuttleboss is probably the best combat hero in the army in regards to cost/benefit ratio. I would also say that he has better options for magic items than the various Loonbosses do - since there are 2 Spiderfang relics that are quite compelling for him and really no standouts for the Loonbosses (In my opinion). If you are looking for an inexpensive combat hero and don’t need synergy then he is a good choice. If you have a spare relic you can give him then he gets even better.
  9. @Scythian concerning Curse of the Spider God - my reading of this is that it can get a bit tricky for rerolls. My interpretation is: it depends upon the reroll rule text being used, but in most cases players will usually get the reroll. The Reroll section of the core rules (page 1) covers how this works fairly well. Rules that specify unmodified trigger after any rerolls but before any modifiers are applied. The spell specifies unmodified dice results, so this means that the spell effect does not trigger until after rerolls are made. However, this also means that when the spell triggers it is no longer possible to make rerolls - because that timing step is now past. So, this means that any reroll abilities are valid to use, but the spell cannot trigger rerolls itself and the conditions for a reroll ability have to be satisfied before the curse effect is applied. There are a few different wordings for reroll ability triggers. Many rules simply state “unit can reroll hit/wound rolls” - in this case you could reroll any dice results since the only requirement is to have already rolled. Other abilities allow you to reroll dice results of a specific value (note that this always happens before modifiers) and the only condition here is that the value on a dice is X (usually 1). In both of these cases the rerolls would be allowed before Spider Curse takes effect. And then some abilities let you reroll failed results (again, before modifiers are applied) - this is where it gets tricky. What this means is that if an opponent will succeed on a “2”, then they cannot reroll for a “fail” result caused by the spell. In this instance they would roll the dice, succeed (missing the reroll trigger condition), and then the spell would cause an automatic failure for the unmodified result. Honestly, I think this spell is pretty much “hot garbage” - and I generally hate using that term as I think most things can have decent uses. The issue is that we play in an environment with broad & easy access to general rerolls and few armies really possess the ability to push to-hit or save rolls to 2+ success. So this spell becomes so niche that it won’t be of much use outside of very specific instances. This means that other spells on both spell lists are more useful in most games. You need to know who you are playing and what sort of list they have for Curse of the Spider God to be good. And in most cases we play AoS with lists built prior to knowing your opponents - which means niche abilities are a liability and instead the universal abilities are better. When the book came out I tried to figure this spell out and I still don’t get what it is trying to do. Rend is better for the anti-save and negatives to-hit are better for the to-hit portion. This spell does effect both rolls, but it is still limited enough that it is just not useful most of the time. It should be reworked somehow in the next version of this book. Just applying a negative to both rolls would make it better - but that is what the Shroommancer and the Troggoth Hag spells do. I think they tried to make this one different but failed. Maybe if it caused failures on a 1 or 6 - then it could be pretty good. Edit: for question 2 I need to go look at some of the recent errata that I have not payed much attention to. But honestly, the start/end timing for the combat system is a bit of a mess at the moment. They need to edit the core rules and add explicit timing sequences so they can write these sorts of rules without needing a bunch of conflicting errata.
  10. Yeah, you can have a fun time with that. It is basically a sample-platter list. It has a bit of synergy for both grots and squigs, but does not lean much into either. It is a good base to expand in either of those directions. However, I expect that over time you will find that this list will have an uphill fight for more focused armies at this point level.
  11. I think Mierce makes a pretty great giant war mammoth model. Spellcrow has one too I think.
  12. It does not bother me if someone has their army painted by commission. That is better than just grey plastic armies. Honestly, there is nothing more valuable than time and people should be careful to spend it on the way that brings them the most enjoyment. If painting is not enjoyable for you but the game is then I see no issue with paying someone else to paint your army. I regularly play Star Wars: Legion with a friend and his Rebel force was commission painted. He got a budget, but good, painting job and it looks nice. He himself is a good painter and I have seen a number of 40k and Fantasy armies he painted in the past and they were great. But he decided that he did not want to devote the time to his Legion force right now but wanted it painted - so he paid someone to do it. I can’t fault that thinking.
  13. They most likely only allotted a certain amount to website distribution (by region) and those sold out online during the pre-order. With Warhammer Stores they dictate how many copies each store gets rather than using manager stock requests. And with FLGS stores they most likely allotted a specific amount and then gave them to stores based on first-come-first-serve for orders. This is not untypical for retail distribution with limited stock run items.
