Tropical Ghost General
-
Posts
730 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Tropical Ghost General
-
-
Tomb banshee, especially in this current ignore or have high bravery version of the game.
To make her extra useless, take her as your general in a Nighthaunt army and give her the command trait 'Terrifying Entity'.
-
Event Title: Brutal & Basic '20
Event Author: Tropical Ghost General
Calendar: Events UK
Event Date: 03/28/2020 09:30 AM to 03/28/2020 06:30 PM
A one day 2k Age of Sigmar matched play tournament event.
Games will be playing on a 6x4 tables.
There will be none of the following being used for the event:
- realm rules
- realmscape features
- realm spells
- realm artefacts
- mystical terrain (random terrain rules)
- hidden agendas
We will be using the current General's Handbook 2019 for the battleplans for this tournament.
Armies must be no more than 2000 points using the Battlehost pitched battle profile (so up to 6 hero, minimum of 3 battleline, up to 400pts of allies, etc..).
The battle plans will be announced on the day and before the start of each round.
As is standard with 2000pt games of AoS, there will be 2hrs for each game with an additional 15mins for any pre-game introductions and army explanations.
Players must aim to finish their games within the allotted time frame.
Any games that won't finish in time, the players should call over the TO and together we can decide on the outcome.
Scoring:
10 points for a major victory
7 points for a minor victory
5 points for a draw
3 points for a minor loss
1 point for a major loss
As there are no secondaries or soft scores being used, Kill Points will be used for ti-breaks.
This event will allow armies to use publications up to the and including the day of the event, so long as the player has the physical or digital copy of the book required. This means that any new releases will be able to take part, so long as the points have been factored correctly to match the new publication.
There will be prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd places.
There will also be a prize for 'Best Army', which is player voted and although there is no painting requirement for this event in order to be eligible for 'Best Army' all models must be fully painted and be based. Concept armies are allowed to be entered into 'Best Army'.
Spaces will be limited to 20 maximum, so book early to save disappointment.
You can secure your place by paying your entry fee of £12.50:
via Paypal to:
duncan.screenprinter@gmail.com
Please make sure that the payment is done as 'Friends & Family' or the payment will be refunded and you will have to do the payment again.
Unfortunately we are unable to issue refunds for tickets if refund requests are made within one month of the event taking place, however you are more than welcome to let someone else take your ticket should life get in the way.
The event will be held at Bristol Independent Gaming.
Address for the venue is:
Bristol Independent Gaming
16 Clothier Road
Bristol
BS4 5PS
If you are coming from outside of Bristol and using public transport, please contact me via my email (duncan.screenprinter@gmail.com) so that I can help with best routes to get to and from the venue.
Registration will be at: 9:30am - 9:45am
Game 1: 9:45am -12:00pm
Lunch: 12:00pm -1:15pm
Game 2: 1:15pm - 3:30pm
Game 3: 3:45pm - 6:00pm
Awards: 6:15pm
(Times may be subject to change dependent on numbers and on how quickly players finish their games and scored are tallied at the end of the round..) -
Going from my personal experience with the books I own:
- Best: Ogors. It has issues certainly, but it also has options. Has good competitive build as well as fun, fluffy builds.
Worst: Nighthaunt. Ever unit is nearly identical, so very little flavour when making lists, do you take the unit that does -1 rend 1 damage or the other unit that does -1 rend 1 damage. The only book to not have sub-factions. A lot of synergies that should work but just don't work. They've been a main army for a long time and are severely lacking in many areas. Best looking models though.
-
6
-
-
To give as simple an example as possible of 'reroll hits' vs 'reroll failed hits'
For this example your unit hits normally on a 4+ and have 12 attacks. From this you roll two 1s, two 2s, two 3s, two 4s, two 5s and two 6s (perfectly average roll 😂). And in this example unmodified 6s give you an extra mortal wound on top of regular damage.
So 'reroll failed hits' first:
Now without any modifiers involved, you will reroll the 1s, 2s, and 3s in order to score those hit rolls.
But with say a -2 to hit modifier, you now need 6s to hit, so while the 4s and 5s would normally hit, they are classed as successful hits and not 'failed hits', because modifiers are applied after the roll, so they can't be rerolled, only the 1s, 2s and 3s, just as before. Only difference is the addition of 'lost' dice (4s & 5s) that were classed as successful hits, aren't successful after the negative modifier has been applied.
