JackStreicher
-
Posts
4,976 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by JackStreicher
-
-
Imo List building with SCE is already really tight. I mostly can't justify to add 3 slow Praetors to defend a cheap hero.
Edit: If they were Battleline if Hero X was the general, this could change -
11 hours ago, Howdyhedberg said:
I dont get it. How to read the graph for 40k? Seems like main is over 100% when space Marines, chaos Marines and eldar main is over 100%?
Edit: nvm. The bottom is total of 100%
The question wasn't single choice. So you can generate a percentage for each faction.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, DocKeule said:
Hanging with Lotann.
I wouldn’t, according to some depictions he does not seem to be a chill guy
*THAT LINE SPACING IS OFF BY .001 mm HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO WORK LIKE THIS?*
-
simply a 5+ ward for the lev and the thralls and I'd be happy ;D
Also: Where is my Kraken!? -
To get more precise: my Namarti also did very Little to Rat ogres 🥲. -1 rend simply doesn’t cut it anymore nowadays. You either get an I same amount of attacks, rend or MWs. In any other case save stacking has made normal damage obsolete.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, DocKeule said:
Deepstriking Thralls could also be an interesting concept to get them to the targets you want them to hit. But then you also want the supporting heroes to go with them plus you need to find the points for the Soulscryer(s) as well.
Only thing I am pretty sure of now is that charging multiple units of Thralls into the opponent's line head on at the same time does not work.
I tried it: Yup does not work. Could work if you wait until turn 3 though.
The Thralls simpy can't take any retaliation, they die in the dozens. Getting them all including the Thrallmaster in is also quite a hassle (placing models in range of the table's edge and the priest etc. takes ages).
It might be way more effective to simply DS Reavers and shoot anything you are in range with off the board.
-
1 hour ago, feadair said:
balancing
I mean nerfing.
let‘s be real: GW nerfs while the rest of the bad units remain untouched.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Marcvs said:
Three lists also went 5-1 in the TTS Tournament ReRelease the Beast 2 - Winter is Coming (104 players, but there's probably quite a few having dropped along the way, it was one game per week I believe).
Mathmallow
Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals
- Stormhost: Tempest Lords
- Grand Strategy: Beast Master
- Triumphs: Inspired
Leaders
Celestant-Prime, Hammer of Sigmar (325)*
Knight-Draconis (300)*
- General
- Command Trait: Shock and Awe
- Artefact: Luckstone
- Mount Trait: Thunderous Presence
Battleline
2 x Stormdrake Guard (340)*
- Drakerider's Lance
2 x Stormdrake Guard (340)*
- Drakerider's Lance
2 x Stormdrake Guard (340)*
- Drakerider's Lance
2 x Stormdrake Guard (340)*
- Drakerider's Lance
Core Battalions
*Battle Regiment
Total: 1985 / 2000
Reinforced Units: 0 / 4
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 91
Drops: 1Alex Bulavinov
Army Faction: Stormcast Eternals
Army Type: Scions of the Storm
Subfaction: Hammers of Sigmar
Triump: Inspired
Grand Strategy: Beast Master
Core Battalions Battle Regiment
Knight-Draconis (General)
Battalion Slot Filled: Commander
Battlefield Role: Leader
Enhancements
Command Traits: Battle-lust
Artefacts of Power: Amulet of Destiny
Mount Traits: Celestial Instincts
Celestant-Prime
Battalion Slot Filled: Sub- Commander
Battlefield Role: Leader
Points Cost: 325 pts
Stormdrake Guard with Lances
Battalion Slot Filled: Troops
Battlefield Role: BattlelinePoints
Cost: 340 pts
Stormdrake Guard with Lances
Battalion Slot Filled: Troops
Battlefield Role: Battleline
Points Cost: 340 pts
Stormdrake Guard with Lances
Battalion Slot Filled: Troops
Battlefield Role: Battleline
Reinforced: Once
Points Cost: 680 pts
Total Points: 1985 pts
Anttu
Army Faction: Stormcast Eternals
- Army Type: Scions of the Storm
- Army Subfaction: Hallowed Knights
Triumph: Inspired
- Grand Strategy: Hold the Line
Every unit in battle reg for a 1 drop
LEADER
Gardus Steel Soul (150)
Knight-Draconis (300)- General- Master of Magic- Arcane tome- Celestial Blades- mount trait: Celestial Insticts
Lord-Relictor (145)- Translocation
BATTLELINE
Liberators (115) - Heavens-wrought Weapon and Sigmarite Shield
Liberators (115) - Heavens-wrought Weapon and Sigmarite Shield
1 x Stormdrake Guard (680) - Drakerider’s Lance
OTHER
1 x Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (480)
Holy Command: Thunderbolt Volley
TOTAL POINTS: (1985/2000)
Such variation
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Elmir said:
Are they really planning on destroying a bunch of older models to clear out shelf space? If so, the heads up is nice...