  14. I never claimed it could be a grab and implement. Any core rule change would require a new edition (one is coming eventually) and would require abilities adjusted with it in mind and costs reworked for that system. What we have now is here to stay for at least the duration of this edition and I would not advocate messing with any portion of the core rules with the exception that it is becoming extremely obvious that they need to append an explicit timing-system into the combat phase to clear up how wonky their "start/end" rules are beginning to become. I really enjoy Age of Sigmar - more than previous editions of Fantasy and most editions of 40k (that game is practically a dumpster fire at the moment). But that does not mean that I don't prefer certain system mechanics in other games and think that including them in future versions of AoS would not lead to an improved game - because I do. I think Fantasy Flight has a number of very interesting mechanics in a few of their games that are easily worth stealing. As I mentioned, the movement system from Legion is just so clean and fast that it is really refreshing. After spending over 25 years playing a huge number of different wargames where most of them have some degree of fiddly movement system that is time consuming and often the source of some shady play I am frankly rather astounded at the very simple and elegant way that FF solved it with SW: Legion. That system also has the benefit of making unit leaders important without giving them alternate stats or making them some version of lesser heroes. It is a good representation of what they are supposed to be - organization leaders of their units. I really like that touch and I would like unit leaders in AoS to perform a better role than simply a tiny combat upgrade for the unit. I also enjoy that Age of Sigmar uses alternating activations in the combat phase, but I wish it could be applied across all of the phases of the game. Xwing and Legion both have very interesting activation-order mechanics (orders in Legion, and pilot-skill in Xwing). GW already stole the Xwing concept of shared turns using phases with alternating activation within the phases with KillTeam. I think that they should consider moving this idea into both 40k and AoS in future versions. There might also be interesting room to slide in the concept of leaders issuing orders (kinda like command abilities) to prioritize activations (what Legion does) and then units having some sort of default ordering they fall back on based on some sort of stat value (like what Xwing does). Anyways, I understand your point and I agree with it. You can't just lift & drop major mechanics like how coherency & movement behave without large impacts to an existing game system. It has a lot of potential repercussions. But in the future I think they should look into changing some of the things that they have treated as sacred cows for decades when there is opportunity for improvement.
  15. I would really love to see GW consider adapting (just steal it wholesale) how unit movement works in Star Wars: Legion. It is so simple that it is just pure brilliance. In that game the unit leader functions as a sort of anchor for the unit. All coherency is measured using a radius from the leader. All shooting ranges are measured from the unit leader and line-of-sight (including whether targets get cover) is measures from the leader. In addition, when you move a unit you precisely measure the movement for the leader model. You then simply pick up and place the rest of the unit within coherency of the leader. Even vehicle squadrons use the same mechanism. After playing with that mechanic for a while now it is simply so clean and fast. It drastically speeds up the movement phase and clears up a lot of issues with systems that require you to move each model in large units precisely. The main negative that adopting a system like this would have for GW games is that it would make it much more difficult to "bubble wrap" units using another cheap unit - since it makes it almost impossible to put large units into line-formations and requires them to behave as blobs due to the leader being the center of a coherency area bubble. It would also hurt tactics for stringing out units to zone block. However, I never cared for those mechanics as I prefer my games to have more verisimilitude in regards to representing a fantasy battle. I would prefer that those types of tactics/roles would be added into the game using other mechanics than large unit model micro-management. These games have so many models that I really like when some of the more tedious spots are sped up and made cleaner.
  16. Glad to hear. I ordered 2 of each of their sets a few days back to test the quality and see how they fit with my others. I doubt I use these for all my bases, since my base scheme is caverns and I have a few different types, but I expect I will mix these in for more variety. The plates really intrigue me and if I like the quality I will probably order a bunch more of them.
  17. Best rule ever implemented - hands down.
  18. Yes. I use them because after playing Warhammer Fantasy in the rank & file version they just made using big units so much simpler. So I have never gone back and instead I started making them for other GW games like 40k and now AoS. I simply put magnets under/into my bases and then I get cheap metal roofing shingles from the hardware store and cut them into whatever shape I want using some metal shears.