So 'reroll hits' next:
Now without any modifiers involved, you will need reroll the 1s, 2s, and 3s in order to score those hit rolls. But you can also choose to reroll the other 10 dice that weren't 6s, in order to fish for some more mortal wounds, even though the 4s and 5s were already successful. It's a gamble and sometimes worth trying.
And with the same -2 to hit modifier, you now need 6s to hit, so while the 4s and 5s would normally hit, they are still classed as successful hits and not 'failed hits', because modifiers are applied after the roll, but the difference is now they can be rerolled, whereas they couldn't before, so any dice that weren't a 6 can be picked up and rolled again. In this situation there are no 'lost' dice being created from the negative modifiers that get applied.
Now although the wording is subtle, it's so much stronger to have the 'reroll hits' compared to the 'reroll failed hits'. I initially thought that GW were updating the terms to simplify and streamline the gaming process (as figuring out the 'reroll failed hits' can be a pain in the bum sometimes and slows down combat a fair bit), but there are still a few units and abilities from some of the newer books that have the 'reroll failed hits', which is a shame in my opinion, as making it a game wide change by removing the 'failed hits' would be good for the health of the game, as certain armies (such as ghosts) all have the older version of the reroll ability, so get crippled by armies that can give out the negative modifiers, which on the other end of the spectrum isn't something that a lot of the newer armies suffer from. So it's a big and unnecessary handicap to put on some factions and units compared to others, but 🤷♀️ that's GW rules writing for you.
-
2
-
-
So I like the double turn. I've argued it before on other threads and been shot down in a hail of 'your opinion is wrong' from the crowd of those who don't like the double turn, whilst I've tried to rain down my own opinions on the topic. And where has it led? Nowhere.
Now, I play a lot of narrative (as well as matched play), where decisions in games aren't so much about what's the best tactically to do, but what is the most fluffy actions to take, such as not letting my hungry ghouls sit, camping on an objective, instead letting them charge into their nearest meal.
In the narrative games, you often adapt scenarios, you are constantly changing how scenarios score and how actions interact. Now the point I'm getting too is this:
For all of those who hate the double turn, how many have bothered to truly test alternative ways to play the game? How many times have you tried out another idea to how priority and the turn sequence is done? How much time has been spent just theory crafting and how much time has been put into testing out an alternative method?
Because I am open to new ideas, I love messing around with the rule set (if it's narrative games), but what is incredibly boring, is hearing the same complaint over and over, without any significant evidence to back up an alternative option. Let's get some of these potentially good ideas backed up with some field tests and progress these ideas further, rather than just moaning about something that isn't going to change anytime soon.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 12/19/2019 at 7:57 PM, Double Misfire said:
Re: the lack of multipart Chaos Warriors and Knights: the new Chaos Lord Warscroll has a flail option not available on any miniature in addition to the regular glaive and sword. Almost like we should expect a second wave at some point the forseeable...?
Guardian of Souls for Nighthaunt. Only available model is the one from the AoS starter set, yet there are 2 weapon profiles. Only way to get the other weapon profile is with the OOP special anniversary model. So just because a model has multiple options not available in the new kit, isn't reason to believe that further releases will happen.
Looking at Shadowspear, the warriors got a separate box, but everything else got re-released as a new SC set, with the same ETB style monopose sculpts. The ways the sprues have been divided with the new slaves SC set, means that the knights, warriors and new lord can all be released separately, but using exactly the same sprues.
Personally I think it's a real shame, as it makes converting and kitbashing practically impossible, without damaging or destroying too much of the models to make it worth while. I love the new detail on the new kits, but the lack of options to customise the models is I think a real oversight on GW's part. The new ****** bois kits are great, they can be customised to a decent level, that even a complete amateur can make each model look a bit different to the next. But that the only new release kits that I know of recently, that offer a nice level of customisation. I can see the warriors and the knights getting separate releases, but I can't see new molds being done.
