Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

197 Celestant-Prime

About FlatTooth

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It’s a bit disingenuous to say that you can play an army without the battletome. While strictly true you miss out on many of the rules which make a faction feel full. Not to mention you have to hope you can find folks who don’t want to play with points or full rules. I imagine it’s more realistic that they’d just offer to loan you the books. It’s an outdated method of delivering rules and they only do it because they can get away with it.
  2. For double turn to work well not only would the core rules need to account for them but every battletome would need to interact with it. Currently a lot of folks want to call it an integral rule to the game but there is basically no interaction with it as a rule other than rolling a single die. There are no decision points outside of “do I want to take a turn again?” in case I’m not being clear- I don’t think it is currently an important rule because currently so little of the game interacts with it. If you got rid of double turns I’m not sure if a single other part of the game woul
  3. Also y’all get right out of here with the “well REAL battles weren’t balanced!” Logic. I’m not commanding a huge campaign with multiple forces, utilizing terrain and hoping to whatever gods I pray to that my people make it through another winter. I’m throwing dice around with my friends and I don’t want to lose because my book got the bad rules designer or the uninspired rules designer. Is that unreasonable?
  4. Playing narratively does not preclude the need for balance.
  5. Who would have thought that so many people loved the shooting phase in AoS. In most games I gravitate towards the squirrely fast-moving, high-shooting factions but the shooting phase in AoS is so mindless that I barely register it's there. "Pick unit in range, roll dice, good job" just doesn't tickle my fancy haha. I feel that if they added some stipulations and complications to shooting then they could start to give armies more meaningful options for shooting. Granted I'm still not 100% sold that GW rules designers are THAT interested in interesting design (roll a 5 or 6, do a mortal wound is
  6. If they wanted to bring alternating phases in I would be ecstatic. I have a feeling some grognards may not go for it but my goodness would I be excited.
  7. I'm hoping they take some of the ideas from Crusade and bring them over. There was also that system for creating unique characters for AoS. I'm completely blanking on the name of it. I'd like that but with a bit more effort put into it as well. Most of my friends and I are pretty willing to put in that extra effort but it's sure nice when we don't have to.
  8. It's absolutely wild to me how many people like the mechanic of "roll a single D6 to get an insane advantage of tempo in your game" Aside from the teeth kicking that I receive when I lose the double turn I also just get so incredibly bored. It's like playing a multi-player game. Before anyone says I'm not interacting with my opponents- we are very casual, narrative-minded players. I'm still here to move my little dollies, though!
  9. I'm not sure where folks live that their friends don't spend absolutely bonkers amounts of money on silly lists that perform well. I'd like to play there.
  10. Well this has got me thinking about doing a Temple of Loec again. Still no idea what I’d do to make the medusas feel wardancer-y. Previews look pretty awesome!
  11. This is amazing and I love it. I'm hoping that with a new edition of AoS they'll take some of the great ideas from Crusade and apply them to Path to Glory. I know stuff like this is largely thankless work and it's so cool that you've done it!
  12. Sure. The problem is when you're dealing with international markets the "typical person" changes *a lot.* You have to hit touchstones and you need to avoid pitfalls. The danger as a viewer is to decide that you are the "typical viewer" and that your opinion is objectively the correct opinion. If folks aren't willing to actually critique (not criticize but critique) then I'm not sure why they come here (that's not true, they come here because they are very upset about a faction of models they wanted to like but now do not like the direction of). I would argue that these models hit the tou
  13. Again, critique is not the same as “this is objectively bad and the designers are not good designers.” lordy. Just tryin to throw some perspective out there. Also, the number of folks in this thread who “wouldn’t pick them up anyway” but still have very strong opinions on what they should be. “This was never for me but I need you all to know that I think it’s bad.”
  14. I’m not starting a flame war. I’m drawing attention to the fact that a lot of the detractors are speaking from an unwarranted point of authority. A lot of them aren’t saying “I don’t love these” or “I don’t like these”. They’re calling into question the competence of the designers and sculptors. It’s a bit unfair to accuse me of being the first to bring hyperbole into the mix.
  15. I love how many folks on this forum are highly knowledgeable and accomplished artists, rules writers, figure designers, graphic designers, folklorists, media and communications experts, literary critics and probably great cooks to boot. Not fans, *experts.* it’s humbling being in the presence of the greats. To hear what is objectively bad design, art etc. thank you for your service.
  • Create New...