Satyrical Sophist
-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Satyrical Sophist
-
-
12 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:
Well, my first instinct is still to just keep ignoring battle tactics altogether.
I do like the idea of secondaries, but I still find the very mechanic of the BT the wrong way to implement them. They're not open enough and too specific and you might just happen upon a game, when you won't get a chance to score a single one. Sometimes, only becuase you're mismatched the selection and the round to attempt it in. It's a recipe for NPE and frustration.
I would much prefer secondaries to be achieved in the course of the game, and hidden.
The risk of not having them is that you can get into situations where it is too easy to build a list that can just sit on the majority of objectives and not budge the entire game. That’s not possible on every battle plan, but it is a problem for a reasonable number of them.
-
42 minutes ago, Chikout said:
With a more limited pool of battle tactics, there will be plenty of cases where taking the double will allow you to deny a tactic to your opponent. If neither of you are scoring tactics that turn, the benefits of the double remain.
Late in the game you might not be able to score a battle tactic either. With only 8 total possible battle tactics you might have a harder time getting 5 of them. If you have something like Gotrek stood directly in the middle of the board then you can’t really score seize the centre, the enemy general’s regiment might be unkillable, or already wiped out meaning you can’t score Slay the Entourage, and your army might not be able to reach the flanks that turn for take the flanks. In that case it might be better to take the double now, knowing you couldn’t score anyway.
I’m curious as to whether people might be incentivised to build their generals regiment differently due to this. You definitely don’t want to have a screen or something in your generals regiment, but I could also see some armies deliberately taking an extra drop in order to deny it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
I really do feel like these new universal/Grand Alliance battle tactics were made as a response to how impactful faction specific battle tactics are in this edition - some factions lived or died by their battle tactics and how easy/difficult they were to score. At least now, you won't see degenerate SBGL players clogging the board with zombies to get easy battle tactics scoring (same goes for you Tzeentch).
I wonder however how certain factions that don't fit the "standard" mold of their GA will use their battle tactics. For example, the Order tactic they showed requires map control, something let's say SCE might do with teleporting or IDK with their fast units, but a more "castle" army like CoS might not score it.
As for me, these battle tactics are simple and straightforward, I'll have little problem remembering them by heart, which is great. Because this edition I had to constantly shuffle between documents to keep track of battle tactics.
My first thought was that cities would find those really easy. Stuff like chariots, gyrocopters etc are very good for scoring the “be in a place” tactics. It’s gonna be interesting playing around the new reactive command abilities though. Don’t want to move too close to a unit and let them stop you scoring a battle tactic with a counter charge or shoot.
-
4 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:
Do you think the backlash would of been equal had they added men to sisters of battle?
There already are men in sisters of battle. The priest stuff is mixed gender already. If you mean as in making the core sororitas mixed gender, there would have been a backlash yes. Gender is a core part of the faction, since sisters have always had a strong Joan of Arc/nun theme. Many players were drawn to them because of that theme. Like space marines have a strong warrior monk theme, with chapter monasteries and the like.
Custodes have never had that gendered theme. People have dug out references to “men” and “sons” and the like. Sure. We also refer to “mankind” and use man pretty much to refer to humans in general. Given each one is meant to be individually sculpted into something that barely resembles a human, gender hardly matters.
I do have sympathy for the custodes fan who got into them entirely due to the fantasy of being surrounded entirely by incredibly buff, oiled beautiful men though. I feel many people complaining wouldn’t list that as a reason though.
-
7
-
3
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
the assumption of this "quota" thing drives me up a wall... even if it does exist it is a purely vapid, profit-driven decision and based on nothing else.
and why would be a slap to intelligence..? why would anyone assume ANY IP's lore is immutable? this isn't a history book, it is fiction. you're not getting "gaslit" and we should already know by now that trusting corporations is a fool's game. this is one of the most nothingburger lore additions they've done. The Primaris debacle was 10x worse than this.
edit: you're allowed to be disappointed, sad, angry, whatever at decisions made in a narrative you care about. but GW has constantly done this throughout their history, just like Tolkien did with LOTR and basically everyone else does with their own IPs. in the grand scheme of lore changes, this is truly nothing but GW filling in an omission in a faction they're trying to develop further.
I think it’s real interesting that a lot of people suddenly care super hard about changes to the lore pretty much entirely when it involves anything getting less straight, white and male. The custodes thing has been very handy for finding out which content creators can happily go on the block list.
