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

Kadeton

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kadeton last won the day on February 20

Kadeton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Celestant-Prime

About Kadeton

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I always find it really difficult to build lists like yours which try to go in several directions - you've got basically nothing you can flex to adjust your list. Heck, I'd be tempted to drop the Huskard entirely, replace him with another 8 Leadbelchers and swap to Underguts instead, just keeping the ethereal Frostlord as your "splash" into BCR. To get the most out of Boulderhead, you're basically looking at a completely different list. (Start with two Frostlords and a Eurlbad, go from there.) That said, play the army that you want to play!
  2. This is fair, but model count will also be interesting. The current Aleguzzler is only 160 points, but has fairly crippling rules. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it get a buff and a corresponding points increase. I doubt we'll see SoB lists running 10+ Aleguzzlers. And then the larger giants... I'm just not quite sure where they will fit in the points range. If they were ~400 points they'd be on par with a Bonegrinder, which I'd guess is probably about right. You're probably looking at 4-6 models for your whole army. To me, that begs the question of how they're going to do any battalions for the Sons. With so few models to work with, there's not much room for the variety of requirements that distinguish battalions in other forces. I guess they could just have requirements like "2-4 SONS OF BEHEMAT GARGANTS" and leave it completely up to the player. My secret hope is that all three (or four?) of the new Gargants come in a single super-versatile kit, along the same lines as the Baneblade 8-way multi-kit. Just a box with a big ol' mess of gargant bits to throw together however you want.
  3. Yeah, I wonder about this too. If you wanted to run a super-low-model-count army, Destruction was already the alliance of choice. This seems a lot like doubling down on the Stonehorn playstyle, and presumably cleaves pretty closely to its "run forward and smash everything" tactical playbook. It would almost be a given that the Gargants will have similar objective-control rules too. Very curious to see what they've come up with to give the Gargants their own distinct style on the table.
  4. Still looks like concept art, but given the names fit the AoS style I'd say that's definitely going to translate into models and warscrolls. Kraken-eater is a really good name, and Gate-breaker's not bad either. I like that he seems to be actually wearing a portcullis as a loincloth. Definitely clears up a lot of those mystery Rumour Engines. I'm mostly just happy because I know how much @KingBrodd wanted this news and their enthusiasm is infectious.
  5. I think you're right about the Underguts elements making the BCR force weaker overall - it's not just the extra 560 points, but all the benefits of the Boulderhead tribe that you're missing out on. The shooting elements would have to be pulling a lot of weight to make up for that, and I doubt they would compare favourably to a FLoSH. You do end up with a more well-rounded force, though, and you'd have something to do during the shooting phase (other than vulch people) which might be nice. That aside, all I really wanted to say is that peas with mashed potatoes is one of my favourites and they're both substantially improved by the combination, so your analogy is DEEPLY FLAWED. >:|
  6. To be fair, if any Duardin players feel you need godly representation, you can just put Gotrek on the table. Refer to him as "Grungni" or whatever if you like. He'll easily beat (up, down and sideways) any of the other gods in the game. Getting dwarf women back in the game is a good call, though!
  7. I like things being messy, to be honest. Life is a complicated, messy thing, and generally resists simple categorisation. There are always contexts and circumstances where the "normal" order of things is switched up, flipped, twisted, etc. That should be as true of the Mortal Realms as anywhere, if not more so. "Natural" allies won't always be on the same side, nor will "natural" enemies always be opposed. Besides, it's still kind of a hot mess anyway. As someone who was sort of a new player not that long ago, I personally found the Alliances really confusing. I initially liked the look of the Deepkin, and was told they were like soul-pirates who plundered and pillaged, killing people and stealing their life force to extend their own. But when I went to the website to learn more, I couldn't find anything about them... because I was naturally looking under "Destruction", and it turns out the Deepkin are actually "bold defenders of Order". You actually need a grounding in the lore and background to understand why certain forces are in particular categories. The groupings only make sense once they're explained, not at an intuitive level. Well, not all different factions. Just a certain set of factions, which is really my point. If I want to play a force of Beastmen and Wanderers, banding together in a fragile temporary union to defend their forest against rapacious lumberjacks, then the Alliance rules don't do anything for me. If on the other hand I just want to throw together a bunch of random Death units, I can do that with Legions of Nagash and I don't need the Death