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

Inquisitorsz

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Celestant-Prime

About Inquisitorsz

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Inspiring presence is OK i think, It costs a CP and only does 1 unit and you have to be near a hero. I'm not against nerfing it a little bit .... perhaps make it +5 bravery instead of immune or have it only with X range of the general not any hero. But I don't think that's overly necessary. What I don't like is the multitude of ways most army can ignore battleshock. Either by having base 10 bravery across the board, or by having tons of immunity buffs. You can have inspiring presence.... 1 CP to ignore one BS test.... or you can have a screaming bell or verminlord warpseer who gives you 13" immune bubble for free or a 26" immune bubble for the same cost. There's a few faction terrain pieces that do the same thing. High wound low model count units also never care about battleshock, neither do heroes. I'm not too sure how I feel about that, but I think they should still have some very small risk of losing 1 more model or suffering a few extra wounds. I liked the old system where you compared combat resolution.... wounds + bonuses + ranks + whatever vs your opponents score. That way some tiny screening unit doesn't get to hold up a death star unit because there's 1 guy left and they use a command point. Currently it also feels like high bravery is either significantly undervalued in certain units (especially screening units) or very overcosted. Ultimately there's tons of units where the bravery statistic doesn't even matter outside of a few special attacks like banshee and terrogheist screams. Either make it meaningful, or get rid of it. I also wouldn't be against reworks of the CP system.... some armies desperately need them, some don't... some generate stupid amounts other's don't. It makes abilities difficult to balance. I like the new generic command abilities from the GHB2019... reroll 1s for hits or saves. Still good buffs but they don't make anything automatic.
  2. I got the feeling that the new "candle on the back guy" is the narrator. I agree he's not the big prime evil released from the stormvault. I expect that to be a new Mortarch and this candle guy is the new hero.... everything else will probably just be a book, some endless spells and combining deathrattle into their own faction (kind of like Legion of Grief perhaps). I expect this new hero and the new ogor tryan to be in a dual faction box like Looncurse. That will come alongside the two new respective battletomes/spells/terrain. I'd be surprised if this ended up being a bigger release than that.
  3. That's the kind of info I was after..... In silly Australian dollars, buying either Ravaged Lands Box ($150), rulebook ($70), a warband ($84) and battleplan cards ($34) brings the total up to $338 which is significantly more than the $280 starter set. If you want to just use some non-chaos models that you have instead the price comes down to $220 or $254 AUD which is cheaper than the starter set. That's why I'm trying to figure out how badly you need the battleplan cards and other starter box contents. Can always share a rulebook with a friend which brings the cost down too. Mainly I just don't like the 2 starter warbands and the starter terrain (although the furies are cool), and I want the shattered stormvault for AoS terrain.
  4. Hi everyone. I noticed that the Sigmar Stormvault terrain box for warcry also has a game board, cards and some token. Does anyone know if you get the full Warcry experience by buying the terrain box and the core rule book? For someone who doesn't like the 2 starter warbands, or the core set terrain, I'm wondering what my options are. If I buy the terrain box/rulebook/corvus warband it ends up being more expensive than the starter set unfortunately, but ends up significantly cheaper if you want to use some existing non-chaos warband or if you can share a rule book with a friend. I'm just not sure what I might be missing from the core set if I only get terrain boxes and other warbands.
  5. That's a common problem. It's the same with any GW competitor, Hearthstone competitor, Magic The Gathering competitor.... Blizzard aside GW and Wizards have been running their core business very well recently so it's harder to point out flaws. There certainly are plenty of issues, but big picture, they generally do well and people see that. Stock is on time, events are run regularly and supported, releases happen on time etc.... All those things help bring in new players and keep old ones. So when people keep playing and keep investing, that particular hobby reaches a critical mass and is able to self sustain. Even in less populous areas. Where as finding other people to buy in and play a less popular game is much harder... especially in smaller communities. It becomes exponentially more difficult if the parent company keeps ****** up release dates, not supporting events, delaying prize kits etc. Doesn't really matter how awesome the game is.... mismanaging the business side of things will kill the game just as easily (if not easier) than bad rules writing. I think the discussions here are generally coming from the "I love this game but I would like some of these little annoying things fixed" point of view. Not so much "this game is ****** I'm never playing it" But that could just be confirmation bias of the people who frequent this forum.