-
16
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
They should be better. However since GW „looked at every single Warscroll and revaluated its power“ or in short, minus the marketing talk:
Did Jack S**t and just continued the same way as before: It‘ll sadly stay that way and that makes me said. It’s so frustrating.
@PraetorDragoon not true. Gotrek slaps for example. It has nothing to do with the game‘s setup, they just refuse to grant small models significant output although there‘d be more enough explanations fir it in this FANTASY setting (magical items, Blessing of living gods, Mutations, MAGIC).it‘s lazy design.
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it is lazy design. They have shown what, 3 heroes, none of which are combat heroes? I am I missing something here? The slaughter priest is a priest, the weird nob is a wizard and the Skaven is a sniper. We have seen relatively few war scrolls just in general, but of those it looks like there have been some significant changes. I really like the design change of the vindictors, that anti charging rule is very cool, and separates them out from other choices. Kroxigor now look like they match their big imposing models.
I was gonna quote myself from the other thread, but it’s easier just to retype.
There are issues with having small foot heroes be massive blenders. They have an absolutely tiny footprint and are easy to miss on the battle field. Yes, you can have absolute blender units like Gotrek and Eltharion, but those are fairly specific units and are very distinctive. You don’t risk mistaking them for anything else. Chaos Lords get mentioned a lot, but frankly they do not stand out on the battlefield. I think you’ll get a lot more bad feelings from people not realising that that chaos armour wearing caped looking guy fights as hard as a unit, whereas the other one is a buffing piece. I once played a game with maggotkin where I accidentally including a lord of plagues with a unit of blight kings and only realised that the unit champ and the hero had switched at the end of the game. I think it must have happened turn 2.
Do I think they could do more for differentiating heroes? Sure, I’m just waiting to see if they do, rather than getting annoyed preemptively that they might not.
Personally I think there is more room for using the universal special rules and custom special rules to represent the power of the combat heroes. Give doomseekers anti monster buffs, give a hero the ability to stop pile ins if he kills an enemy.
Just cranking the numbers up feels like a much more lazy way.
-
11 hours ago, JackOfBlades said:
Heres what id do:
1. Copy 40ks system of ATTACHED UNITS, EPIC CHALLENGE stratagem and PRECISION keyword.
2. Rework the buffs of certain combat heroes like the lord of pain to reward being in combat, like the beastlord (foot chaos lords need particularly a rework as they dont actually do anything).
3. Add more sensible granularity to different hero profiles, so a loonboss isnt deadlier than a lord of plagues or equivalent to an abhorrant archregent as is the case now. No one thinks small combat heroes should effortlessly slaughter units of elite troops and be invulnerable against attacks from huge hordes of clanrats, thats just a strawman retort. But for example a chaos lord on foot should have a fighting chance against a dankhold troggoth, because their lore says so: "When challenged they will even stand in the path of a frenzied troggoth". Currently the dankhold will instakill the chaos lord on average, and suffer about 3 damage per turn in response before its healing.
As their lore and black library novels describe them doing, this would have combat heroes leading from the front, fighting cinematic battles with each other, and the most powerful types of them holding their own against the kind of enemies theyre said to.Aren't felwaters and rockguts still troggoths? Why do you assume it has to be the biggest troggoth.
If the chaos lord has a fighting chance against a dank hold or other equivalent then it would have to be really very expensive. It would also be a lot of force on a tiny base. There are some blenders that size, but I can really only think of Gotrek and Light of Eltharion, and those are much easier to notice. People already complain about how deadly they are, and having just some not particularly distinctive heroes be super deadly is a minefield. Oh no, I didn't realise it was the chaos lord, I thought it was the aspiring champion. One of them is a fully capable of murdering 200 points of combat unit and the other is chip damage. Both are caped chaos warriors in heavy plate. Even before you get into people with converted models for it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Also, unless I am missing it, not a wizard
-
9 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
That's an extreme example and certainly not what I want for foot heroes. It says enough about the AoS design team that they can only make weak foot heroes or extremely overpowered ones.
It says that they want heroes to be buff pieces rather than murder machines?