Allegiance. Similarly for Order units and the Cities of Sigmar. I fully support people who want to play with whatever units they like, I just don't see how Alliances help them do that in any meaningful way. Allies are a better mechanic for surfacing the links between factions in gameplay. Yeah, "viable" is purely a Matched Play concern. But... so are Grand Alliances, by and large. In Narrative and Open Play games your models aren't required to share an Alliance, they just add "flavour" if you choose to. But you could equally go "****** that, it makes more sense for my general to use this trait from the Allegiance rules" and that would also be fine even though you don't technically "qualify" for them. Perhaps this is just symptomatic of the "Matched Play is the default / only way to play" attitude that's prevalent in the community, but people who want to play narrative games already have a proper outlet where they can do whatever supports the story. A Grand Alliance army is still going to get their teeth kicked in every game at a tournament. I'm not convinced that's worth supporting. Good discussion, no need to abandon your soapbox. This is what these forums are for!
  8. You've fundamentally misunderstood what "narrowly defined" means in this context.
  9. Oh man, if you thought the backlash against the bull heads was bad, wait until the River models come out and they're all hippopotamus themed.
  10. This is the problem with the Grand Alliances. Death, Chaos and even Destruction are narrowly defined - you have to meet very specific criteria in order to "fit", e.g. worshipping specific gods. Order, by contrast, is broadly defined as "anything that doesn't fit into the other Alliances". Any attempt to narrow the definition of Order to a more specific ideology will leave several armies without an Alliance. GW should just do away with Grand Alliances altogether at this point. They were a necessary crutch while the game was limping along with an incomplete set of Allegiances, but now they're restrictive and irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter if Malerion's aelves are Order, Chaos, whatever... the only meaningful consideration is who they can ally with, because Grand Alliance armies are non-viable.
  11. All the helmet-edits that drop the bull-heads down make me want to build a force of Mountain Realm-Lords that can also be proxied as a warband of sophisticated, high-fashion Brayherd.
  12. I'd see the garrison rules as in addition to, not a replacement for, any normal restrictions on where you can place your units. AoS doesn't have a "deployment zone", there's simply no such thing for them to reference. All you have is a territory, and additional restrictions per the battleplan, e.g. "Units must be set up wholly within their own territory, more than 12" from enemy territory." So I would assume that the allowance to "set up as a garrison at the start of a battle if the terrain is wholly within the unit's territory" doesn't preclude you from also have to adhere to any other restrictions, such as having to be more than 12" from enemy territory. You're still only allowed to deploy where you're instructed to, but if there's a garrison within that area you can put units into it. The rule is basically just saying that you don't have to deploy on the board and then move into the garrison. (This is simply opinion, there are no rules or designer's commentary that gives a more explicit ruling on this as far as I can tell.)
  13. In fairness, Chaos provides the contrast. If someone's going to sell their soul and be eternally damned, they'd better hope they're getting some sick magical powers in exchange, otherwise it seems like a terrible idea. Chaos is in essence the "easy path" to greatness that comes at a terrible cost. Any normal human who had some connection to magical power (however slight!) without having to sell out to Chaos for it was a Seriously Big Deal in the Old World, one in a million. The Ice Queen herself being an ice mage - yep, that's awesome and makes sense. There being enough ice mages available for her to recruit entire units of them, not to mention assuring their loyalty when their magical gifts would be worth a Queen's ransom? That... seems like a stretch. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but they're going to have to do a lot more work to make it believable versus just making them exceptionally hardy and well-trained but mundane humans.
  14. I think this is quite a clever compromise of design, personally. To me, it suggests that the Hyshian Aelves were trying to broaden their horizons. Aelves are traditionally lithe, graceful, elegant, skilful... but they're also delicate, fragile. Some of them no doubt chose to focus on their strengths, but the Mountain aelves tried to shore up their weaknesses instead. Of course, being aelves, they still couldn't stop themselves from bringing some of that elegant grace to the forms they made for their mountain spirits, but in return they incorporated some of the mountain's robustness into themselves. I like that their aesthetic suggests a cultural history of adaptation and overcoming their weaknesses, rather than "choosing a more catlike animal" as their totem. You could punch one of these aelves right in their smug face, and break your hand on their perfect nose.
  15. "If a rule allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6 etc.) then, unless otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again." - Core Rules, p. 226
×
×
  • Create New...