Guess what GW stores do if they need to clear shelf space. The heads up is astronomical.
@Gailon Seraphon are one of the worst books Imo. It forces you into shooting and other cheese while entirely neglecting melee combat of Saurus, which were supposed to be an elite infantry. 😕
-
1
-
-
I imagine 2x30 Bestigors (can they be Battleline) running around with rend -3. well that’s scary.
-
41 minutes ago, Malakithe said:
Im reeeeeally tired of once per battle garbage. And part of this 'battle trait' is baked into the luck of rolling a 6.
The ward-rune save should have been an army wide battle trait from the start. Ive been saying that for years.
Most armies should get a 6+ vs mortal wounds anyways tbf.
Idk why they keep adding more and more MWs in order to fix their save stacking?
It simply nullifies normal damage.
I like those changes, it's sad that those are locked to an allegiance ability though (I'd love to use some FS mercenaries)-
1
-
-
I've tried a fun list with lots of Grave Guards and 2 Vampire Lords (one martial one arcane). I was able to beat 2 Tournament lists (Knights of the e. Throne and Shootcast eternals)
Overall: The new LoB makes foot Vampires more useful and actually worth their points. I am not blown away by Black Knights - still too expensive, a warscroll rewrite would've made sense for them.
LoB still isn't that great though. If you want to utilize it I'd recommend at least one caster vampire (mostly for dispelling and delivering an endless spell) and that's it. You could also do well with multiple Zombie Dragons.
Edit:
About the Legion Trait: It's rather useless. Your Deathrattle has either the issue of dealing no damage, dying in droves or both. A negative modifier to hit is rarely an issue (+1 to wound would be ace...). What this legion would need instead is a +2 movement for deathrattle or a save stat increase of 1 across the board, getting them anywhere is a chore (too slow and too fragile) unless you spawn them from the grave.
I know that the designers wanted to make LoB more attractive, however, both Legion Traits (Blood and Kastelei) should be accessible in every Legion imo. -
@Bruteforce my opinion on skellies is quite the same.
in this super elite edition even 30 die too quickly without achieving their role as a tarpit. The fact that they have to take battleshock tests for every model They‘ve lost does not help.
imo they‘d either need a better, defensive profile, more protection from battleshock or a bigger minimum size (15-20) to be good.
Zombies are much better while also being able to deal damage. The skeleton attacks are more of a gimmick that waste time instead of dealing any damage.
@warhammernerd skellies look super good imo. It’s frustrating however to remove all 30 off the board after your opponent swings at them. The same goes for Grave Guard.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Marcvs said:
don't much care for defending the double turn at all costs (the game could be better designed with or without it) but I don't think this is a valid argument. A significant portion? How significant? Based on which piece of opinion poll, market research, anything?
I participate in the Warhammer for schools Programm with my pupils (You g people of 16+ years). Let‘s just say that not a single pupil liked the DT, some were really put off and joined the 40K players instead.
just to name some citations „what? That’s not fair“, „why!?“, „that sucks“, „I can’t do anything again?“
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
either add in a discount were people will just barely consider buying it, or add something new
What do you mean!? One click bundles are just the best: No savings for the customer are THE BEST for GW.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, DocKeule said:
If going Namarti-heavy will become a viable option remains to be seen. I am still a little suspicious.