-
13 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:
Additionally I do find a coherency number of 6 very strange when a lot of infantry units come in 10’s. Having to use a minimum size infantry unit on 25mm bases in 2 ranks feels particularly unintuitive and also overly harsh considering the new coherency range is 1/2”. I think they could have safely made the maximum number of models in one rank 10.
6 is to let you deploy either a pair of threes or a 5 in a single line. I do get your point about it perhaps being a bit awkward to have to double line 10 25mm bases, but equally if you allow other stuff that coherency rule. It’s not too much of a problem letting a unit of steel helms stretch out like that, they could make a line of about 14 inches. By the same rule, 10 liberators cover 20 inches and 10 dire wolves cover 28 inches.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Ferban said:
Yeah, I don't think it spares the "pinned" unit from receiving any attacks. They are going to get hit with basically everything. Same as before. I think the change is that the "pinned" unit can focus all its attacks on one enemy unit.
Previously, you attack from two sides. And the "pinned" unit has to split attacks between the two adversaries because it can't pile. Splitting attacks that way generally makes the unit less effective. Now, the "pinned" unit can simply pile towards one side and get all (or nearly all) of its attacks in. So "pinning" a unit is far, far less effective. Maybe it'll be positive on balance, but it does seem to remove some significant tactical play.
I wonder if that’s why they tightened up coherency. I think it might be just about possible, if tricker to pin units in position. Remember the holding unit can pull causalities from close to the enemy unit, as long as they keep within 3.
I can see how it would speed up pile ins considerably though. You just need to make sure one model is within 3, and move all the others. Rather than the super awkward checking each model and piling in appropriately.Who knows how to will play out. It feels like it’s easier to explain at least.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Ferban said:
Pile ins. This is a major change. Now when you pile in, you pick one enemy unit and that's the unit you need to get closer to (or, technically, no farther from). That's huge! No longer can you charge with two units and pin the enemy models. Now they can simply select one of your two units and easily pile away from the other without restriction. I'm not sure I like this one. I like the simplicity. But I think it comes at the cost of tactical decision-making. I thought everything in today's article was positive except for this one. I don't like that models can simply walk away during a pile-in. Especially when retreat causes damage. Piling away should too (or come with a similar drawback).
But, as always, we don't have the full story just yet. So final judgment is reserved, but I think these changes are overall very positive but will still be familiar and easy to grasp for current players. And should be at the same level or even easier to teach new players.
You can’t leave combat by piling in towards another unit. It says you need to remain within combat range of any units you are already in combat range of, so you could pull away and make it harder for the enemy to get in range with the full unit, but you can’t escape combat.
-
2 hours ago, HCMistborn said:
I said other. I used to only use Citadel, but have switched to Two Thin Coats. I love the line and it keeps getting more colors, which was my original complaint about it. The coverage and consistency is great, and it has great QC in my experience.
I really love the burgundy set, Royal Cloak and Swordhilt Burgundy in particular.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, MitGas said:
Nah, they do it cause people need to rebuy their paints more often and every other reason feels like an excuse to me.
Requiring a palette? Take a plate outta your cupboard and that's good enough for a start. You need to thin GW paints anyways, it's not like they're truly 100% pre-thinned. But ok, you like them that way and perhaps less experienced painters like the economics in general, I can just say that I hate them and that's the single reason why I buy them less and less. I'm not gonna refill them to make them usable.
Sure? They probably do like that people have to rebuy the paint more often. I think you think I’m defending them, I’m not. It is what it is. Those reasons are from the former product designer who was interviewed by the Painting Phase. (Think that’s right).
I’m not a big fan of going straight for the most cynical take one can think of. Sure, it’s often a factor, but it’s pretty limiting to just stick to that and only that.
I didn’t say I liked the pots. I said I liked them for contrasts and washes, which do get used straight from the pot fairly often. Not all the time, but fairly often, particularly for a quick base coat.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, MitGas said:
I use various brands, mostly Vallejo but I got quite a few Scale75 and Reaper MS paints as well. Citadel colors I mostly avoid these days, solely because of the pots used. I'd like to try other brands too but getting them is too much of a hassle and if they were better than what I have, I'd be unhappy with my current ones. Ignorance can be bliss after all!
It's amazing that GW didn't change their pots to something good by now though. GW paint pots are inferior to ALL others since 25 years by now. The first ones used, the ones GW did with HMG, were actually the best as the paints at least didn't try out in those.GW doesn't change their pots for a few key reasons.