  6. We'll things like that a certainly also part of the problem. Its all linked. The double turn can often exasperate problems who's root cause is different, like overpowered FEC or NPE experiences like whole armies who strike first or skaven with enough magic and shooting to wipe multiple units out each turn. That being said, it's also the low hanging fruit in terms of a fix. Improve the double turn problem and you'll reduce the impact of these overpowered armies/units. That doesn't necessarily mean removing the priority roll btw (see my previous post on the last page for more on that). Ideally they should fix both, the double turn and OP units/armies, but you know, baby steps.
  7. I dislike it... I don't hate it. I see what it's trying to achieve. I just don't think it does it very well. It's a simple lazy solution to a very complex problem. I also think it's important to break the question down a bit more. "do you like the priority roll/double turn?" is WAY too broad. You need to ask things like: "Do you like the priority roll and what type of gamer are you (Open/Narrative/Matched)?" "Do you like the priority roll and what army do you primarily play?" "What percentage of games result in a win to the player who gets a Round 2 double turn" "What percentage of games result in a win to the player who gets a Round 3 double turn" "What percentage of games with Army X are won when they get a Round X double turn" I feel like if you split the players based on their main armies and what type of games they play, you'll get very different answers. It's just too hard to make such broad statements when you're talking about 20+ factions at VARIOUS power levels. There's lots of situations and armies that benefit far more from a double turn than some others do. As a matched play players who currently plays a fairly weak army (Nighthaunt), I dislike the priority roll. I also dislike first turn going to which ever army has the best battalions. Nighthaunt struggle to get anything close to low drops so I'm almost always given the first turn. I think in the last 2 tournaments I played, I never went second. Which means I never get the chance of a Round 2 double turn. All my spells are less than 18in range (even with Arkhan), so apart from some lucky summoning and 9+ charges or a lucky black coach power level roll, there's literally nothing I can do on turn 1. So my tactical choices are 1) stay mostly still and wait for the opponent - giving them extra time to shoot me or letting them take middle objectives first thus giving them a points advantage 2) move forward, maybe get some objective points, risk long charges (if the opponent even lets me summon/deploy near them) and risk being double turned. The problem here is that even if I choose to sit back and not move at all... a double turn would still allow most aggressive armies to hit me (either in melee or ranged/magic). So sitting back can be just as risky as moving forward. I'm by no means some super experienced AOS player but I also play a lot of other games with all sorts of different turn orders so I can see the pros and cons of different systems. I constantly hear people defending the double turn/priority roll as an important tactical choice and how you can prepare for it and play around it. I'm yet to see anyone properly and logically explain how. They sometimes give specific examples like "I screen my Terrogheist with ghouls, and now I'm ready to either double turn or be safe from it". That's great... it works in some limited situations where you have an overpowered 400pt monster and cheap chaff. Espeically when that monster can double pile in. Not every army can do that. Screening expensive units and heroes isn't a tactic that's specific to the priority roll or even alpha strikes. I wouldn't mind the priority roll if there was enough incentive to go second. There are some niche cases like with endless spells or the Relocation Orb. But at the same time there's cases like Places of Arcane Power, Scorched Earth, Duality of Death, and Knife to the Heart where going first in a round gives you a significant advantage on victory points. If the player pulls ahead on points early Round 2, there's often not enough time or opportunity to claw those points back in later turns... at that point it can be too late. I'd say in roughly 80% of my matched play games, the priority roll has determined the winner. If not instantly then at least in hindsight. Sometimes it's not as obvious but quite often, if my opponent double turns me in round 2 and then I don't get the double turn in round 3, it's pretty much over. They've done too much damage and usually scored too many points without me getting an opportunity to do the same. I have had close games and I've had games where the priority roll has been interesting (even games where there have been actual choices about going second) but those are rare. I've even had games where the priority roll didn't matter, or games where no one got the double turn. Those often end up being the closest games. That's probably one of biggest arguments against the priority roll. The randomness can sometimes even things out, and probably stops higher power level armies from being too dominant, but it does the opposite just as often. And that's the problem. I don't think we need to necessarily get rid of priority rolls.... but there should be a better way of doing it. Perhaps something like only the army that goes second gets a command point in the hero phase.... that could change up list building a bit, making that extra 50pt command point more important for armies that need to go first. Or providing some sort of bonus to armies that go second like +1 save or reroll saves if you go second and be on the receiving end of a charge? Right now, most of the time, it's just too strong to have a double turn, regardless of what your opponent does to protect against it. The only time a double turn is wasted, is if the aggressor is too placid. But if you're playing a fast, hard hitting low drop army, you're often dictating the first turn anyway and you can easily play for the double turn with very little risk.