Same, they might still die and flee to easily
@DocKeule 30 thralls and 20 Reavers might be all you ever need
-
40 minutes ago, Cayseymax said:
it’s just that I usually see them in a more Viking themes tribal look… a
Zulu style for a warrior tribe! Why not?
the genetalia part: No, it might drift towards racism if u do ^^
-
The "Ever vigilant" part made me immediately thinkg of Cities of Sigmar or Duardin.
To be realistic however: It's going to be Lumineth wave XY....-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:
Chess was your comparison, dude. You brought it up. I was pointing out that it made no sense. I'm glad we're on the same page, sort of?
You jumped to the conclusion that, since chess has no random element one couldn't compare them at all. It does not in this case. If you look at AoS from a distance it is a IGYG System, like chess, in which Models perform certain actions/interactions. Which interactions are perfomed is irrelevant, even how they are performed is irrelevant to this comparison. Both use turns, both have the issue of whoever goes first/ or second has an advantage. AoS's solution: DTs (as people have stated), Chess disagrees. Now enough of chess, it's too often utterly misunderstood as a comparison.
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:Not at all. What I'm saying is that everything is already random, and picking one random element out of the crowd and saying "This one is bad! All others are good!" is nonsensical. "Because other games don't have it" (or, I suspect, "Because it wasn't in the game that this one replaced") isn't a good reason to single it out.
Wrong. Not everything is random. Your move stat and other stats are constant. You don't roll for your normal moves. So the base interaction of moving is in its core not random. AoS adds randomness to the game whenever a die roll is required. This factor of randomness varies from the roll required and the sort of Dice being cast (D3 VS D6).
the DT is not a random pick of a random element. It is the only random element present in the Turn System, which again, is a seperate thing from model interactions. Does adding a DT add more depth or value to the game? As other, better, older, more sofisticated games have not included such a mechanic, it is implied that it does not.to summarize: It appears likely that the double turn does not fix IGYG issues nor does add more tactical depth according to games that had a way longer period to develop, which never made use of such a mechanic.
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:Sure. And removing (/not enough) randomness leads to the "I'm bored, let's do something else" issue: the game is predictable, nothing exciting or unexpected happens, and it's not much fun. The game might be more skill-based this way, but you won't get much entertainment out of it since predictability is a counterforce to engagement.
There's a sweet spot where tactical planning and random chance interact to make a fun game, and the amounts of each needed to get in the right zone will be different for everyone. It sounds like AoS is a bit too far towards the random side for your liking, but it's in the right place for mine. Perhaps a different game might work better for you? (Have you perhaps considered... chess? It's very tactical.)
I don't know where that idea of a predictable game comes from to be honest. No AoS game is entirely predictable due to the randomness factor of model actions/interactions. Let's for a moment assume the DT did not exist:
- You get into position to hold an objective on the right, intending to destroy a unit in the middle so you can pose a threat to the opponent's unit trying to take the right objective from you.
- You roll badly, fail to slay the unit in the middle -> out of a sudden the whole situation has changed and you have to adapt.
It is not predictable in the way you are claiming it to be.
Suggesting that AoS is nothing for me is an insult and a bold claim, I'll discard that comment. I like the randomness of AoS, the DT however adds nothing to the game imo, it adds an unfair advantage to a game with a random factor since you can't really plan ahead.
If you like the DT it's fine, however it does not belong into the "Matched Play" Category since that mechanic makes games "Mismatched" due to the way it works.1 hour ago, Kadeton said:I can think of one older IGYG gaming system that did, more or less, have random initiative added to fix and improve the game: Warhammer Fantasy Battles. And it seems to have worked out well so far!
I am not sure if this is sarcasm that failed to deliver the message or a serious comment: Did you ever play the game? It died, that had little to to with the initative though, it had lore and other reasons (imo the whole system was just bad, ASoIaF is so much better). Players rolled off at the Start of the game, setting the order of turns for the rest of the battle. This is the way AoS should be. You can actually plan ahead and get an equal amount of phases in a row. Yet there are the same random elements concerning model interactions/actions which make the game rather unpredictable.
Tl;dr if you like the DT it's fine, it should be a narrative or open play mechanic but not a matched play mechanic since it makes games mismatched by the way it works.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:
Chess has no randomised elements at all. Nobody has "had the idea" for the Queen to roll for how far she can move or to see if she can deal enough damage to capture an opposing piece - do you think those random rolls (e.g. charge range, attacks) should be removed from AoS as well? If not, why not?
