Inquisitorsz

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Furies are awesome. They're basically 30pts more expensive skinks, that can fly and have a much, much better attack, but can't shoot.

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.

Allegiance: Sylvaneth Grove: Winterleaf Arch-Revenant (100) Drycha Hamadreth (320) - Deepwood Spell: The Dwellers Below Spirit of Durthu (340) - General - Winterleaf items/ability Treelord Ancient (300) - Deepwood Spell: Regrowth Branchwraith (80) - Deepwood Spell: Verdant Blessing 5 x Spite-Revenants (60) 5 x Tree-Revenants (80) 5 x Spite-Revenants (60) 6 x Kurnoth Hunters (400) - Scythes 3 x Kurnoth Hunters (200) - Greatswords Spiteswarm Hive (50) Total: 1990 / 2000 Thoughts on this list? I feel like it's a bit character heavy maybe? I'd love to take the outcasts battalion but can't really fit it. Maybe if I drop the revenant? Perhaps the hunter unit doesn't really need his ability? General idea is to teleport the 6 scythes and 2 tree lords, while Dyrcha and the other hunters run up a different flank or whatever. Spites hold objectives or screen until more dryads can be summoned and the tree-revs teleport to snatch objectives when possible. Just not sure if I have enough bodies. I'd like to eventually try something with Alarielle too but at the moment, this is all the stuff I own.

Ogors were all over the place.... They had pirates and ninjas and feral butcher type guys. I dunno if they ever really had a theme. I never collected them but just looking at the range, I don't get any sense of theme apart from small groupings like the frostlords/yetis/frost sabers Everything else looks more pirate than anything else, for example the gnoblars, the artilerly and leadbelchers all have pirate looking cannons. I guess the regular gutbusters have a few face sculpts with that unique Mongolian facial hair style.... but it's as disjointed as the rest of the range. I really which they unified the ogor range a bit more. There's a lot of weird things and just don't fit (like yetis). They just don't look like one tribe.

I think there's a lot of good points here. I'm liking Dieter or Krell (or both? ) as the newly released evil. Likely in some new and upgraded form. Either Dieter on his Manticore, in a similar style to the existing Mortarchs. Or Krell supersized into a Morghast form. They'll lead the Tithe of Bones (bonerattle + construct) army against the Ogors Feast of Bones an attack against the evil they helped Sigmar lock away? Seems plausible. Would be a good way to give Ogors a nice story arc that isn't them just killing and eating things. Focus it on Ghur as well and tie in the new teased Wanderers somehow (along with Underworlds Season 3). Maybe Krell will get his own undead chaos knights (ala varanguard) to replace the old and stupidly expensive blood knight box? I don't think it's going to be anything as crazy as Cathay or Settra or Tomb Kings.... though the new Ogor Tyrant does have a very Mongolian theme, so maybe that will filter through to any new Ogor models (though I'm not expecting any other than maybe 2-3 for Underworlds?)

I'm super excited about getting satyr and centaur elves. Making them a destruction faction would actually be an interesting move. I think I'd still prefer if they were tied to Alarielle/Kurnoth/Orion, but I'm not against the idea. Kurnoth could be a more feral god, and we could get a new Orion model. But then having Kurnoth hunters, Wild Riders, Arch Revenants in different factions could feel weird. They are all linked a bit too much to be spread across 3 factions and/or 2 grand alliances. I dunno how much of the existing range is still going to be viable. I like elves riding stags, and eternal guard / wildwood rangers kit is nice, as are some of the old wood elf heroes. Everything else could use a refresh or be replaced. Excited to see the new models, but I'm not a fan of that cat/lion thing that was revealed a while ago.