  8. This was discussed a few weeks ago in regards to monsters/elite units vs horde units Some good point in there worth considering. Also gives you a good idea of the general consensus on the issue (since there's 7 pages of discussion there).
  9. We'll have to agree to disagree I think. I don't totally hate the priority roll, I just think it's too important m too many games can swing too far on one roll. Especially at the higher end of competitive gaming where armies are designed to hit hard and hit fast. I find priority roll interesting about 20% of the time. I see what they're trying to achieve, but there's simply not enough insensitive to go second. Endless spells were a good idea too except no one takes the ones that can be used against you. I agree, that if there were more rules and buffs for going second eg better armour saves for a unit that receives a charge or something like that, then maybe it would work more as intended. But again, perhaps we digress a bit discussing specific individual rules
  10. So I don't think we should have alternating activations right now. I agree it's too drastic a change. But it's also solves the priority roll problem. I agree 40k is bad in that sense. But adding randomness to the priority roll is a lazy solution. Warcry does it a bit better. Maybe that's a better solution. I just think we should eventually move away from the archaic system. It might not even be as big of a change as it sounds. It inherently helps balance too.... Much harder to have blow-out events when you only work with one unit at a time. You could for example cast buffs and counter cast debuffs. But I digress, that's a discussion for a different day
  11. Within reason. Obviously the game still has to allow for 50-100+ models per side. You can be as terrain dense as a Necromunda. But currently (apart from some random auras) terrain can be mostly ignored... especially by anything that flies. While I like that flying stuff can jump over walls etc... being able to balance a massive monster on a little pillar is silly. I just feel like too often terrain just doesn't matter other than a big building completely blocking off a part of the table. The new Sigmar shattered dominion set is better (apparently you can keep unit coherency across the staircases), and the new sylvaneth wildwoods at least allow models to properly hide in them. These are good terrain changes for AOS.... but also VERY recent. I hope we see more.