Brand recognition, they are super recognisable, which is a surprisingly big thing. It helps particularly with the assumption that a significant amount of GW stuff is bought for people.
Straight from the pot. When it comes to basic, super beginner painting, its a lot easier. You don't need a pallet, you can stir it with a stick inside the pot etc. Dropper bottles basically require a palette, whether its wet or dry. Should you be painting straight from the pot? Not particularly, but it makes it a lot easier for beginners. When it comes to the contrast/xpress/speedpaints I actually prefer the bottles, since straight from the pot is a reasonable approach.
They have a giant machine that makes those pots.
1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:What brand of paint do u use and why?
I use citadel paints, just because that is whats available almost every where. I read recently that vallejo paints have a more matt finish than citadel paints and i am wanting to try those. But i keep seeing these "model" or "game" color ranges. Does anyone know the difference and whats best for painting minis?
I have far too many paints, a habit I picked up during lockdown when I had no hobby time. There are various paints I like a lot in most ranges, but it feels like by far the most consistent paint I've used and basically my main paint line now is Duncan Rhode's Two Thin Coats. A bit more expensive than I'd like, but enjoyable to use.
To answer your Vallejo question, to the best of my ability.
Vallejo have a few different paint ranges with different properties and those paint ranges have old and new versions for some of them.
Vallejo Model Colour (which has serial numbers in the 70.001 to 70.999 or so) is a range that was made for painting model kits like airplanes. It has names like French Mirage Blue, Intermediate Blue. Pale Grey Blue and Blue Grey Pale are two different colours. It used to be known as a really good paint range, but time has moved on since then. They have been reformulating the range and changing their bottle design. The new range seems to be slowly filtering to the UK (at least where I am), but I haven't tried a huge number of them out. Given the good things I've heard and seen myself about the similar redesign of Vallejo Game Colour, I'm optimistic. They tend to be pretty muted colours.
Vallejo Game Colour ( has serial numbers in the 72 range) is the fantasy range for Vallejo. The (unverified) story is that when Citadel wanted to change their paint line they talked to Vallejo but the deal fell through and a while later Vallejo came out with some paints that looked very like the old citadel paints with similar names. So they have paints like Goblin Green, Tinny Tin, Squid Pink. The original game colours don't have the best reputation, partly due to their age and lack of consistency paint to paint. The new range has been getting good reviews though and the ones I've used I've really liked. They tend to be a bit matter.
A lot of people use the model air and game air colours from Vallejo. In particular the metallics have an absolutely great reputation, with Vallejo Model Air Silver (71.065) having a particularly stellar reputation, with either a brush or an airbrush.
Vallejo also have Vallejo Metal Colours, a frankly silly number of wonderful to use silvers, designed for an airbrush but coating really well with a brush. I generally default to Duraluminum, but just pick what you like the look of.
AK Interactive 3rd Gen. This is a full fairly broad range. You didn't ask about them, but they are very similar to Vallejo. They both come from the same area of spain and the founder has the surname Vallejo, so I think there is some history. They have a range of colours I'd say is a mix of VMC and VGC. I've got a number of them, but have yet to test them out really. A lot of people swear by them, particularly their pastels.
There are a lot of different ranges with different properties. Some have really colours, or types of colours and mediocre or even bad other colours. Some are kind of just weird. Scale 75's normal paints are actually gel based, and produce some of the most matt finishes. They definitely feel different to use. I mostly use them when I have a specific look in mind (The main non metallic ones I find myself returning to are a set of them I use for leather, since the matt finish lets it stand out against cloth) and I don't think I'd ever base coat with them. The metallics on the other hand feel lovely to use, and have some lovely seldom seen colours. I particularly like the alchemy colours, which are very bright metallic colours designed to fit as the brightest part of gold, brass, copper etc. Quite often the final highlight of a non silver colour ends up completely silver and can wash away the general look.
Are there any other paint ranges you would like to know about? I feel I might have spent too long typing about paint.
-
3
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Ookami said:
Correct me, guys, but is DB 6 gonna be the shortest living warhammer rule book? 😁
I might be wrong, but didn't they say that the dawnbringers stuff is being brought forward into AoS 4?
-
3 minutes ago, The Red King said:
I don't think charging shouldn't cost 2 only that it should be the same as shooting.