You forgot Deepkin. And realistically, it looks like there will be some sort of wanderers update soon which may well be separate from the High/Dark elf release. I can also see Tirion/Malerion's elves combined into a single book with 2 different sides of the same coin... Kind of like doing mortal khorne/demon khorne stuff in one book. I do agree that death needs one more book, though I think it should be more vampire based than skeleton based which LoN already does. Or something new entirely... we'll see what this Tithe of Bones stuff ends up being. Destruction could use another book but I'm not sure what that would be. I think BCR should be combined back into Ogors in general. By that count, including 2 new elf books and 1 new death book (and not including FW dwarves), that would bring us up to 24. I think that's manageable. Perhaps death and destruction could get another one or two each to bring them close to the chaos and order, but I wouldn't be adding any more other than those mentioned above. Anything over 26 is probably getting too much but also, probably just unnecessary. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to player numbers and sales figures. GW should know how much certain factions are selling (I'm assuming that's why stuff like orruks and cities if sigmar got combined). Complete speculation warning: It's probably better to aim for new players picking up existing factions (by lowering the barrier to entry or initiatives like contrast paints) than creating a new faction to generate sales. It's often a catch 22 though.... people don't buy empire troops because there's no empire and no book for them.... sales are low, they get combined into soup. Someone at some point did the analysis and decided that it's better to do that, then risk an empire style (free people) only book. Realistically the long term plan is likely to phase out all the old WFB miniatures, especially the generic humans and dwarves and elves etc.... and replace them with unique AOS style factions like deepkin, DOK, KO etc... That may well still take the better part of 5-10 years, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. There will of course still be dwarves, humans, elves and orcs in some form. But it will be a uniquely GW form.

For better or worse, most of GW's newer stuff is mono-pose. Sometimes we see kits with lots of options and variant builds (like Troggoths) other times we see whole factions that are almost 100% monopose (like Nighthaunt). That days of 10 part fully customizable space marines is slowly becoming history. We get more dynamic, more interesting sculpts, at the cost of customization. I welcome the few kits that are exceptions. At least with small warbands, you can do a bit of conversion work. without having to convert a whole army. As for the stats and cards.... I agree. The graphic design is confusing. Having to cross reference symbols between different sources is a strange design choice. Hopefully it just takes some getting used to, but I can't help to feel that they could have been much clearer.

They literally said: "Keep your eyes peeled, too, existing Warhammer Underworlds fans – we’ll have more news on Season 3 very, very soon…" The last bit links to AOS Open Day information. There will be a Season 3 announcement on Saturday.

Not a huge fan of any of them personally... but if I had to choose it would be the Corvus Cabal. Untamed Beasts are fairly generic barbarians. I like the Underworlds Oathsworn barbarians better. Don't like many of their poses. They seem to have taken "heroic scale" to the next level. Splintered Fangs are cool except the main snake priest guy doesn't fit with the rest of the warbands gladiator feel. They just don't look like cultists to me. They almost look more Idoneth Deepkin than chaos cultists. Iron Golems, generic armored guys. I like that there's variety in body types and gender but don't like a few of their poses and I don't like their helmets. head swap could go a long way to giving them some more personality. Unmade, generic guys with masks.... i dunno. I like their lore, the leader is weird but I don't mind him/her. However the miniatures for the basic guys are just super plain. They have faces on their belts and that's about it. Cypher Lords feel like Kairic Acolytes with different masks. I like the poses but other than the masks (which I don't like) the rest of the miniatures are very plain. Corvus Cabal have the most personality, detailed sculpts and all look like they go together.

Fair enough. There's almost zero Infinity scene in my city, and what little is played, is ages away. I can't justify getting into yet another game with such a small following locally. I have tried it once. I think there's a good game buried there, I like some of the rules, but I also found it near impossible to figure out the game by myself. Maybe if there was someone to run me through. I'm a very experienced gamer, but in this point of my life I think I've moved on from 250 page rule books. I just had a quick look. There's 145 pages of rules, 39 pages of advanced rules and scenarios, 16 pages of FAQ and 20 pages of "new rules" It's just too much. I wanted to like Infinity, and in another life I think it probably is the kind of game that is perfect for me. But right now it just doesn't have enough appeal to make me want to jump through all the hoops. I agree Underworlds has one massive glaring flaw (the having to buy cards aspect) which I really hope they fix soon. But otherwise it's a great strategic game. I really wish that warband only came with warband specific cards, and neutral cards were only in cheap separate card packs and in the starter. That would be enough to make getting into UW easy and affordable without having to buy all the other warbands.