The comparison is lacking. You are comparing turn sequences to model actions/interactions, which makes no sense. -> comparing apples with bananas. Apples aren’t curved so bananas shouldn’t be as well. This leads to a false conclusion.
Having random elements in a game has nothing to do with the turn order which is overarching the game as a whole. It’s also no valid argument to say: We already have random elements so making everything random is the way to solve/improve the game. Which is what you are implying.
Adding more (/too much) randomness leads to the Gloomspite/Goblin issue: Everything is random, tactics don’t matter as much since those are very likely to fall apart with a single roll. It’s chaotic. The army might be fun to play this way, but you won’t be able to get good results based on your tactical prowess since randomness is a counterforce to planning ahead.
-> One obvious proof to this is the fact that Tournament Players prefer mechanics and armies with as little randomness as possible so their skill in planning ahead matters. You can see this in 40K: D6 damage stats are removed in favor of the more reliable D3+3 damage etc.
tl;dr: Other, older, more refined Gaming Systems using the IGYG System did not add a DT to fix or improve the game, which implies that it simply does not fix or improve it.
Now let’s step away from chess and have a look at all other more similar games.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
It isn't a perfect comparison, because you are not limited from just moving a single piece multiple times, but I think alternating activation is closer to chess than IGYG, but the argument that a turn is defined very diferently in chess compared to wargames is also strong.
The point (to me) is that you don't have to wait for a long time while the other player does everything.
It’s kind of irrelevant how exactly chess works. The argument I am making is that the one going first (or second, can’t remember and I don’t care) in chess has an advantage. They did not add a double turn to the system to fix that. Apparently it also doesn’t add more tactical depth as chess players would embrace that. chess has been around for ages and no one had the idea to implement double turns, because that might just be a bad idea. And this goes for all alternating turns/phase systems in games I‘ve ever come to know.
Now people are suggesting the DT is good ( the rule-masterminds of GW added it to their game) is funny to me: You do actually remember what they did with Slaanesh, then Tzeentch, then Slaanesh And, oh yes, SCE Dragons?
So GW‘s -
39 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
Are we using these terms the same way?
IGOUGO: I get to act with all the forces at my disposal, then you get to respond. (e.g. AoS, 40K)
Alternating activations: We take it in turns to act with small portions of our overall forces. (e.g. Necromunda, Malifaux, Infinity)
In chess, IGOUGO would be getting to move all your pawns, minor and major pieces in one turn. Then your opponent would do the same. Alternating activations would be moving one piece, then your opponent moving one piece, and so on - the way it's normally played.
What you're describing with the pawn sounds more like simultaneous activations?
@Lord Krungharr Imo IGYG is Chess, since you can only move one piece (dictated by the rules) in your turn. So they are moving with the whole force they are allowed to move. If chess had an alternating system there wouldn‘t be turns but one perpetual turn with an endless circle of alternating activations.
Alternating activations requires the players to do so within a single overarching turn. (As far as I can tell) The amount of models that is being moved isn’t relevant.
You could also have an alternating system in which you move your whole army, then the enemy moves their whole army. Then the next phase starts with shooting etc.
-
19 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
there isn't really any way to play defensively in AOS currently, and that drastically reduces the tactical complexity.
Very true. You either hurry up to get those magical circles on the board or you lose (sorry dwarves, get out of here with your short legs! Don‘t be mad, you are into angular shapes anyway!)
-
12 hours ago, Kadeton said:
Perhaps, as a demonstration, you could prove the inverse?
One example of a game with IGYG that did not invent double turns to fix their problems with the system: Chess, or any game apart from AoS really. It might be worth to think about that.
In a IGYG game you can actually plan ahead without the whole game being predictable. The ability to reliably plan ahead makes the tactical decisions meaningful. Making even this pivotal aspect random makes the whole game a gamble, nothing more (the outcome isn’t necessarily a gamble though).
-
3
-
It simply nullifies normal damage.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
@Ggom I agree. I haven’t bought any of the fomo boxes in ages. They create little to no interest for me. (and I‘d be stuck with a whole faction I don’t want)