"Gaz Taylor has quoted you. Oh ****** I finally said something too angry didn't I?" LOL
But yeah I agree it's strong. I just think they could have put the same limits on charging "closest target -1 inch" rather than double the cost.
There are whole faction/sub factions where counter charging is a massive draw. The glottkin (whose ability is in movement admittedly) has a huge part of its cost in having a counter charge command. It’s a very very powerful ability. Unleash hell is sometimes very good, but this edition is limited reinforcement sizes of units and we actually haven’t seen any real shooting profiles yet.
-
11 hours ago, PiotrW said:
My personal opinion on the effects of the new cull:
Stormcast Eternals - this is just... stupid and unfair. Many of the removed models are relatively new and good-looking. What's the point of nixing them? If GW thinks there are too many SCE units for the faction to be manageable, then... sorry, it's on them, as it was them who kept releasing new waves of SCE with each edition. People spent money and time on these models - just nixing them to make room for new stuff is heavily disrespectful toward the client base. Again, it's real money we're talking about here.
When it comes to me, I've lost 15 Sequitors, 2 Ballistas, 6 Castigators, 2 mounted Lord-Arcanums, 1 Knight-Incantor and 1 Knight-Venator. Which is, I think, around 200 GBP of purchases. And nearly 1/4 of my monthly wage. Should I ask GW for compensation or something? Not to mention, I genuinely like these models...
If you are interested in keeping on playing SCE, then the best I can think of off the top of my head is.
Sequitors as liberators.
5 Castigators as EITHER Judicators (If they are coming back with new models), OR Vigilors OR two sets of crossbow Vanguard Raptors.
Mounted Lord Arcanum as Mounted Aquilor or the new chocobo mounted Ruination Chamber lord.
The knight incantor can be a knight arcanum.
The Knight venator and the ballista are currently without easy proxying. I think there is a non zero chance we get an updated winged stormcast hero. I'm less sure of the ballista, but its possible.
I had a go eyeballing how many points of units I lost, and its kind of eye watering. I have a fair chunk of soul wars and mortal realms stuff, and have a full beasts of chaos army.
I think it works out as about 5k of stormcast and 5k of BoC (might be a bit under, but counting the war cry stuff, definitely over 5k). It's been an emotional time.
Thematically for beasts I'm currently thinking of seeing about running them as Khorne maybe. Comparisons are a bit vaguer, but I THINK that it could work. (Bestigor as Blood Warriors, Gor as reavers, maybe even minotaur as mighty skull crushers).
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Back to the old world I go I guess👐🏻,
jokes aside, I’m keen in seeing where this is going, considering how battle shock is entirely removed and they don’t seem to have gotten something similar to what 40k has as their bravery test.
which in a way makes me sad and interested at the same time.
(also I’n already playing tow, so returning might be a bit over exaggerated😂)
I’m kind of assuming that horde and non elite options are going to have a degrade option like Nagash losing power when he has taken a certain number of wounds. Something like “this unit has 0 control when below half strength” achieves quite a bit.
-
2 hours ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I feel like at this point, if you have more than like, 30 units and don't need a full-on refresh, you shouldn't be getting much new for at least a bit (Warcry and Underworlds excluded, although the S2D could take a break on the first for a while and several armies could stand to go a while without an Underworlds band but that's neither here nor there) until most other factions have caught up (Excluding SoB because Hyper-Elites don't play by the same rules as everyone else and will always be smaller). You should be getting your old stuff replaced, but beyond that, you have enough stuff to go a bit without a major overhaul or another wave.
SCE are a little bit stuck as one of the starter factions. I think they want one of the factions to be an easy beginner option hobbywise. I’d argue that overall SCE are actually pretty medium to paint WELL, but petty easy to get painted acceptable. Back in the day, just basecoating ret gold and doing a wash of flesh shade for all the gold, then some simple block colours makes a playable paint job. I think there is a real risk when starter sets don’t have an easy paint/play option. My understanding is that isle of blood (which I own and am painting now) was a really lovely looking set containing two popular factions that underperformed at least in part due to both of them being hard to paint and not the most beginner friendly.
i feel if you don’t have SCE as one of the starter options you might want to have something similar, like slaves to darkness, or iron jaws.
-
1
-
-
One thing with the double turn that I’d be interested in seeing/testing resolving would everything coming down to one dice roll, and one that isn’t really interacted with.
