Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dead Scribe

Members
  • Content Count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

370 Celestant-Prime

About Dead Scribe

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have read and heard people complain that the terrain rules in the past were too restrictive and were a negative play experience.
  2. What makes "attack first" or "attack last" a legit negative play experience, but a person without summoning going up against someone with summoning who feels it is a negative play experience is not valid?
  3. They have said the same thing about negative play experience for armies that do not have summoning as well going against someone that does.
  4. There is some interview with Jervis and Sam Pearson that people are talking about where they said there is no limitation on summoning in meeting engagement because shorter game length means not as much opportunity to summon.
  5. Most of the time checking for LOS is not even needed. You can pretty much always get a bead on a piece of any model with true line of sight. Even if its the tip of their sword sticking up in the air.
  6. The other side of the coin is that I think the player base wants this level of summoning to exist, and they are giving the player base what they want.
  7. I would be highly surprised if they limited summoning in any way. And you're right, in 2000 points getting a 500 point advantage over someone that isn't summoning can be big... in a 1000 point game getting a 500 point advantage is huge.
  8. Yeah I have a feeling they will be strong, but not as easy to use as they are now. I have a few people interested in buying my DoK army. I'm going to hold out until end of July or so and see how they are still panning out before I hawk them for whatever slides in their place on that chart.
  9. I think if you're after a bit more of a deeper game that I would agree. It would seem that it was an intentional design decision to exclude positioning as a feature short of the shallow use of it today. I think 40k has similar issues. My guess is that is a direct result of that being asked by the players from the various polls and what not that GW has taken over the years. Certainly I've seen a lot of heated debate over that very topic several times over the past couple of years (in both 40k and AOS chats) where there is a lot of resistance to that kind of thing returning.
  10. I've seen other games now use where if you can draw a line to the base from the other base, it can see it. ANd where things like cavalry can't hide behind infantry.
  11. We need more data before we can say Slaanesh is in the broken tier. I would say they are a solid army, but not broken. And the GHB coming out saturday is going to change things up as well. We won't have a good idea of the new tiers until about october or so when we get more data.
  12. I think tiers are very useful, and I find the graphic above to be fairly accurate in terms of difficulty level for armies. Thats what tiers are. The difficulty level you can expect to face if you and your opponent are both playing as hard of armies as you can construct with the rules. I'd definitely say Daughters (my army), FEC, and Skaven are super easy mode. Thats why I play them. Because they give me the best shot at winning tournaments. I'd definitely say the trash tier that they have identified is indeed a non playable tier of forces that players should avoid at all costs unless they are hobbyists that like painting those models. If they like the game at all, they need to avoid the trash tier, and I'd say the "D" tier as well unless they just really like a hard challenge. Some people do so thats good on them, but people caught unaware that find models in the trash or D tier are usually angry a month or so into starting because they find out that their armies are grossly outmatched. Matched play they say is about balanced games, but I haven't found that to be true, and I have accepted that and embraced that and collect whatever they have decided to make super powerful so that I can enjoy my tournament experience. I think matched play is really more about a structure to build powerful forces within, and I think thats why the initial AOS failed so hard, it had no points to build forces within. Balance I think in this game is a pipe dream and I think the sooner people accept that and learn to love that, the better off they will be.
  13. Then there is an abject failure happening in the communication between the playtesters and the gw design team. Or the playtesters they have are not very good at playtesting the game as a whole.
  14. I think they playtest. But they playtest with their small inner circle that enjoys the game a certain way that the wider public does not engage with.
×
×
  • Create New...