  12. Bit late to the party, but here goes. There's a few things I can say about AoS rules. I'm going to preface this by saying that you have to consider the "3 different ways to play" design of AOS in terms of rules. Also, a lot of my comments are going to come from comparisons with other games and other rules documents not some sort of doctorate degree on rule writing. Generally I find AOS rules to be OK. Not great, but not terrible either. There's some wording inconsistencies and a lot of silly overwriting interactions that can cause problems. On one hand, that's a unfortunate but difficult to avoid problem of having so many armies, so many books, so many different rules. On the surface, AOS seems simple right... there's only a few pages in the main rules. But every warscroll and every battletome has half a page or more of rules associated with it. Spears, swords, shields all work differently on different units. Some units have multiple different weapons. Things get even more complicated when you add spells/buffs/command abilities, army allegiance abilities etc.... I always like to point at the Skaven Plague Monk warscroll as an example. There's 2 different instruments, 2 different banners, 2 different weapon options. All provide a whole bunch of different rules. There's multiple reroll effects, multiple "on 6" effects and that's before you add in any spells, allegiance ability or character buffs. That's probably just a plain example of where things start to get too bloated. Does it add to the experience? Is that fun? Does it work well? If not, then you probably need to re-assess your rules writing. On the other hand, things like requiring a whole separate article about "who strikes first" is a sign that your rules probably aren't coping with the current landscape of the game. Remember, the original simple rules were very much written as a "pick up and play while having a beer with some mates" kind of game. It was always designed to be easy to pick up and not particularly deep. GW realized that was wrong, they changed things, they added points etc... However the core rules haven't really changed much. I'm not saying they need to get more complicated btw.... simple is good. Easily accessible rules help bring in new players which is important. But let's do some comparisons.... Take Star Wars Legion.... it's rulebook is about 50 pages I think. That can be very daunting, and it's certainly a lot to remember. But at the same time, you have unit cards with most of the rules on them. You have a rulebook that's properly laid out with specific keywords in alphabetical order and an index in the back. Then you have something like Infinity.... 200+ rule book for a skirmish game with less than 10 models per side. That's insane. It's a good game, but that level of detail isn't for everyone, and I think it certainly hurts their accessibility and ability to bring in new players. As stated above, AoS rules are only a few pages..... but then you have a ton of rules on every warscroll, even more in battletome abilities, items, spells, even more in expansions like Forbidden Power or Malign Sorcery. That last part might just be personal preference.... I like have all the rules in one living document that get's updated regularly and is easy to look through. I don't like buying $70AUD books that come with day one errata or a half obsolete in less than a month. The latest GHB2019 has a page full of errata right after release. That's crazy. I think AoS needs to tighten the rules up a little bit. Use generic keywords like WFB used to. At least put some of the more common rules in easy to find places. I shouldn't have to carry around 3-4 books to every game. The use of warscroll cards is handy. I wish GW did it more. We're seeing it now in Warcry, which is nice, but there I think they went too far.... all those symbols with no text just means people have to keep referring to other materials to decipher the symbols. There's an ability symbol on each fighter card that references a table and text on another card..... WHY? Put the ability text on the card where it matters. Probably the best example of rules writing (from a rules lawyer point of view) is card games. They often have very defined trigger windows. They have very defined and very consistent wording. Some companies do it better than others, and nothing is perfect of course. But I find those much easier to understand than the sometimes haphazard GW rules. I generally like what GW is trying to do with this products in general, especially making them more accessible. I do wish the rules were tightened up a bit. They are still OK right now, but are starting to get very very close to being too bloated with each new release. Side note: Some pet peeves with AOS in general. Make terrain matter. Have it slow movement, or block LOS... have models need to be placed, none of this Archaon floating on a little wooden hut. Also bring on alternating activations and no priority roll!!! Time to leave the 1990s wargaming rules in the past.
  13. Might be nothing, but there's 6 elf kits on the webstore that are "temporarily out of stock online" which is usually what happens when things are being repackaged. So these kits might be getting new names. I'm not sure if all of them have already been repackaged with round bases in the past.... the website still says things like Black Ark corsairs come with square bases. Kits affected: Dark elf chariot Dual Kit Eternal Guard/Wildwood Ranger Dual Kit Wild Rider/Sisters of the Thorn Dual Kit Black Ark Corsairs Phoenix Guard Shadow Warriors/Sisters of the Watch Dual Kit It's understandable if the older single kits are just getting repackaged with round bases or new box art but the newer dual kits (the wood elf troops and cav) already have round bases so that's strange. or it could be nothing.
  14. Furies are awesome. They're basically 30pts more expensive skinks, that can fly and have a much, much better attack, but can't shoot.
  15. Oh yeah that's a good idea. They are mentioned in the lore and would be unique enough I guess.... Though I dunno if we need another goblin/grot army. I guess if it's heavily focused on vehicles and grots in wood/metal robot suits that could be awesome.
×
×
  • Create New...