I wonder whether it would make a difference if it was like warcry. Short summary is that in warcry you roll 6 dice, and separate out singles, doubles, triples and quadruples. The doubles, trips and quads can be spent on abilities. The player with the most singles gets to choose priority. You also get a wild dice each turn to either save or modify your roll. So you could add a single to try and get priority, or turn a single into a double to get an ability (but be less likely to go first).
I really think something like this would feel better, and it also opens up design space for you to interact with it. For example, a hero could add a wild dice, or count as an additional single for example. If you wanted to have an in game representation you could even have stuff like “unit wiped out, add a single to the next priority roll “ or something like that, to represent losses forcing a general to react to stuff.
What bonuses you would give for doubles, trips etc would need to be decided.
i don’t know if this would help, but I feel it might? It feels more significant than “well, this single dice had a huge impact”.
-
6
-
-
27 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The double turn can be pretty contentious at times, but we should not lose sight of the actual mechanic everyone truly hates: Mysterious terrain.
The one mechanic in AoS that everyone just always ignores without discussion and coordination, even though it's right there in the core rules.
I was playing a game last week where my opponent asked me about if I cared about terrain and was surprised when I said yes. I was then surprised when he started rolling for mysterious terrain because I had straight up forgotten it was a thing. I meant terrain placement in general. I was playing nurgle and my grand strat was blessed desecration which cares about whether terrain is fully in enemy deployment.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:
You know some of the statements being made by ardent double turn defenders really read like the people making them have never played any game aside from Sigmar.
I’ve played a fair number of games in my life thanks, in warhammer I’ve played warhammer fantasy back in the day, and I’ve played 40K 3rd to 5th, then 8th and 9th (not played any 10th yet) Mordheim, Warcry, Blood Bowl etc. Outside of GW stuff I’ve played a lot of board games over the years, and played a ton of magic the gathering, mainly legacy. I haven’t really played much in the way of historical war games, or warmahordes but I’d say I have a reasonable spread of games.
30 minutes ago, Mayple said:To counter the "Don't like doubleturn? Just git gud" (paraphrased, ofc) point I saw earlier:
Competitive player here. Win most of my games, absolutely loathe the double turn. Feels bad winning with it, feels bad losing to it. Pretty much been my only real critique of AoS as a whole since forever. Those that remember me will know I've been pretty consistent about that 😅
That being said, I do like their attempts at trying to make it work, if only because their solutions keep accidentally pushing them into "the other player gets to react" kinda territory. Curious to see how they'll try to solve it this time.
Immediate concern: as it seems priority roll still involves the winner picks who takes the turn, I sure hope that double-turn penalty system only applies if you yourself decide to take a double-turn, and not if it is decided for you. If not, it's gonna be a lot worse, just reversed.
Time will tell! Feel like its an obvious flaw, so suuurely they've taken it into account 😎
The article said “choose” to take the double, which would imply that you only lose the battle tactic if you win the roll and take the double, not have it given to you. It is WarCom though, and they can be a bit slapdash.
I do like the double, and I think the game needs the uncertainty. I think the game would be worse without it. Are there potentially better ways of doing it? Sure, but mostly they would require some fairly substantial rewrites. Honestly I think it would be interesting if they tested some of those ways in variant game modes, maybe that’s something that will be easier to do in the module based system.
It’s not my intent to tell people to “git gud” but I can defend liking the way the double turn plays.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Mmmh one faction in particularly seem to be missing
I think they mention that they only included results if there were at least some number of them. Bonesplitters just aren’t played in large numbers.
Requiring a palette? Take a plate outta your cupboard and that's good enough for a start. You need to thin GW paints anyways, it's not like they're truly 100% pre-thinned. But ok, you like them that way and perhaps less experienced painters like the economics in general, I can just say that I hate them and that's the single reason why I buy them less and less. I'm not gonna refill them to make them usable.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I do like playing with battle tactics, yes. I think they add to the game. Ideally you should be thinking about them ahead of time and working out how to score them. I think there are some that are better than others, not a huge fan of the ones that force you to remain in combat, I much prefer the wording of “all units have fought” for that, since it still has risk (first unit might wipe out the target), but is one you can plan for much more.
I think it’s good when the game rewards you for planning these things out, and allows the option of playing more cagily until you properly commit. I don’t much care for the “let’s all line up and mash armies into each other” type of game.