I’m not sure that there is really a huge “horde meta”. We still see a lot of large monsters in most lists. I think that’s mostly a by product of which armies happen to be at the top of the power creep curve, and which ones still don’t have 2.0 updates. With a few exceptions, there seems to be a decent mix of hordes and monsters. However, spamming hordes is generally better than spamming monsters (or small elite units like Troggoths). I’m not sure you can fix that easily though. I believe that too many things would need to be tweaked and it wouldn’t be a simple fix. It would be an AoS 3.0 size re-write. Firstly you’d need battleshock to be more impactful (both for horde and smaller units). In a vacuum, it’s simply a rule that has zero effect on more than half the game. Small/elite units are mostly unaffected, high bravery stuff is mostly unaffected and there’s a huge number of ways to ignore it completely. Perhaps removing the battleshock immunity command ability would be enough. Secondly, I’m not sure what the logic behind horde discounts is. Other than to sell more models. Most of those big units get better the more models they have. They certainly get more efficient in terms of buffs. This has been somewhat balanced by introducing “wholly within” rules…. However these have not been as consistently rolled out to new armies as I would have expected. Thirdly, monsters need to be tougher. Either with a different wound value vs monsters (like 40k APOC does now) or some sort of built in -1 to wound modifier. Possibly more wounds but with a more aggressive damage table. This is tricky because you risk making monsters too good. Reducing the huge mortal wound spam we’re starting to see might be enough to make monsters more survivable. Fourthly, monsters (and small elite units) need to be able to contest objectives properly. They’re supposed to be able to do this by killing hordes, but they often just don’t do that well enough. Perhaps there needs to be more cleave type abilities (like chainghasts or kroxigor moon hammers or warpfire throwers). Moving to a “wounds within 6” instead of a “minis within 6” objective control model would help. That’s probably one of the more obvious changes. I think some troops or heroes could have something similar to 40k “objective controlled” rules where they count as double or reduce enemy control effectiveness in a certain area. Fifthly, while I’m not a huge fan of the “core tax” method of army design, I do believe some battleline units are too strong. That could just be a case of individually balancing problem units. I feel like most units should have some sort of exploitable weakness. Otherwise, they do everything too well and become an auto-include unit, or get cost increases to the point of no longer being viable. Another way to reduce horde power is to change the way casualties are removed. If you had to take casualties from the front (or closest to the attacking enemy), then it makes the activation order in combat even more important. It means that hordes may get less attacks after the plie in move when their front 1-2 ranks get wiped out. Especially those on 32mm bases. While small elite units (3 – 5 models) would likely still have everyone within reach. That would also make it easier to clear models from objectives because you wouldn’t be able to take casualties from the rear, further away from the objective. It could also help protect missile troops by making charge distances longer when they kill the closest enemies. I’m not sure if that would be too drastic of a change though. Finally, and this is a broader point… make terrain mean something. The new GHB random terrain rules are a bit more impactful than the old ones, but it’s still just buff/debuff auras in most cases. I’d like to see more impassable terrain, more LOS blocking terrain, more terrain that slows movement and make positioning important. Right now, especially with flying units, terrain can be almost completely ignored. And that’s boring. I especially hate how a bit monster or flying unit can magically hover on this one little fence and hit troops behind it. Having to manoeuvre hordes around terrain, or having terrain slow them down could be interesting. Of course you have to make sure it’s not too exploitable the other way around, but as it stands, I find fighting in and around terrain to be either incredibly annoying or completely irrelevant.

LOL I can't believe I actually forgot that.

They've already said they will be showing off Warcry (able to be played) at the AoS Open Day on the 20th July. So at the absolute earliest we might see pre-orders on the 20th, release on the 27th. but I think, preview on the 20th, pre-orders on the 27th, release on the 3rd is more likely.

At the risk of derailing a little bit: I'm mostly wondering why there isn't a realm of ice/frost etc.... there's a few miniatures that would fit well (like BCR) and would be a nice excuse to use more snow effects on bases. Obviously you can still for various chaos realms and shyish.... Snow wouldn't be out of place in most of the other realms either. But you know.... we have life/death, shadow/light, beasts/metal, chaos/heavens, and poor fire is left without a partner. Back on topic. I think I like Shadow most of all. It's all mysterious.

I know what it is. I'm asking about its application specifically for contrast paints and how it relates to the different special contrast undercoats. I know wraithbone and grey seer aren't 100% required but it does work better and it's easier than getting a consistent finish with corax white. I mentioned some other techniques in my post. That's why I'm asking for more clarification

Those look pretty. When you say Zenithal prime, how did you achieve that? Did you prime black then spray Grey Seer or Wraithbone from the top? Or did you airbrush the contrast base colours over a darker primer? Did you use black or grey as the darker primer? Does the contrast paint flow/pool differently across the different primers? That's what I'm worried about regarding mixing primers. Does the surface finish change much? Or did you gloss varnish over the primer to smooth it all out? I haven't had a chance to stuff around with zenithal priming or preshading with contrast yet.