-
25 minutes ago, relic456 said:
That by definition isn't playing RAW
Agreed. But when there is an obviously massive mistake in the rules, it common for players to ignore it, it happens a lot with plenty of other rules in plenty of other game systems. Now it's super rare that something like this slips through the net, but it does happen from time to time. GW are not good at picking up on issues quickly enough and it's down to the playing community to self police at times. Look at the Slaanesh supplement from WD, got almost auto-banned from most tournaments even though it had matched play points, because it was utterly bonkers. RAW states it's allowed, but it's still not allowed at the majority of events (certainly in the UK). And it later emerged that the writers hadn't even play tested it, which is even more bonkers. So should it be allowed in events, because RAW states yes, but it clearly is so bent that it leads to a massively negative playing experience?
Now if we are going by strict RAW, then the teleported unit is not allowed to make any sort of move once it has teleported, in order for it to retain the objective, because any move would then be breaking the 'moving outside of 3"' rule required to score the objective. So even pile ins would be classed as a making a move. So the idea that you can teleport a unit, and that it has to then remain absolutely stationary for the remainder of the battle, to retain control of the objective, whilst being much further away from the objective than the required distance needed to control it, due to the early teleporting, yet, that unit is still considered to be in control of the objective, is really grasping at RAW straws to game the rules to suit your own narrative. RAW is 100% needed except when it clearly is getting in the way of RAI. The teleporting off the objective in Duality is just one such example where RAI should be over-riding RAW, which it seems to have done as a whole for most of the playing community.
And as mentioned before, when I have TO'd events I have never had players use this or try to make this happen. When I've been to events, I've never seen this happen. When I've watched live streams from events, I've never seen this happen. So while this is a RAW loophole, I honestly ask you to find someone who TO's an event and get their opinion on whether or not they would allow it, because I don't know any who would or who have allowed this loophole to be allowed at a matched play event. And at the end of the day, from a competitive stance, it is the TO's and event organisers who dictate what is and isn't allowed at events.
It may be that this is one of those things that we won't be able to agree on 😂.
-
2
-
-
When doing matched play I also always use RAW, but this is a loophole that I have never come across personally, nor ever seen being used ever in a competitive game. I would be really surprised if a TO allowed this to happen at an event. It's certainly not something that I'd allow at any event I run.
-
@relic456 I agree that for abilities and other warscroll rules, etc... that it won't affect it. But if you were to directly ask GW whether you can tag the objective on Duality and teleport off it, you will get told that they no longer hold the objective. It's super janky RAW rules lawyering BS, that goes 100% against the intent of the rules for scoring the mission objective. NH aren't the only unit that can teleport, so if this was allowed, then it would have been much more prevalent within tournament play, but I've never seen that missions ever be played in that manner in competitive play.
-
6 hours ago, AidenNicol said:
They are still holding the objective
Until your opponent moves a hero or battleline unit into range of the objective. Yes you can 'tag and run',on some objectives but not Duality, as if you are more than 3" away and even 1 enemy battleline or hero model gets into range to claim the objective, your teleported rasps no longer hold it. Yes they might have been first onto the objective but they are no longer in range to tag it.
And the the teleport is classed as a move, it even states it in the rules, that "This counts as their move for that movement phase."
-
Leaked battalions from WD.
Good but offer no real answers to the activation wars or shooting/mortal wound heavy armies.
Also no sign of ghost versions of chambers/clans/lodges/etc...
Overall disappointing.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Neck-Romantic said:
Think Im one of the only ppl that loathes the Craven King figure.. got a half finished custom job involving the altrrnate-sculpt Executioner with a fancy mace-swap for the axe going.
Not alone there. I'll get some pics of my conversion when I get back home.
-
@Obeisance I think you might have commented in the wrong group page 😛
On another note, potential rules supplement for us NH in the next WD?
-
@Neffelo nah, it's people selling bundles of stuff like the OBR side of FoB along with warscroll cards and the battletome. If it was just the general release bits only then it wouldn't have lead to me asking the question.
-
So lots of OBR stuff going up for sale on eBay and FB selling pages.
Am I missing something or has the OBR bubble already popped before it really began?
-
@tripchimeras yeah, I'm referring to the turns after the 1st, so turn 2 onwards.