  19. I am on the fence about the idea of prayers in a Savage Orc army. I get that it is a good way to put some buffs into the army, and it could be a good way to make Wardoks have a better buff system. However, I very much like that GW stuck with the shaman leader theme for Bonesplitterz when they split the Savage Orcs into their own distinct army. Orcs in Warhammer have historically never used Shaman as the leaders of their forces except in rare instances. Orcs almost always follow a powerful warlord and the shaman are something of a combination of advisors to the warlords and crazy oddball lunatics that the rest of the orcs tolerate and somewhat avoid. GW kept to this theme when they created the Ironjawz so it still seems to be present for Orruks. But Savage Orcs were always the oddity in that they typically pay great deference to the shaman. So much so that the shaman are typically the leaders and tell the various warlords and bosses what to do. I was very glad to see that fluff maintained and even emphasized in the Bonesplitterz army. And while I admit that they are religious - to me that religion is exemplified through magic and not prayers. I would like to see GW rework the shaman warscrolls to emphasize their ability to channel the power of Gorkamorka more than they currently do. For example, I would like to see Gaze of Mork/Gork become a standard warscroll ranged attack or ability rather than a spell. Bonesplitterz shaman should be casting plenty of spells while also unleashing bolts of green energy from their eyes or staff. I see no reason at all that a ranged attack can not represent magical power. And if they wanted they could even make an ability where the attack becomes more powerful when lots of orcs are nearby and/or where the shaman could potentially be harmed (1 to hit or something). Anyways, the reason I bring this up is that shaman are integral to Bonesplitterz and I would like them to be able to blast stuff with magic without having to give up choosing useful buff/curse spells. I would like powerful attack spells also, since that has always been a theme of Greenskinz magic, but I would like some regular magic attacks on the warscroll just to reinforce the theme that these are powerful magic users. I would also like to see the concept of the JuJu dance expanded. So if they need to add a prayer system or some other form of buff/curse ability then I would like to see the Witch Doctor voodoo concept explored and JuJu dances become a more integral system used by most of the wizards. But, if they put prayers into an Orruk army and GW decided that only one army would get them then I would vote for Ironjawz instead. It seems more fitting for them in my opinion.
  20. I am pretty sure it’s coming. During the Q&As at Warhammer Fest this weekend they seem to have confirmed that there is at least one book for each Grand Alliance still coming this year. They also mentioned that right now the story is mainly being driven by Death, but Destruction will be the focus next in terms of driving the story. That said, I would not expect anything aside from a rewrite of Bonesplitterz or Ironjawz in terms of Orruk books. Hopefully they tackle Ogres soon as well. I would also not expect much more than a rewrite book with a terrain piece and some endless spells. Personally I would like to see some form of big centerpiece kit for Bonesplitterz since the army is really missing that, but I honestly don’t expect to see it happening soon. I would be happy with a book rewrite where they do a better job making all of the units useful and have a good role. I would like to see Savage Orcs as an actual compelling option rather than just totally outclassed by Morboyz and Arrer Boyz. In addition I would really like the army to return to playing more like the Savage Orc fluff (both from the Old World and from the 1st AoS Battletome) where it is primarily a melee force comprised of a horde of frenzied psychopaths trying to beat everything to death with sticks and rocks - rather than the shooting force it became. I don’t believe that build was really purposeful on GWs part. I know that might be controversial for some, but it’s just my opinion and preference. I think the shooting should be present in the army and I don’t think it should be poor. I also would like shooting heavy builds to still be possible, but I just don’t want that to be the only way to play the army - or even the primary way.
  21. The advertising for Warcry, in regards to being lumped in as an AoS update, is no different than what they did with Killteam. I get not being that excited if a dedicated AoS skirmish game does not interest you, but I also am willing to bet that A LOT of people are excited for it. In fact, given that it appears to be the spiritual successor for Mordheim I would not be surprised if this game makes quite a big splash. GW is smart to be heavily marketing it.
  22. Because that single army is the barometer we all use to decide how well GW is doing at updates for the entire game?
  23. I highly doubt they will ever pull the points completely out of the general’s handbook as a product. In this case I am willing to bet they simply have separated the product into a pamphlet with the points and maybe a few other pages of rules in order to make the main book just contain rules that will not be likely to be replaced in the next yearly version. Then the pamphlet will contain the transitory rules such as points and whatnot. But I expect they will still sell both of these together and not provide them separately. It makes no sense for them to do that as a business. If the main thing that sells many copies of the GHB each year is the matched-play points, and their profit margins on book products is quite strong, then why would they offer those points for free? That would be a poor business move. I expect that they are simply trying to make the book portion of the GHB more convenient and useful as a product. Most of what is in each edition of the GHB is valid and useful across the span of a full game edition and some stuff is still good across multiple editions. This is probably just a move to pull apart longer lived content from the more temporary content and also make it easier to reference just the points.
  • Create New...