I agree that there are situations that can be more beneficial to go 2nd, but more and more the game is introducing units that auto-delete stuff, so choosing to go 2nd is basically accepting that any units currently in combat (or sometimes just elsewhere on the board) are going to be eliminated before you get your 2nd turn. One of the lizard players in my local play group can dish out 26 mortals a hero phase (on average), sometimes more, sometime less, but when you are facing more and more armies that can easily auto-delete your units, the tactical decision of going 2nd for a play later on in the game often isn't a choice, as your units will be dead by the time you get your turn.
I've asked this question across a view groups and platforms and I'm regularly met with the answer that what I'm facing is solely a localised thing and having your army auto-deleted by your opponent, especially if they do double turn, is not a common experience, yet all the tournaments I've been to, it's been a very similar case of having your toys being taken off by opponent's choosing to take the 1st turn after winning priority rolls. So it maybe that my local meta is just very strong or it could be that my personal experiences are just that and the issues of their being no reward incentive to going 2nd is just something that has only ever occurred to me 🤷♀️.
-
@mikethefish I'm not critical of the double turn mechanic. It's part of the game and something that I really like about AoS. I'm only asking if there should be as much reward for taking the 2nd turn as there is for going 1st. You think not, which is fine.
-
1
-
-
So to all of those who don't want to see a change to the current system, I follow up by asking, what could be added to the game to make the decision to always take the first turn, when rolling for priority, a less attractive option and less of an auto-decision?
GW tried to use endless spells but it hasn't worked, especially now OBR and other factions have endless spells that can't damage their own models.
The tactical element of choosing which turn to take (after the initial choosing at the start of the game) rarely ever happens in games, it's more often than not take the first turn and smash your opponent.
So what could be added to the game to make this core mechanic of the game be more of a tactical decision, rather than a no-brainer decision?
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
The result and tactical choices would remain largely the same.
So considering that you couldn't double turn someone and guarantee scoring objectives how would the tactics and results be the same?
-
Would the game be improved if objectives were scored at the end of the battle round rather than the end of the player turn?
And would making a change of this nature make the choice of taking first or second turn be more of a tactical decision to the game?
-
@XReN ok, so for example if he was in crematorians he wouldn't be dealing a mortal wound on 5+(4+) when he was slain?
-
2 hours ago, XReN said:
Volkmortian's battalion and by killing 10+ wound models near Harvesters
So the battalion might be useful as it doesn't state how many models need to be in the units, unlike a lot of other 'special boxset' battalions.
But isn't Volkmortian locked into the 'Mortis Praetorian' legion, so can't be used outside of that legion?
-
Apologies if this has already been asked, lots of comments to have to read through on this thread. So the harvesters ability to resurrect models. Can it only bring back single wound models in most cases?
The ability triggers on a 4+ when a model dies. 1-4 wounds is a single wound. So is it useless for bringing back Stalkers?
Also, is there any way to bring back slain Stalkers?
-
10 hours ago, Vasshpit said:
What's thoughts on a heavy, chainghast list?
It could work, but they need the re-rolls to hit, 4+ with no re-rolls. Again, I think Mannfred might be the key here, as his ability affects all units within 15", not wholly within either. The only other downside is how to get enough of the models.
Torn between competitive and non-competitive without direction
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
@wayniac do both, it's very easy to do.
Last year, locally our AoS scene was definitely tilted on the competitive side, which wasn't great for new players, so I started a narrative night as a counter. It's been a great success at bringing in new players, many of whom now want to play more competitive games. And the previous players are also really enjoying the fluffy games. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship that helps grow the community. The game needs both.
The trouble is that these changes to local scenes don't just happen, you've got to put the effort in to make it happen (and it takes a lot of time and effort to make 😂). So if you're feeling unsure about one or the other, look at what is more available locally and try to create something that it's opposite (eg. If fluffy is king locally, run some competitive events, and vice-a-versa.), you never know, the drive and pressure of organising could be your thing.
But I wouldn't stress about armies and models, some are great, some will fall out of flavour. GW are a model company first, so selling models is the prime focus over coherent rules. And although their games are full of flaws, they are also fun and engaging to play, and above all, they are played using really nice models. So play with what you enjoy and have fun.
(Also, the best tables at events are the middle/bottom tables, as that's where the less serious players are found, so embrace the middling positions, it's where you'll make more friends and have a better social experience 😉🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🤪😂.)